These days, there are so many young men already jobless, friendless, and living in their parents' basements, that they have little to lose by openly becoming pedophile activists

From Red Pill Libertarian
Jump to: navigation, search

I say "young men" because while there are a lot of young women too who are sympathetic to the pedophile cause, they typically have ambitions of becoming a wife and mother someday. They may find it to their benefit to privately tell a pedophilic potential suitor, "Sure, I'll support you in your dreams of having sex with our kids" (regardless of whether they're actually going to follow through on that promise), but that's a different matter than openly endorsing pedophilia and drawing the public eye to their support for that cause.

Women always have to maintain some plausible deniability regarding controversial opinions, so that they can avoid criticism and even play the victim if needed. Men don't get to play the victim as much, because men are expected to be strong and solve their own problems. Men are expected to be leaders and risk-takers in order to be considered manly; it's part of what makes them attractive to women, even if their leadership and risk-taking takes the form of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (the "dark triad").

The difference between men and women is that just about any woman will be able to find a man to have sex and kids with her, but men aren't always able to find women who will do that with them. In fact, the bottom 20 percent of men end up going sexless and childless, and for the most part aren't even noticed by most of society except when they ask for a dollar to buy lunch, because they're "losers."

There's no similar cohort of female losers, or if it does exist, it's very small (closer to 2% than 20%). It's like comparing the male prison population to the female prison population. The difference is an order of magnitude. (Notice, by the way, that I can point this out without being called sexist, but if I were to point out some way in which women are inferior to men, then I would be called sexist.)

The bottom 20 percent of men, however, can sometimes be mobilized to revolt if they think it would be worthwhile. The only problem is, there's usually a reason why they're in the bottom 20 percent; they may be lacking in some attributes that would make them more successful revolutionaries if they had that characteristic. A 300-pound man who looks like the manifestation of gluttony in the film "Seven" might not be able to make it to the barricades.

Women will probably play a very small role in the fight to end the war on pedophilia, mostly serving behind the scenes in ways that expose them to little risk. Most of the ways in which they serve a useful purpose will be as loyal mothers or sisters of activists rather than as members of organizations. When they try to serve alongside male activists, they more often end up being a nuisance, a distraction, and a disappointment, rather than actually being helpful. Their presence encourages blue pill men around them to act as white knights and manginas whenever someone wants to speak frankly about differences between the sexes.

As much as feminists may accuse men of being sexist, they themselves are always making remarks that are targeted at men's specific weakness, which is that not all men can get laid whenever they want. Whenever a man says anything sexist (even if his sexist remarks are factual), women will counter with, "You just hate women because you can't get laid," thereby holding up that supposed trump card, that women control access to what men want. But resentment over inability to get laid is not always what triggers men to become antifeminist (since there are plenty of antifeminist men who do get laid, and there are plenty of feminist men who don't get laid); many have other grievances, such as getting screwed over in family court and then denounced by feminists as being at fault for the family's breakup.

If there's a man who has been a feminist up till, say, his 30s, and then suddenly has become a radical antifeminist, one has to wonder, what caused that sudden shift. In most cases, he was betrayed in some way by the feminists he used to consider his comrades. It's probably the same way with people who belong to any movement and then defect; e.g. what makes a longtime Libertarian suddenly become virulently opposed to the Libertarian Party? Often a man of action finds that a movement to which he belongs has become inactive, and therefore he needs to channel his efforts into some other movement; although in such cases, he will more likely become neutral or apathetic to the movement he's leaving, rather than hostile toward them. But if he actually comes to hate them, that's more likely because he feels they betrayed him.