Isn't it weird that antifeminists find feminists so threatening, and feminists find antifeminists so threatening?

From Red Pill Libertarian
Jump to: navigation, search

I think of how I got kicked out of the Libertarian Party, largely for being antifeminist. (Or was it for being too radically libertarian?)

Yet don't feminism and antifeminism lead to the same result? Strong, red pill, desirable men refuse to wife up post-wall sluts, regardless of what philosophy or legal system is dominant. Women retain the right to refuse to open their legs without a prior marital commitment made in front of hundreds of people, regardless of whether the state recognizes marriage.

So traditionalism remains in full effect for those who seek it. And women will only leave their husbands if he becomes weak. That was the true cause of why I lost my first wife, for instance.

Yeah, the law might say, "Because she left, you should get custody of the kid." And maybe that would make her come back. Then what? I still have to become a strong man, in order for us to have a happy relationship. The laws of sexual polarity can't be repealed.

Yeah, the law might say, "She and whatever man she cheats with will be put to death if she cheats." That won't necessarily keep her from cheating, if she's suicidal and impulsive enough. Men too may risk their lives for some pussy. It happens all the time that men put their careers and futures on the line just so they can put their dick in an attractive woman, regardless of her marital status or whether she has reached the age of majority.

We of course know what it means when someone is cute.

I might also ask, why did the government find it so threatening that I threatened the President? Why did they have to lock me up for 46 months, to feel safe? Was it really because the judges and bureaucrats wanted to cover their asses, in case I really was crazy enough to act on my threats?

Maybe, maybe not. What about now, when I run for office? Why do people find it so threatening that I'm in the race, after threatening the President? Why do they want to disenfranchise felons, to keep people like me from running?

Everything seems to come down to symbolism. Women's right to vote? It's just a symbol. Even Kitty Marion acknowledged, birth control was more important.

Sure, they deleted my article that might've had the link to where she said birth control was more important. What was the point? Just to send a message that pedophiles won't be tolerated on Wikipedia.

When you think about it, all these non-issues are just a distraction from the takeover of the world by Jews, accountants, etc. (Accountants are a low-profile interest group that tends to be very effective at getting its way through lobbying, because they don't really have any organized constituency opposing them.)