White women have turned society against white men. Since they are given everything they want, they ignore and are entirely unaware of the privileges they are afforded. They are the ultimate spoiled brats that have turned nagging into an national past-time and called it "protesting".
They have all the power and are trying to kill off the source. They continue to bite the hand that feeds with impunity. It is time to kick their pedestals out from underneath of them.
It is easy to blame white men for everything, but white women are to blame for this. Everyone else just follows suit. Shining a light on white female privilege will expose them from the shill rats they truly are. It will turn the rest of society against them. "Minority" women will readily jump on this bandwagon.
If we can silence the white roasties by exposing their white female privilage to the rest of society, they will finally STFU. Being a social outcast is like having AIDS to a woman, especially a privileged white woman.
its not the grills fault, its the jews that manipulated them, as well as a good portion of white men, OP.
Brandon Brooks
>implying women have agency
Weak men = weak society.
John Baker
fpbp
Brandon Ramirez
>only bitches play the blame game
The point isn't to place blame. It's to expose their privileges. In this day and age, the problem would solve itself. They would place the blame. We're just putting the carrot on the stick.
Charles Jackson
>its not the grills fault, its the jews that manipulated them, as well as a good portion of white men, OP.
That is an easy scapegoat. However, so long as they play for that team, they are fair game.
Daniel Nguyen
fpbp
Austin Baker
>>implying women have agency >Weak men = weak society.
It's this faggotry that empowers them. Women definitely have agency. They just run away from it.
Beta cucks definitely contribute to the problem, but if white men can't figure out a way to keep their women in line, then you're suggesting white men deserve this.
Juan Green
Cool; let them date a black dude and try out a raccoon facial for a few weeks. That should solve it.
Ryan Garcia
This. Women lack the mental capacity to form their own views and ideas. Normally they'd adopt the views of their partners but lately they get brainwashed by the media and schools before things manage to get that far.
Chase Jones
>>Cool; let them date a black dude and try out a raccoon facial for a few weeks. That should solve it.
>This happens all the time and nothing has changed >They still go back
Lucas Miller
You have to identify yourself for this comment to have the appropriate context and intent.
Isaiah Cox
>Normally they'd adopt the views of their partners but lately they get brainwashed by the media and schools before things manage to get that far.
That is sort of the point. Let them get a taste of what the views they hold actually mean.
Gavin Flores
The problem you are observing is an excess of males in our species. We are historically out of balance.
The only way to solve this is a big fucking infantry war where many of the low IQ, low ambition, high aggression males are culled.
After that, supply and demand will do its job.
Tyler Moore
They have agency under the law. It's all well and good to say "they shouldn't" but they DO. That is our actual reality.
William Mitchell
Are you sure women are the problem and not weak men? Seems convenient to make them the source of the problems.
I won't call you the i word but you sure sound like one
Why is the number 1 roastie defender in every thread a bong? Get a job.
Levi Scott
>The problem you are observing is an excess of males in our species. We are historically out of balance.
You cucks always find a way to blame men for everything.
Christian Bell
>*Turning the World against feminism Fixed for you Jew beta faggot. If you cannot dominate and redpilled your woman than you are not a man, you are a stupid weak homosexual waste of life parasite
Mason Lopez
>m-muh pure white womyn dindu nuffin >i-it’s all the jews fault >ur just a incel this is why the white race will go extinct
Ryan Williams
Married white women aren't the problem. Start becoming more appealing so they marry you. Eat a diet of healthy fats. Lift. Read books and say smart things.
Kayden Jones
can't blame them, they're just self-loathing numales in search of their identity :^)
Parker Hughes
I wonder if the white dudes in these crowds think "yeah ban all white men.. except me :DDD"
Jaxon Watson
If you think women can be redpilled, you are not redpilled yourself.
>>Fixed for you Jew beta faggot. If you cannot dominate and redpilled your woman than you are not a man, you are a stupid weak homosexual waste of life parasite
>Pitting POC women against white women wouldn't damage feminism at all
Yes, just boycott the thots and everything will be ok
Jace Roberts
That would be ok if we didn't have the indoctrination centers we call "schools". They are for all intents and purposes secular churches. We're slowly eroding religion, the thing we need for our civilization to thrive and it shows. Schools don't teach you how to think, they teach you what to think.
Nathaniel Morris
I am guessing they have attached some traits to white identity, so they aren't "white men" in that regard. Sort of how incel has a bunch of traits associated with them, so by simply being involuntarily celibate, you're not an incel.
Jason Smith
>Schools don't teach you how to think, they teach you what to think. Religion does the same.
Jaxson Rogers
No, it would not be okay. There is no rational justification for women having rights. No good whatsoever can come of it, only bad. Of course women shouldn't go to schools, they don't need to, but even if you take them out of the schools, or reform our schools, bestowing them with rights will still continue to harm civilization. They will still be women and will still suffer from the diminished capacity of womanhood.
Carter Perry
Interesting idea. How exactly do we do this without it being bad optics for white men as well? Source needed. Pretty sure there are about as much males as females at least in America.
Xavier Reyes
Also, Social media has a lot to do with this. when a platform gives access to all persons to create a cyber profile; to post and signal to others with, it becomes harder to stand out the sea of other users. This exhaustion, pressure, and insecurity of trying to uphold a cyber profile in which one feels they matter or are being valued by others, now creates this paranoia in the real time sense of self. Overall, the easiest remedy this individual can use to stand out is to radicalize the message ( or say something retarded) such as "Ban White Man." Certainly a spectacle as a better chance of being noticed. This eventually becomes normalized to the point where you have faggy white people carrying "white Genocide." Nonsense is rewarded.
Hunter Anderson
>don't "blame" something even if it's the reason for something happening Literal nigger roastie tier mentality.
Levi Thompson
That should not be their purpose though. Like I said, secular churches.
Caleb Peterson
Yeah white women are the problem. Good thinking, (((meme flag)))
Logan Ward
Mods have the power to clean Jow Forums up... but instead promote degeneracy and ATTEMPT to silence truth or board culture.. >mods are going to hell A fair and balanced video on the theory that Trump is in a secret society mystery school.. >is trump a mason??? >is trump a member of Plus Ultra?
Bonus Based live stream with great live callers youtu.be/o1q6yULRGZo ,.,... Stay true to yourselves and fuck subversive Mods, Jannies and Jews
Stop TRYING to ban me you faggot leftist C U C K and CLEAN THIS BOARD UP
Ethan Howard
there aren't any white ones worth marrying
Landon Morales
The biggest problem is, the Roman empire collapsed because of exactly what's going on right now. Overabundance, wealth inequality, positive promotion of homosexuality and degeneracy, women/minority immigrants in politics, contentment.
We are at risk of collapsing as a society because of women right now. Most of the vocal ones are pushing for socialism and degeneracy, and the problem it's they aren't being shouted down as idiots.
America will collapse soon if something doesn't change pretty quick.
>How exactly do we do this without it being bad optics for white men as well?
The optics for white men can't be any worse. We have nothing to lose.
We can start dropping "redpills" about white women in places that would end up on the phones of POC women.
The sentiment is out there. There are endless articles about the topic, but they slide. All we need to do is kick up some dust and blame it on the Russians.
>I'm powerless to lead and control women >But you're the beta male
You seem to be under the impression that agency is a product of social restraints and not mental capability. The law can't change biology. You can give dogs all the rights and powers in the world but that doesn't mean they can use them.
You're the one who brought it up, my friend. Why are you now running away from it? Are you trying to deny that you are not, in fact, a beta male?
Sebastian Morales
I am well aware of woman's biological limitations compared to man's. But that doesn't change our actual everyday reality, a reality in which women are allowed to own and trade property, to unilaterally divorce their husbands, to vote and run for office, to hold jobs that have traditionally been held only by men, to drive, to travel, to invest, to fuck whoever they want, to do everything men are permitted by law to do, and then a little bit more than that even. That is our actual reality. It does no good to talk about the biological limitations of women when our actual society does not reflect those limitations in its law and order.
And feminists know this, even if you don't. To them, you are a useful idiot. Fight the enemy where they don't want you to fight them. Always.
Blake Howard
>You're the one who brought it up, my friend. Why are you now running away from it? Are you trying to deny that you are not, in fact, a beta male?
Running away from the fact that you're a powerless beta cuck trying to project your faggotry on me? Nigger, please.
No, and you’re a faggot. It IS women’s fault for being so stupid and vapid. They should be beaten into submission and remember that white men are the only reason they’re allowed to step outside. All white women are cunts, and should be beaten for stepping out of line. Every other solution is wrong, and this should be the only thing white men do going forward. It WILL put them in line.
Easton Ortiz
You're trying entirely way too hard. It gives you away.
It never ceases to amaze me how Jow Forums will complain in one thread about how Chad and Tyrone have women wrapped around their dicks then complain in the next thread that they are powerless to change women's behavior because muh laws.
>To them, you are a useful idiot.
A useful idiot is someone who says that the only way to change the power dynamic in our society is to do exactly what the groups in power now did to get there. Exposing privilege? You want to fight feminists by behaving exactly like feminists? And then you tell me that you know that men and women aren't the same?
This is exactly the behavior one expects from the products of single mothers. You want to rebel against mommy but you never got rid of the feminist tenets mommy raised you with. This is why you want to expose women as spoiled and destructive but you still unquestionably believe they have agency, they think like you, what worked on you will work on them, etc.
Be the Chad, anons.
Levi Miller
>You're trying entirely way too hard. It gives you away.
>trying this hard
ok
>A useful idiot is someone who says that the only way to change the power dynamic in our society is to do exactly what the groups in power now did to get there. Exposing privilege? You want to fight feminists by behaving exactly like feminists? And then you tell me that you know that men and women aren't the same?
You don't have to believe the arguments to weaponize them. If you can turn women against each other, they will tear each other apart. This is how we control them. It's just a matter of execution. Seeing that you don't understand this just proves that you're a beta cuck faggot.
>This is exactly the behavior one expects from the products of single mothers. You want to rebel against mommy but you never got rid of the feminist tenets mommy raised you with. This is why you want to expose women as spoiled and destructive but you still unquestionably believe they have agency, they think like you, what worked on you will work on them, etc.
Yes, you want to argue that women can't take responsibility for themselves. It's not a new argument; it's just a stupid one. Agency is not some elevated high standard. You wouldn't bat an eye at a dindu going to prison over doing some heinous shit, but you cuck yourself the moment you claim that women aren't responsible for their chimping out.
>>Be the Chad, anons.
>Be the Jew, anons.
Surely, that's what you really meant.
Parker Jenkins
Breaking up the forces that work against us is really important. These include homosexuals, blacks, mexicans, mixed race, anything nonwhite really, and women, among others. We can divide and disassemble the rebel factions. We can ostracize white women by saying white women can't be feminists due to their power or that they're all racist and don't know the struggle of real (nonwhite) feminists. Nonwhite women hate white women on some level, so let's bring it out and make it so white women never get to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists. Break homosexuals out by stirring up the religions against them. Mexicans are really catholic and could be persuaded to disassociate. Blacks have really high rates of aids/HIV, and could be convinced they need to disassociate if they want to survive. You get the picture, but I think breaking up the unholy alliance on the left is necessary and totally possible, white women being part of it. Lastly, we can definitely turn these groups against the most important enemy and real culprit for this, the jews. They all hate privilege, and jews are the most privileged in the west. Ivy leagues have a heavy preference for jews and you could rile up minorities that this is unfair, why are some minorities worth more than others? Perhaps convincing minorities that jews are really white people, but worse -- they cherry pick the privileges but disassociate the moment people start talking shit about whites saying they're not white they're jewish. Casting them as white could be an effective tactic for this reason. And compare other religions, why do jews have so much speech protection ("anti-semitism") but say, mexican catholics don't? Or muslims? Or? And turn them against jews. All it will take is pointing out the fact that these groups don't belong together and the nature/hipocrisy/negative influence of the jew, and they'll do the work.
Dominic Turner
Jow Forums is a collective of individuals united by the Internet, dumbass. Obviously, different groupings will form defined by their beliefs or lack thereof and will contradict each other.
Jacob Robinson
>It never ceases to amaze me how Jow Forums will complain in one thread about how Chad and Tyrone have women wrapped around their dicks then complain in the next thread that they are powerless to change women's behavior because muh laws. I didn't complain about Chad and Tyrone. This is a strawman. At this point, I am suspicious of you because of how hard you're fighting on behalf of women's rights. So let's get it out in the open: Do you think women should have rights? If so, why? Justify it to me.
If not, then what are you on about?
>A useful idiot is someone who says that the only way to change the power dynamic in our society is to do exactly what the groups in power now did to get there. No, that's your idiotic definition. A useful idiot is someone who unwittingly helps people that are working against him. Feminists are working against you (assuming you're male). Rather than fight them for their crown jewel, their rights, and take it away from them, you'd rather passively defend their crown jewel by misdirecting men into less effective means of dealing with the feminist problem. A useful idiot.
William Adams
cont'd >Exposing privilege? You want to fight feminists by behaving exactly like feminists? I want to fight feminism by undoing all feminists achievements. All of them. Don't you?
>And then you tell me that you know that men and women aren't the same? Terrible argument. Men and women share similarities, and have differences, both. The similarities define our shared human experience. The differences define our disparate roles. This isn't complicated.
>This is exactly the behavior one expects from the products of single mothers. Now you're just being silly. I'm a single mother because I believe, like 99% of your male ancestors,, that women shouldn't have rights? Do you have a vagina?
>You want to rebel against mommy but you never got rid of the feminist tenets mommy raised you with. This is why you want to expose women as spoiled and destructive but you still unquestionably believe they have agency, they think like you, what worked on you will work on them, etc.
They have agency under the law. Once more, you cannot ignore reality and its impact on our collective lives simply because you want us to focus on less threatening forms of combat.
>Be the Chad, anons. But you are not Chad yourself.
Chase Russell
>The problem you are observing is an excess of males in our species The problem is that the natural hierarchy was upset. Men have had their authority over women stripped away, and women have been placed above men on the social, and now economic ladder with young women now outearning young men.
Evan Cooper
Whoa, user, one thing at a time! Which split would be the best first step?
Robert Carter
The object of feminism is to turn females into dickless men.
Feminism is anti-women.
Justin Harris
What privileges are you talking about, exactly?
The right to let men use their vagina as a cum dump, then abort the resulting fetus? The right to be viewed as tax cattle by the government? The right to be viewed as a source of income and social prestige by their boomer parents by going to college and being a career woman? The right to be a shitty mom trying to have a career and have kids, because if they "only" stay at home they're lazy? The right to genetic death and catladyhood by working until their eggs are ovaries? The right to inflated cost of living and housing bubbles because their household is competing against other dual income households? The right to 6 weeks unpaid maternity leave before they go back to the salt mines? The right to $500 breast pumps instead of the right to be a real mom? The right to have their money stolen to pay for population replacement? The right to wait so long to have kids they get to deal with infants and elderly parents with health problems at the same time? The right to be financially leached off by worthless boomers?
Christopher Bennett
>trying this hard
no u: the post
>You don't have to believe the arguments to weaponize them. If you can turn women against each other, they will tear each other apart. This is how we control them. It's just a matter of execution. Seeing that you don't understand this just proves that you're a beta cuck faggot.
Women are already constantly turned against each other. Minority women already hate white women. What exactly are you trying to change?
The reason women act like spoiled cunts is because you allow them to do it, not because they're getting propped up by browns. The simplest solution here is for you to stop acting as a woman would act with your convoluted machinations and stop taking their shit. Protip, getting on here and whining about how spoiled they are is a form of taking their shit.
>Yes, you want to argue that women can't take responsibility for themselves. It's not a new argument; it's just a stupid one. Agency is not some elevated high standard. You wouldn't bat an eye at a dindu going to prison over doing some heinous shit, but you cuck yourself the moment you claim that women aren't responsible for their chimping out.
Blacks ≠ women (except black women, at least in mentality if not T levels).
>So let's get it out in the open: Do you think women should have rights? If so, why? Justify it to me.
Whether women have rights or not is immaterial. They don't act as they do because of the law, but because of a vacuum of male leadership. The only distinction is that you believe your job will be easier if they didn't have rights in the legal sense, which is a false sense of security. Your forefathers lived in a world where women didn't have legal rights, yet the fact that they do today shows that wasn't effective on its own in controlling them.
>A useful idiot is someone who unwittingly helps people that are working against him.
What would you call someone who works entirely within the frame of his opponents' arguments?
Kayden Cox
>What privileges are you talking about, exactly?
More like pic related.
The memes literally wrote themselves. Just google them.
>Women are already constantly turned against each other. Minority women already hate white women. What exactly are you trying to change?
"Minority" women have always hated white women, but they bury it for the social privileges. The trick is to foment that anger to ostracize white women altogether, leaving them exposed.
>Blacks ≠ women (except black women, at least in mentality if not T levels).
Lrn2analogy
Aaron King
Thin hipped underfed scrawny females are not sexy.
>Whether women have rights or not is immaterial. Wrong. The entire essence of feminism is about capturing male power and displacing it with female power under the law. That has been feminism's driving force since the first wave. You claim to be a fighter of feminism, but you don't understand it or fight it. In fact you call it immaterial. I think you're a woman. >They don't act as they do because of the law Of course they do. The law is their reason for doing almost all of the things they do that are a problem. Unilateral divorce? There are laws for that. Women in the workplace? Their are laws for that. Voting? There's a law for that. Women in political office? There's a law for that. And on and on. You are a proponent of clown world. >The only distinction is that you believe your job will be easier if they didn't have rights in the legal sense Wrong. Women's rights are destroying our civilization. My objection to them is grounded in that. >Your forefathers lived in a world where women didn't have legal rights, Exactly. You're the new age radical feminist here, not me. >yet the fact that they do today shows that wasn't effective on its own in controlling them. No, it simply shows that a liberal society took a chance on an unknown by experimenting with women's rights. Liberal societies are apt to experiment like this, which is why liberalism in all forms is a disease. The results of the experiment are in: Giving women rights has been a total disaster. Time to end the experiment. >What would you call someone who works entirely within the frame of his opponents' arguments? I don't. You're the one trying to wall off this discussion by marking intellectual space as "there be dragons."
So, you're a feminist who believes in women's rights but you want to claim to be anti-feminist on Jow Forums for big boy points. Tits or GTFO.
>I want to fight feminism by undoing all feminists achievements. All of them. Don't you?
What achievements? See . The product of all their "achievements" is a life of aimless drifting in a cesspool of materialism and empty milestones disguised as #squadgoals. When you "fight" them all you do is give them a point of focus that the triple parentheses can use to distract them from the self-destructive banality of their modern existence.
>Men and women share similarities, and have differences, both.
You say this yet you believe that the strategies that worked on you will work on them if you employ them. If it "isn't complicated" then it should be obvious this is not the case.
>I'm a single mother because I believe, like 99% of your male ancestors,, that women shouldn't have rights?
You're the product of a single mother because you believe that the source of your problem is that women have rights in the first place. Again, that's immaterial.
>They have agency under the law. Once more, you cannot ignore reality and its impact on our collective lives simply because you want us to focus on less threatening forms of combat.
The law doesn't give them agency. Again, you could give a dog rights under the law but that doesn't mean the dog will be able to exercise them.
I think any solution that doesn't address the jewish influence is merely addressing one of their attacks without addressing the source. So, I think it warrants and necessitates mention.
Specifically for excluding women, I think we'll achieve it when they think they have more in common with a different group than the left. This won't be achieved by a single topic I imagine, but a combination of: excluding them from the remaining mass of 'feminists', excluding them from association with minorities (i.e. push that white women are white, and can't be trusted just like the evil white men, or that they have no place in 'race relations' discussions due to their whiteness), that they are intolerable to the religions of people that aren't us (i.e. for islam, that women without modest (i.e. burka) clothing are sluts and dogs), among others. That's half of the coin, disassociating them from the left (which honestly they shouldn't belong to anyway, they're part of it for all the wrong reasons). The other half is, giving them something they would rather associate with. This would take a special idol/leader and visionary white movement, but give them something they'd rather cling to. We've had a couple great speakers come and go, but we need one that is also a cultural emblem, some proud but accessible and digestible viking bastard. They are looking for it -- shows like game of thrones are laden with ancient white culture and they eat it up without realizing or admitting why. They want to "travel" yet their top destinations are by and large in Europe, where they think they will access their long lost culture, community, values, etc. Their desire is there waiting to be captured. They need a better alternative than they have today, that they can easily access and that is most importantly socially a safer choice to accept than cultural marxist left. This is why I think we need to retake the media, because they won't accept anything in numbers that isn't mainstream.
>What achievements? All of the myriad policies that feminism is responsible for enacting since the 19th century. >The product of all their "achievements" is a life of aimless drifting in a cesspool of materialism and empty milestones disguised as #squadgoals. Wrong. The product of their achievements are the laws and policies they have enacted. >When you "fight" them all you do is give them a point of focus that the triple parentheses can use to distract them from the self-destructive banality of their modern existence. Wrong. When you fight them and win, you deprive them of rights and return them to the state of quasi-bondage that they existed in for most of our history as a species, which is their rightful place. >You say this yet you believe that the strategies that worked on you will work on them if you employ them. I will pursue any and every strategy that might result in the eradication of women's rights. >If it "isn't complicated" then it should be obvious this is not the case. But it;'s not obvious, nor have you made it so. If women didn't have rights, we could fix every other problem that plagues us within a generation. >You're the product of a single mother Wrong again, feminist. >you believe that the source of your problem is that women have rights in the first place. Again, that's immaterial. Wrong. The source of our CIVILIZATION'S problem is that women have rights, and it's not immaterial, as I already explained, it's central. >The law doesn't give them agency. Except that's precisely what it does. That is the point of feminist laws. To confer legal agency to women where they once did not possess it. e.g., voting. >Again, you could give a dog rights under the law but that doesn't mean the dog will be able to exercise them. They could, it's not inconceivable. But either way, women DO exercise their rights. If they didn't, why do you so enthusiastically object to taking those rights away, hm? >Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not. You're a chick.
Julian Sanchez
>I think any solution that doesn't address the jewish influence is merely addressing one of their attacks without addressing the source.
You know as well as I do the "jewish influence" is going to have "stormfag" written all over it. You need to be more subtle and knock out the planks. That doesn't mean that you should never address it, but it's better addressed elsewhere.
they are merely actin in rational self interest user kun~ they are maximizing their own personal outcome any side effects are for other people further on in later generations to which they own nothing. self sacrifice is a sham didnt you read ayn rand?
