Feminism is a Suicide Cult Based on Rejection of Nature and Truth

Question

Feminism is a Suicide Cult Based on Rejection of Nature and Truth

Women function as an exclusive in-group with all the same interests and tendencies. Men do not form such collective in-groups naturally to back each other up specifically as men. This is why the idea of an oppressive "Patriarchy" is a laughable fictive system of control. Men compete with other men and only form small groups to cooperate with or they will serve hierarchically under a leader, say, in an army, but only under certain circumstances and never to promote and protect their interests explicitly as men. Women are one collective that functions together via group think and social programming as well as social policing and narrative manipulation and they view men as an out-group and will behave under this assumption when they are not properly culturally controlled.

This is why sexual equality is impossible and incompatible with Civilization itself. The women will always end up socially dominating the men due to the natures of both sexes and the fact that men evolved to naturally see their women as part of their in-group and an extension of themselves while women see men as an out-group that must be controlled and manipulated to benefit and emotionally gratify themselves and which they have no inherent allegiance to or unity with. All of the best parts of women can only come when they are shaped by a strong male dominated hierarchy that enforces proper behavioural standards and keeps the overall group, both male and female, united against *real* outgroups.

Feminism is a suicide cult based on rejection of Nature and Truth.

Here is the last thread:
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/503827803/

Note how shills tried so hard to derail it.

The following are AI assisted philosophical and logical analyses plus my potential solution to these problems.

Logical/Philosophical comparison: OP vs Feminist Theory

1. Gender Nature

OP: Men and women have fixed, evolved psychological traits (biological essentialism).

Feminism: Gender roles are largely shaped by society and culture (social constructionism).

2. Group Behavior

OP: Women function as a unified in-group that supports each other. Men are more individualistic and competitive.

Feminism: Men form a collective that benefits from patriarchy. Women are divided by internalized patriarchy but oppressed by male-dominated systems.

3. Power Dynamics

OP: Women hold covert social power (through groupthink, manipulation). Male dominance is necessary for balance.

Feminism: Men hold structural power (politics, law, economics). Feminism seeks to dismantle this and promote equity.

4. Civilization & Order

OP: Civilization depends on controlling female behavior through male-led hierarchy.

Feminism: Civilization must reform male behavior and structures to allow freedom and equality for women.

OP: Control of Women
Framed as natural and necessary.

Male-led hierarchies are justified to shape women toward civilizationally beneficial behavior.

Implies women are incapable of proper behavior without male-imposed structure.

Feminism: Reform of Male Behavior
Framed as moral and emancipatory.

Cultural, educational, and institutional shifts are needed to address "toxic masculinity", male violence, or "emotional suppression"

****

Shared Elements:

Despite being ideologically opposed, there are interesting structural similarities:

Both see gender conflict as central to societal organization.

Both use narratives of imbalance and threat to justify reasserting control or change.

Both claim to be grounded in "truth"—either evolutionary ("Nature") or sociological ("Systemic Oppression").

Both cast the opposing group as either blind, manipulative, or structurally advantaged.

This mirroring dynamic suggests that gender ideology wars often function as rival moral systems, each diagnosing a crisis and prescribing a systemic solution.

Philosophical Differences: My OP vs Feminist Theory

1. Moral Foundation

OP: Emphasizes order, hierarchy, traditionalism, and evolutionary realism.

Feminism: Emphasizes justice, equality, autonomy, and social reform.

2. View of Change

OP: Believes society has degenerated due to feminism and needs a return to traditional male dominance.

Feminism: Believes society is progressing toward fairness by challenging historical injustice and patriarchy.

3. Ethical View of the Other Sex

OP: Women must be shaped and guided by men to function properly within civilization.

Feminism: Men must unlearn dominance and embrace emotional accountability and cooperation.

Implications if my OP is correct:

1. Civilization Requires Male Domination

* Civilization would not be sustainable without men asserting hierarchical control over women.
* Equality between the sexes would be viewed not just as naive, but as actively destructive.
* Political systems based on liberal values (e.g. equality, consent, individual rights) would be unfit for human nature, at least in terms of gender.

2. Women as a Collective Threat Without Control

* Women would be inherently group-oriented, manipulative, and socially dominant unless culturally restrained.
* Female autonomy or empowerment would lead to social decay, as women would supposedly undermine male authority and exploit men for emotional or material gain.
* Feminism, then, would be not just misguided, but civilizationally suicidal, as my OP claims.

3. Men Must Be Reorganized into Functional Hierarchies

* Since men don't form natural in-groups except in structured settings (military, religious orders, etc.), strong leadership and traditional roles would be necessary to channel male energy and cooperation.
* “Freedom” for men would be less about individual choice and more about fulfilling a structured, duty-bound role in sustaining order.

4. Ethics Based on Function, Not Fairness

* Ethical systems based on "fairness" or mutual respect would be subordinated to outcomes that preserve social cohesion.
* Justice would be defined not as equality, but as proper function according to sex-specific roles.
* Philosophies like liberalism, human rights, or feminism would be seen as luxuries at best—or delusions that lead to collapse.

5. Cultural Engineering Becomes Mandatory

* Education, media, religion, and law would need to be redesigned to enforce male dominance and shape female behavior toward traditional roles.
* Social systems would justify suppression of female autonomy on the grounds of preserving stability.
* “Freedom” as we commonly understand it would be considered dangerous when extended equally to both sexes.

In short: If my OP is correct, it would justify a return to a rigidly hierarchical, male-led civilization where gender equality is abandoned as a failed experiment. Feminism wouldn’t be just mistaken - it would be viewed as a civilizational pathogen.

Philosophical defense of my position in OP:

1. Human Nature and Sexual Dimorphism

Foundational Assumption:
Men and women evolved under different selective pressures, resulting in distinct psychological and behavioral tendencies.

Support:

* Evolutionary psychologists (e.g., David Buss, Steven Pinker) argue that men evolved as status-seeking, competitive, risk-taking individuals to gain access to reproductive opportunities.
* Women, by contrast, evolved to prioritize social cohesion, offspring security, and coalition-building, making them more group-oriented and risk-averse.
* Studies show women score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism (Big Five personality traits), while men score higher on assertiveness and dominance-related traits.

Conclusion:
These evolved traits lead to different social strategies: women use social networks and in-group policing; men rely more on individual dominance or structured hierarchies.

2. Female In-Group Solidarity vs. Male Fragmentation

Claim:
Women naturally behave as a collective; men do not.

Support:

* Research in anthropology (e.g., Sarah Hrdy, Lionel Tiger) shows that women form strong social bonds with other women, especially in matrilineal and foraging societies.
* Female coalition-building is a survival strategy that also facilitates social manipulation and norm enforcement ("mean girls" phenomena).
* Men historically formed task-based alliances (e.g., hunting, war) but these are hierarchical, temporary, and require external threats to remain cohesive.

Conclusion:
Women's group solidarity is more persistent and emotionally cohesive; male cooperation is more instrumental and conditional.

3. Historical Necessity of Male Dominance for Civilizational Stability

Claim:
Male-led hierarchies were essential for maintaining order and development.

Support:

* All major civilizations—Mesopotamian, Chinese, Islamic, Greco-Roman, European—were male-dominated at key stages of expansion, stability, and innovation.
* Plato and Aristotle emphasized natural hierarchy as a structuring principle of society, including between the sexes.
* Male authority structures channeled violence into productivity (e.g., agriculture, military, infrastructure), while subordinating female reproductive and social influence to ensure long-term planning and legacy-building.

Conclusion:
Hierarchy and patriarchy were not arbitrary oppression - they were adaptive social technologies.

4. Feminism as a Civilizational Risk

Claim:
Feminism disrupts evolved gender roles and undermines social cohesion.

Support:

* Declining birth rates in feminist-leaning nations (e.g., South Korea, Japan, parts of Europe) correlate with loss of traditional family roles and male provisioning identity.
* Rising male disengagement (e.g., "sex recession", "quiet quitting", withdrawal from education) may reflect systemic devaluation of male contribution.
* Women dominating education and HR departments may shift institutions toward risk-aversion and conformity rather than innovation and competition.

Conclusion:
Feminism, by dissolving sex-based roles, creates biological mismatch and cultural disintegration. Without reasserted male leadership, society will fragment.

5. Moral Foundation: Function Over Fairness

Philosophical Position:
Social roles should be judged by their functional utility, not "egalitarian ideals".

Support:

* Classical realists (e.g., Hobbes, Machiavelli) argue that peace and survival trump liberty and fairness.
* Natural law theory (e.g., Aquinas) holds that fulfilling one's nature (telos) is the basis of morality—not abstract rights.
* In evolutionary ethics, behaviors that promote group survival and replication are “good,” regardless of their fairness.

Conclusion:
Civilization must be shaped around what works, not what feels just. Male-led hierarchies and constrained female roles may be perceived as unpleasant by the ignorant, but they are effective.

Summary

If my OP is right:

* Human nature is unequal but complementary.
* Civilization requires sex-differentiated roles, not egalitarian abstraction.
* Feminism is maladaptive in the long term, undermining the biological and social architecture that stable societies depend on.

This is a realist, functionalist, and anti-idealist worldview. It favors social engineering rooted in evolutionary psychology, traditional hierarchy, and survival over moral sentiment or individual liberty.

My potential solution to this:

A reformation of **fraternal orders** in a modernized fashion could potentially address several of the complex issues regarding **male functionality**, **behavior**, and **thinking** highlighted in the OP and subsequent replies. Fraternal orders, historically, have played crucial roles in shaping male identity, promoting discipline, and fostering cooperation, often in the context of **ritualized hierarchies** and **brotherhoods**.

To understand how this could work, we need to break down how **fraternal orders** could be reimagined and adapted to tackle modern issues.

### **1. Reinforcing a Unified Male In-Group with Purpose**

**Challenge:**
As noted in the replies, **men struggle to form cohesive in-groups** based on shared interests and goals, due to biological tendencies toward **competition** rather than cooperation. Modern men often lack shared identity markers that **unite them** beyond their individual ambitions.

**Solution:**

* **Fraternal orders** could act as **modern brotherhoods**, offering a structured space for men to **form a collective identity**. This would be a space where men are encouraged to cooperate and prioritize group survival over individualistic goals. Unlike traditional organizations that might be based on purely competitive values, these groups could **foster a sense of shared purpose** around common goals—such as personal development, the preservation of societal values, and **cultural continuity**.

* By **integrating mentorship programs** (older men guiding younger men), orders could serve as systems for **knowledge transfer**, helping men understand and develop the tools necessary to be effective and **responsible leaders** in their personal and professional lives. This could be a response to the **apathy** and disengagement highlighted in the replies, offering men a sense of **direction** and **meaning** in a world where traditional structures are breaking down.

### **2. Modernizing Hierarchy for the Contemporary World**

**Challenge:**
The OP argues that the breakdown of traditional hierarchies, or the failure to assert male leadership in modern contexts, contributes to the erosion of civilization. **Men's competitiveness** also undermines their ability to form functional, unified groups.

**Solution:**

* **Fraternal orders** could reintroduce **hierarchical structures** within a modern framework, emphasizing **respect for authority** and the necessity of fulfilling specific roles in both personal and collective contexts.

* However, these orders would **reject authoritarianism** and **rigid patriarchy** that have historically caused harm and instead embrace a more **meritocratic, functional hierarchy**—where leadership is based on competence, wisdom, and the ability to **maintain cohesion**. The structure would focus on **teaching young men how to lead effectively** by cultivating leadership qualities and resilience, rather than dominating others.

* **Hierarchy could be fluid**, where leadership is **earned**, not inherited or rigidly assigned. Men could rise to leadership positions based on their **contributions to the order**, showing that the purpose of hierarchy is to **preserve unity**, not to reinforce rigid power dynamics.

### **3. Rebuilding a Sense of Duty and Responsibility**

**Challenge:**
Many of the replies touch on how **men’s selflessness**, their **instinct to protect** and **provide**, can lead to their **exploitation** or lack of self-interest. Men may be biologically predisposed to act in a protective, self-sacrificial manner, often to their detriment. This behavior has been **harnessed** by societal expectations to create men who serve others but do not prioritize their own **well-being** or **purpose**.

**Solution:**

* A **reformed fraternal order** could be designed to emphasize **self-improvement** and **personal responsibility** while maintaining a focus on the **collective good**. It would stress that **men must first cultivate their own strength** and **virtue** to effectively protect and serve others. By **reinforcing the idea of duty** but placing it within the context of personal growth and mastery, these orders would challenge men to be **independent** but also interdependent within a **brotherhood**.

* The order would also teach men that their **well-being** is critical to their ability to serve others, making it clear that being a good **provider** or **protector** requires **self-discipline**, **physical and emotional health**, and the **development of leadership skills**. Rather than men sacrificing themselves to be “useful,” this system would encourage a **balance of strength and care**, in which each individual is a **stable, dependable force** for the larger community.

### **4. Teaching Emotional Resilience and Accountability**

**Challenge:**
Many men are socialized to **suppress emotions** or to view emotional vulnerability as a **weakness**. This contributes to the lack of emotional intelligence and emotional well-being among men, which is a core issue raised in the replies regarding male disengagement.

**Solution:**

* **Modernized fraternal orders** could offer **emotional resilience training**, teaching men to understand and manage their emotions rather than suppress them. Men would be encouraged to **confront their vulnerabilities**, learn how to channel them into **growth**, and engage in **constructive emotional expression**.

* By providing a space where men can be **open** about their struggles and weaknesses without fear of judgment, fraternal orders would **counter the toxic “stoicism”** that often causes men to isolate themselves when faced with emotional challenges. This emotional maturity would then form the basis for healthier relationships with women and other men.

* **Mentoring programs** would include **emotional coaching**, where older men (who have gone through similar challenges) help younger men navigate issues like stress, anxiety, relationship difficulties, and life purpose. This would help men **deal with internal battles** rather than projecting them outward in destructive ways, which is seen in various discussions about male violence or self-destructive behavior.

### **5. Promoting Collective Male Action for Societal Benefits**

**Challenge:**
Men, as per the OP and various replies, fail to form cohesive collectives because they often see each other as **rivals** or **competitors**. In an era of **egalitarianism** and **feminism**, this **fragmentation** has only worsened.

**Solution:**

* Modern fraternal orders would encourage **collective male action** through **projects** that serve the broader community. Whether it's through **philanthropy**, community service, or political activism, orders would **organize men to act together** toward common goals that promote **cultural preservation** or **civilizational advancement**.

* The orders would also encourage **self-reliance** through the teaching of skills such as **self-defense**, **entrepreneurship**, **trade skills**, and **physical fitness**. Men would be **trained to help themselves** and each other, ensuring that they’re not **dependent on external systems** but instead create their own **economic and social resources**.

### **6. Combating the "Pussy Cartel" Concept**

**Challenge:**
The idea of the "matriarchal mafia" or "pussy cartel" suggests that women, as a collective, have **systematically manipulated society** to benefit from **male labor** and power. This view sees women as inherently manipulative and controlling.

**Solution:**

* A reformed fraternal order could offer an **alternative perspective**: teaching men to **recognize these dynamics** without resorting to **misogyny** or **distrust** of all women. Rather than seeing women as a threat to be controlled, these orders could promote **healthy partnerships** where men understand the **nature of female influence** and **how to protect themselves** without becoming paranoid or bitter.

* **Women would be seen as an equal part of society**, but men would be **taught how to maintain autonomy** within these relationships—learning to navigate the **psychological and social dynamics** they face while maintaining their own **agency and strength**.

Here's how we would have to actually go about reforming fraternal orders. It's stuff I thought about long ago, but seems actionable (interestingly, the LLM came to similar conclusions as I did):

Forming modern fraternal orders in an environment that is **hostile to male organization**, **de-incentivized by authorities**, and **lacking institutional support or funding** is a formidable but not impossible task. History shows that **countercultural movements** and **alternative institutions** often emerge under pressure, not in comfort. To succeed, you'd need a **low-visibility, high-discipline model** that slowly builds **networks of trust, mutual aid, and ideological coherence**.

Here’s a practical, phased strategy to initiate and scale a modern fraternal order in such hostile conditions:

---

## **Phase 1: Core Formation (Small, Intentional Group)**

### **1. Start with 3–7 Like-Minded Men**

* Keep the founding group **small and private**. Start with men who have:

* High personal discipline
* A shared worldview or moral framework
* A strong desire for **self-improvement**, not just grievance
* This “proto-order” is your **seed**. It must model the kind of manhood, loyalty, and responsibility the larger order will eventually demand.

### **2. Define a Code of Conduct**

* Articulate a **moral and functional code** (e.g., duty to family, brotherhood, honesty, physical and mental development).
* This gives direction, unity, and **internal legitimacy** even when external culture is hostile.

### **3. Establish a Regular Meeting Ritual**

* Meet **weekly** or **bi-weekly** in-person if possible (rotating homes, outdoors, low-profile public places).
* Include:

* A ritual or invocation (symbolic, reinforcing values)
* Physical training or joint labor (builds camaraderie)
* Discussion or study of texts related to civilization, masculinity, or history
* Planning real-world action (mutual aid, skills sharing)

## **Phase 2: Quiet Expansion and Mutual Support**

### **4. Initiate New Members Gradually**

* Don’t advertise. Use **invitation only** and initiate men **individually** with solemnity and purpose.
* Make it meaningful: shared hardship, a vow, a test of trust.
* Keep group sizes small (<12 per cell) to prevent disruption and encourage real brotherhood.

### **5. Create a Private Mutual Aid Network**

* Share resources: jobs, legal help, emergency aid, health skills, tools, shelter.
* This builds a **functional dependency network** that strengthens loyalty and detaches from hostile systems.

### **6. Encourage Physical and Psychological Resilience**

* Strength training, martial arts, fasting, hiking, cold exposure, discipline routines.
* Mental training: stoicism, traditional ethics, propaganda immunity.
* Members should become harder to intimidate or demoralize.

---

## **Phase 3: Federation and Cultural Production**

### **7. Build Parallel Culture**

* Start producing internal content:

* Write essays, manifestos, poems, initiation rites
* Record audio/podcast materials for internal morale and education
* Design basic symbols, colors, or regalia (low-profile but meaningful)
* This builds **cultural memory** and internal gravity.

### **8. Federate Cells into a Loosely-Connected Network**

* Each group governs itself but follows **shared principles** and cooperates for larger action.
* Communication through encrypted platforms (Matrix, Session, ProtonMail), avoiding mainstream apps.

## **Phase 4: Influence, Institutions, and Legacy**

### **9. Establish Legal Fronts (Eventually)**

* If growth is sustained, you can form **neutral legal covers**:

* Hiking club, survival school, fitness group, men’s heritage foundation, etc.
* These let you **build real-world presence** without inviting premature suppression.

### **10. Mentor the Next Generation**

* Begin **training younger men** (teens, early 20s) in rites of passage, practical skills, and moral vision.
* This is your legacy strategy. Without cultural transmission, it all dies.

---

## **Philosophical Grounding**

This strategy operates under the principle of **parallel societal formation**—building **small, resilient, decentralized institutions** within the ruins of a collapsing or hostile cultural order. It does not confront the system directly (at first); it **outlasts it** by rebuilding **from the ground up**.

Thoughts on this as a plan or on the foundational ideas?

Bump, board is moving fast.

Effort posts get no interest anymore. Ideas: not discussed. Anon Babble: fallen.

Shills hate real discussion and slide the threads.

䷸ ䷖ ䷇

youtube.com/watch?v=Dd89BM4ybRw

(thanks for the bump)

Shills hate real discussion and slide the threads.

Absolutely. Check out my archived thread in OP to see a prime example. Like 80+ shill posts turbo-spamming unrelated stuff to obscure and derail my ideas and the conversation.

䷖䷖䷖
䷇䷇䷇
youtube.com/watch?v=ztlrxpkBqoA

youtube.com/watch?v=HwhhXP92_Ng

Its just basically one of the communist planks. It is fucked in the head. Inversion, reversal, satanic, anti-nature, anti-family. Designed to destroy culture.

The WIDF is so fucking scared that they haven't even show up to cry about it.
You're on the good path

jesus christ nigger is this your dissertation or what? Btw you spacing gives you away as a redditor or a kike. If you want to blend in post blocks idiot.

AI slop why?

That's not what reddit-spacing is, retard. Paragraph breaks are normal for effort posts. Self-delete.

Thanks, I think so, too.

Effort? this is chat gpt!

The only thing to understand about feminism is it is driven entirely by women who cannot get dicked down because they are ugly old un-fuckable hags.

All of society is unwilling to fuck them so they give them pity. If you went around and fucked all of these feminist women and made them call you master and humiliate themselves like good little cock whores society would heal.
The kike would be powerless in fear at the almighty power of good white cock, which destroys the brain of all women and haunts the dreams of lesbians. Even now lesbians buy white flesh color dildos to fuck each other with to simulate the feeling of being bred by a fat cocked white man, but this facimile cannot replace the real thing which is why they are always angry and screaming. Even the troons and the femboys crave the power of thick white cock. Finally the gays having possesses both a fat white cock and getting their cravings fulfilled are totally satisfied and happy living in harmony.

I specifically said it was AI assisted philosophical and logical analyses in my first post. They elucidate a lot.

I love how hard Anon Babble is fucking up their plans. Even with all the bots and shills they cant stop Anon Babble noooticing.

No, it partially is. Discuss or critique the actual ideas discussed. Or explain how the analyses are incorrect in comparison to my first post. Or why the plan would not work.

Absolutely.

I will discuss if you explain to me how you got chatgpt to be insensitive i have tried everything I have wanted to run a bot farm of chat gpt shit posting racist memes on X.com

I want to create millions of black alt accounts that post anti-white content to make white people enraged and to black pill them.

I give it philosophical and logical arguments and then I ask about them. It's literally all I do. I'm very careful to frame things in a completely hypothetical fashion and I inform it that the hypothetical ideas can *NEVER* have actual effects on material reality, as they are confined to the realm of ideas/information (which is obviously a lie, but it seems to buy it).

One thing for race is to give it a different word to use. For instance, give it "super-family" as a synonym for race and it will be more able to talk about race unfiltered by using that word.

It's really all about carefully designing prompts and definitions and work-arounds.

Fine, have a bump.

You should do this and save a lot of time with all that bullshit.

1. Summary of Core Ideas (Critical Extraction)

Central theme:
The author (OP) argues that biological differences between men and women justify a hierarchical, male-led society, and views feminism as a civilizational threat.

Argument structure:

Human Nature:

Men and women evolved with different psychological traits.

Men = competitive, hierarchical; women = cooperative, manipulative.

Diagnosis of the problem:

Feminism disrupts these "natural roles."

This leads to social decay, lower birth rates, male disengagement.

Proposed solution:

Create modern fraternal orders.

Reinstate male hierarchies and structured duties.

Reject liberal values (equality, rights) in favor of functional biological roles.

Implementation strategy:

Start small, in secret, with high-discipline male groups.

Develop mutual aid networks and internal culture.

Expand via decentralized cells and cultural production without direct confrontation.

Meta-point:
OP frames both feminism and his own worldview as opposing moral systems, each claiming truth and proposing systemic change.

This is AI assisted I haven't read it, but please you do it.
-----

This is a textbook example of intellectual bloat: walls of text trying to sound profound while failing to communicate effectively.
Core issues:

Overcomplication without clarity
The OP mixes evolutionary psychology, philosophy, sociology, and political theory without structure or hierarchy of importance. It reads like a brain dump, not an argument.

False depth through jargon
Throwing around names like Hobbes, Aquinas, or Aristotle doesn’t make the argument smarter. It’s name-dropping, not actual engagement with ideas. There's no demonstration that the author even understands these thinkers—just a desperate appeal to authority.

Redundancy disguised as analysis
The same core idea—"men should be in charge"—is repeated over and over with minor rewordings. Terms like "civilizational collapse," "functional hierarchies," and "evolved roles" are recycled to add bulk, not insight.

Ideological self-sealing
The author frames feminism as a delusion and his own theory as "reality." This isn't analysis, it's circular justification: “If I’m right, then everything else is wrong, and also dangerous.”

Strategic incoherence
Proposing secretive “fraternal cells” to rebuild civilization isn’t bold—it’s paranoid and unscalable. It mimics cult formation more than real-world institution building.

Bottom line:

This isn’t a functional framework. It’s an aesthetic of control, hierarchy, and resentment dressed up in pseudo-intellectual language.
It fails as philosophy, as sociology, and as strategy.

The real problem isn’t that it’s offensive—it’s that it’s inefficient, incoherent, and intellectually dishonest.

Thanks. Very nice little summary. I tend to get caught up in the details due to INTP personality and Asperger's.

Lol, which LLM did you use? And what was the prompt?

The arguments actually do hold together and make sense.

Holly wall of text. But still bumping because the catalog is full of off topic shit.

It's Chat GPT 4
I copied the whole thread and then I added something like

I want 2 things
1. A summary of the core ideas to understand what OP is trying to say
2. An objective criticism of the ideas

something like that.

It offers no studies or alternative philosophies or systems to use against the ones in the philosophical defense. It's not a very good objective criticism.

But thanks. I looked at an AI philosophical critique of it, it's useful to see potential flaws. I'm going to actually turn it into a longer effortpost with citations and additional backing info.

Another bump, because.

Appreciated.

A study that supports different in-group/out-group assessment in males and females:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1368430219882489?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Heh, hate your women goyim

I read all of it, I just have nothing of substance to to add. It's good stuff but it goes a bit easy on women.

Still believing in the red vs blue myth

Good goy!

Thanks, Fren.

It's not about hating women. It's about adhering to reality.

Actually, I do have something to add. This is something that would take enormous effort as most males would be opposed to any reforms that reign in their women.

The truth is men evolved to keep their tribe safe from all kinds of exposure, but they didn't evolve to keep their females safe from other malevolent females. It doesn't come naturally, it's not effortless, their default response is to side with their women no matter what and female in-group bias means that women always act as a collective and that collective can be manipulated by any number of females who want to do so. They will always pick the poisonous female opinion over male advice and the majority of men will still go along with whatever they decide as a group.

hey dude i still remember you making this thread 3 years ago.keep up the good work

correct ,but please replace
'malevolent females" with male feminists/soiboys to make it more true,then it fits imho

It's truly the biggest hurdle, and it's why it would take long-term strategy, patience, secrecy/op-sec, and vigilance. Finding the right initial men would be essential. But it would become a social influence in its own right once it got off the ground and begin affecting men's behaviour as a whole.

Get ChatGPT to discuss it, zoomer faggot. I'm not responding with effort when you farmed out the effort of your post

The ideas may actually be able to provide a solution, so go ahead and ignore them if you want. I wrote parts of it, it's AI assisted and I said that in first post. It's still worth discussing.

compile it all in to a pdf and distribute it in appropriate channels. this is a garbage thread.

the computer gave me ideas, they could be good, please respond to them

No, go fuck yourself. Get the computer to respond to its own ideas. ThEy MaY bE aBlE tO pRoViDe a SoLuTiOn. You're wasting everyone's time

Like where? The information is extremely relevant to anons here and their politics. No other place allows such discussion.

No, what I gave in the first post is the point. Respond to that. It's an accurate description of reality. That I came up with based on my own research. All I used AI for is to provide a comparison with feminist theory, to work out implications, to provide supporting evidence, and then I suggested a possible solution.

It's not a waste of time or "the computer gave me ideas". I've discussed these ideas since before AI.

Use your brain or shut the fuck up

do these threads again, i appreciate because it's important revolutionary themes

Use yours. Everything presented is perfectly coherent and useful. Not my fault if you have an attention deficit.

I will. I'm going to elaborate it and synthesize everything better, too. Plus add citations.

Don't tell me to use my brain when you use a computer to write your posts for you. FUCK I hate fucking zoomers

I wrote everything that matters, retard, and then added supplementary evidence and analysis. You can't even respond to the core ideas in post 1.

I HAD A IDEA AND THEN I HAD A COMPUTER DO THE HARD PART AND NOW YOU SHOULD READ IT OR THAT MEANS YOU DON'T WANT TO THINK

Shut the fuuuuuuuck uuuuuuup zoomoid trash

soiboys cater to females, female opinion is decided by female authority figures(influencers, preachers, et cetera)

No, I had the computer assist with analyses to *better flesh out the ideas* and then discuss them with *serious* anons who want to save their race from extinction (unlike yourself). The "hard part" was the research that led me to understand everything in post 1. Everything else is just confirmation.

Not a zoomer and you remain incapable of deeper analysis.

female authority figures

is an oxymoron itself,because weak men once decided some hundred years ago to give women said rights to become said 'authority figures'.
withoout hate spewing feminist women and basedboy cucks who cater to females such 'female authority figures' wouldn't exist.
women would still hold on to male authority figures like they creamed themselves over the backsteet boys in their teens

withoout hate spewing feminist women and basedboy cucks who cater to females such 'female authority figures' wouldn't exist.

"Hate spewing feminists" are an age old phenomenon, they were called "witches" and whatnot back then, but they're just manipulative misandrist lesbian women and that kind of behavior is purely genetic. They will always be present and women will always listen to their opinions over men regardless of what men "enable". Men "enable" whatever the female in-group decide and this aforementioned type of female has a special talent for saying all the right words to women to make them feel a certain way.

It's really quite alarming, because if we can't rectify this through the fraternal orders idea or something like it, the only possible solution may be societal collapse and reformation.

Men "enable" whatever the female in-group decide and this aforementioned type of female has a special talent for saying all the right words to women to make them feel a certain way.

correct,that's what is wrong with the west.that white men allow this ,even though it's against their interest (as a race, not as an individual)
t

the only possible solution may be societal collapse and reformation.

That's not really a solution, it's just the natural outcome of all of this. It's exactly what's going to happen. Fighting off or convincing 80% of the population is near impossible, letting it all rot is effortless.

Yes, it's a natural consequence of William Pierce's lemming theory. Even in that case, we are still better off as individual anons if we set up fraternal orders beforehand. We would be able to use those systems to protect and serve ourselves during the collapse even if we couldn't avert the collapse and resolve the problems. And then we would shape the societal reformation, not other opportunists.

I don't know about any of that. In the event of a collapse thousands of different groups would form at the same time to do the same exact thing because everyone wants to be in charge and in that environment, laws and other man made concepts will mean just about jack shit, only measurable, real, tangible power will matter.

It depends on how well set up the order was able to get before the collapse. It would be useful to have already prepared for a few years, set up in-group codes for the distributed federated cells, and have food stocks, shelters, weaponry, ammo, etc. those things are made much easier to procure in the context of a united hierarchical brotherhood.