Until quite recently, I had no idea what it meant to be ‘Red-pilled’. It turns out that this comes from the Matrix series of films, in which the hero is given a choice: “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Over the last 15 years I had increasingly become sympathetic towards feminist voices. They seemed reasonable. Women should have equal rights to men, shouldn’t they? The basic premise — of ‘equality between the sexes’ — seemed unassailable, and this was how the feminist case was being presented. Men, they said, oppressed women and this had to be changed.
Fair enough, that. Who wants to be an oppressor?
I don’t think it’s coincidence that this increasing sympathy towards the feminist case seemed to begin, for me, around the time of the death of my mother, Gladys Rollo Fleming. The details of that painful parting and the horrible disease that took her at far too young an age I may recount in a future article; for now, let’s just say I was shattered to my core by her death.
The result was that I idealised her in a way I had never really done while she was alive. I think this is a common thing. But it was the time when the Blue Pill was quietly slipped under my tongue, and I swallowed.
When I opened my eyes, I thought I saw. Mother-Goddess-Women. Yes. Women were the secret. They gave life. I began to dig into history and art and again I found the same metaphor. The Holy Grail is the Goddess’ womb. Mother Mary is the Goddess. The Goddess is the giver of life and She is Good.
All of the history is true; the Goddess is central to our culture.
But I made a fatal mistake. I conflated what the culture saw as the aspects of Woman — her existence as nubile young woman, fecund Mother and Reverend Matriarch — with the picture that modern feminists were painting. How dare the patriarchy suppress Woman? She is the Goddess, giver of all life! How evil men must be to do the awful things that they do?
You can see how strong the Blue Pill is.
The 90/10 Ratio — a blueprint for genocide
Then, in a Google+ group I found a woman extolling the ’90/10 Ratio’. It was horrifying. At least 80% of all human males were to be terminated and the rest kept, on reservations, as sex slaves to donate sperm. I researched it thoroughly and, sure enough, there it was. http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/
Now in view of the fact that politically damaging viewpoints frequently just disappear from the internet, I have cut and pasted a Vice article that was reposted on the site I linked to. This version will be staying up and I invite you to read the views of ‘Krista’.
Then take a really, really deep breath. What you just read combines all of the most egregious, horrific ideas that gave us Adolf Hitler, except an awful lot worse. Hitler only intended to eradicate Jews (bad enough) but this bitch intends to eradicate at least 80% of ALL HUMAN MALES. Which means that all of my three sons are for the gas chamber. Or whatever.
This loon is being taken seriously
And Krista is being taken seriously. She is going to college and, instead of being thrown out on her ear for inventing sexist, racist, misandric evil, is getting reward grades. From other feminists. And this is a single mother living on governmental handouts — mainly provided by taxes on men. Yahoo. Big yahoo.
Even if this terminally stupid twat is not ‘mainstream’, you have to ask yourself how any person could come up with ideas that are so evil? The answer is simple: the climate of hatred towards men and masculinity, that feminism has cultivated, has nurtured and supports these horrible ideas. And today we have feminists campaigning not to allow boy babies to breastfeed because it ‘gives them too good a start in life’.
Now I accept, these may extremists. Most of them are deeply disturbed women who got themselves knocked up by the first man they saw with his pants round his knees, and now they have a major hate on for all men. But the fact is that without ‘mainstream’ feminism, their ideas would not exist — and the women probably wouldn’t have been stupid enough to get pregnant in the first place.
That was my first Red Pill. Its effect was not immediate or cataclysmic. I had allowed myself to become too well indoctrinated for that. My Blue-pilling had installed a Maginot Line of defences and bulwarks. This woman was an isolated lunatic, that nobody could possibly take seriously.
But the Maginot Line, as students of history will know, fell.
Red Pill Assault
2016 saw the next great assault by the forces of Red Pill. In that year, two interesting things happened; Donald Trump ran for US President and, partly as a result, I became aware of the work of Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulous. These two were not alone, but their names stand out.
At first I could not really accept what I was being told, but the Red Pill was gaining ground. Darkness and superstition were being pushed back. Was there a ‘gender pay gap’? Well, obviously not. I’ve been an employer and I know the law — it’s an offence to discriminate by sex. And what about divorce? I’ve been through one and the law in my country is clear: 50% each; and in other jurisdictions the balance was clearly in favour of women.
There is no ‘rape culture’ in the West, except where it has been imported by Muslims. The world rape capital is India and Pakistan and the European one is Sweden; the USA is miles behind. There is no ‘glass ceiling’; women are CEOs, national leaders and the highest-earning stars in Hollywood today. Equality has not only been achieved, the pendulum has swung the other way.
One by one the arguments, that women in the West were being oppressed, were countered and defeated. The Red Pill was working.
What about Trump? I am Scottish and so I knew about his golf club north of Aberdeen and the general furore surrounding it. But in reading into the story and interviewing people, I had discovered that the popular line — that he was a monster running roughshod over the interests of the locals — was held by a tiny number of people, many of whom were behaving at best questionably.
There were council officials who had clearly acted ultra vires; the same mouthpieces and moaners that appear any time anyone tries to do anything new in Scotland; and a rag-tag of opportunistic local politicians. Curiously — well, not really, this was Scotland — many of these people were not from the area, or even Scottish themselves. They were White Settlers who wanted to prevent any change at all.
When I spoke to the locals, I got a very different perspective. Trump was well liked. He was considered demanding but fair in business dealings, not to be prone to ‘airs and graces’ (a terminal social offence in Scotland), to be polite, affable and have an easy sense of humour. Nobody was calling him an angel, but they weren’t calling him the Earl of Hell either, and most thought he was a positive influence who might help the economy of the area.
One thing was clear: Trump had routinely been traduced by my colleagues in the media, and it looked very much as if the same thing was happening in the US election campaign. The deliberate twisting of his ‘grab them by the pussy’ joke, a classic example of quote-mining, was telling. The people against Trump were not for truth; they were just against Trump. And any lie will do in a political shitstorm.
The Red Pill was beginning to work
Those Red Pill sappers were beginning to get somewhere with their Bangalore Torpedoes.
I came down for Trump before the election, even though I didn’t have a vote. Clinton’s history as a warmonger and one of the main agents provocateurs of the Muslim Invasion of Europe, made her utterly toxic. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. It was just a viewpoint that I arrived at on consideration of her performance: she is a dangerous, unscrupulous, devious, amoral war-hawk. Trump, while untested, could not possibly be worse (a view I maintain.)
After Trump’s election, however, things began to change rapidly. With the outer defences of razor-wire broken, the Red Pill sappers were attacking the foundations.
Social Justice Warriors — today’s Brownshirts
The reaction of so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’ after the election was a real eye-opener. People in my own friends list were saying the most appalling things.
And this is where the feminists really showed their hands. Now they were openly calling for the eradication of men. They had allied themselves with violent black supremacists and, perhaps even worse, Islamic supremacists. Muslim women who had been convicted and imprisoned for terrorist murders were leading the ‘feminist protest’ against Trump.
You mean to say what? People seeking women’s rights were getting into bed with terrorist supporters of the most misogynistic cult on Earth, one that would unquestionably remove every single right that women have acquired in the West over the last 150 years or so?
What is ‘Intersectional Feminism’?
I had heard of ‘Intersectional Feminism’ as part of ‘Third Wave Feminism’ but I had assumed it was just a modernisation, that the same underlying values of equality of opportunity — which should be a given — and so on, were its basic tenets.
A little reading proved otherwise. ‘Intersectional Feminism’ is all about finding the lowest common denominator. It’s about finding a group that other people hate too, in order to focus the hatred and violence. So, feminists hate men. Black supremacists hate whites. Islamic supremacists hate Jews and Christians — well, everybody, actually. Add in ‘transgender’ ( really transvestite) supremacists who hate ‘non-trans’ people and homosexual activists, who obviously hate anyone who is not homosexual. Then throw in the Marxists, who hate anyone with more money than they have — not difficult since most of them don’t have jobs– and you arrive at the answer to the conundrum, the group they hate in common: white, heterosexual, non-trans working Christian men.
This is no more than ‘If you hate the same person as I hate, then you are my friend,’ and as an excuse for a political philosophy it is beyond pathetic. It is sexist, racist, misandric, heterophobic, normal-phobic, family-phobic and work-phobic. It is based completely in hatred, jealousy and covetousness. It has not a single positive value because it is based on the most negative emotion humans have, hatred; and it has not a shred of logical validity because it is based on emotion. It is as childish and immature as you can get.
That is the face of contemporary feminism: a spoiled, undisciplined brat howling because it didn’t get more sweeties than anyone else — and is prepared to smash the place up over it. And this is what animates the SJW violence.
Well, the Red Pill sappers were well into their task now and that Blue-Pill
Maginot Line was looking pretty shot full of holes. But the Red Pill itself was still there; I had not swallowed it yet.
Living in a real matriarchy
Then something that I had been hoping would happen for years actually did: I was given the opportunity to live in a real, functioning matriarchy. How this came about is not germane but in the end I lived part-time in this matriarchy for two months and full-time for one. I will write a full description in another post but this was a true matriarchy. Women were in charge. Men were practically invisible.
This was exactly the matriarchy that Peggy Reeves Sanday — herself a feminist — described. Clan groups were led by grandmothers, who made decisions about family affairs, looked after discipline and were the authority figures.
This then, is surely the Holy Grail, the matriarchy that feminists seek. After all, they extol that a culture in which women are authority figures in the home is a matriarchy.
But I learned very quickly that this was not what feminists want. This matriarchy doesn’t hate men at all. As one woman, herself a matriarch, said to me, ‘Of course we love and need the men. They provide our homes; but we (the women) decide what goes on in them.’
This matriarchy is condemned outright by Western feminists. They don’t want it. They want to destroy it. Why? Because instead of going out and becoming wage-slaves, the women in it stay home and look after the kids! Oh, sure, some have jobs, but they tend neither to be taxing nor competitive. The role of women in the matriarchy is to bear and nurture children.
When I told one woman that Western feminists thought women should go out to work and pay a childminder to look after their kids, she looked at me as if I were mad. ‘What’s wrong with them?’ she asked, hooting with laughter, ‘Can’t they find a man to work for them?’
When I asked about single mothers — and there are plenty — she said, ‘Yes, they have to get a job, but lola (grandma) will take care of the children.’ And when I said that women in the West did not live with their lolas, they were flabbergasted. ‘How do the women get any time off? Even in Manila, they don’t live like that.’
Of course, in the West, they live in subsidised housing, on government handouts, paid for, in the main, by working men.
When I looked down, I realised that the Red Pill had gone. I’d swallowed it. And it worked; all my illusions fell away. Feminism is based on a lie: that feminists want equality and the matriarchy. They don’t. They want supremacy over men and to destroy the matriarchy. They want to colonise male society; in brief, they hate being women and wish to be men instead. That probably explains a deal of Snowflake ‘gender identities’. Feminists hate being women and in their deep self-loathing, they have come to loathe all women.
A road too far
Now, a matriarchy such as I was lucky enough to live in is probably impossible to recreate in the West. Women themselves will try to prevent it because it is focussed on women as mothers and such ‘gendered roles’ are the antithesis of modern feminism.
All I can hope is that the scales of lies and deception fall off other people’s eyes, not just men like me but women too. That women realise that being a slave to work can never give them the deep satisfaction that being a mother can. That staying at home looking after your children is not a chore but an opportunity; and that this opportunity should not come as a result of sponging off society, but because a man loves you and wants you to be happy; because he wants to share with you the joy and fulfilment of making a family. That being a woman is, above all other, being a mother. That the family is a successful and humane social system that we should protect. That ‘traditional gender roles’ are good and right because we as humans are evolved to live in them, and fooling about with evolution is a road to disaster.
A road that we have, unfortunately, travelled too far along already.
Meet Krista, a 22-year-old, southern criminology student with a three-year-old child. She calls herself the Femitheist and has a blog, YouTube channel, and is writing a book all about the “importance” of reducing the male population to roughly 1-10% in order to achieve world peace and “true equality.” Somehow, she expects this to end war, rape, and violence in general.
Though this seems like trying to end violence by committing violence – because it is – she asserts that it is “the only logical solution.” Everything she proposes to do for, to, and against men (and women) directly violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Terrifyingly, she has spawned a gaggle of followers that believe in selective breeding, male-only abortions, and an International Castration Day. She asserts that men of all ages would need to attend a castration ceremony, and murdered if they refuse. Don’t worry, though, the men’s spouses and mothers have the option to “milk the male” before castration if they want a sperm sample.
She recently backpedaled on her “Castration Day” plans, stating it was all a big, angry, joke of misunderstanding, and that she does not support circumcision (two different things). However, her belief in “the ratio” and how it must be accomplished still stands.
Nothing says “peace” quite like genital mutilation, eugenics, and murder. Oh, and slavery. There’s slavery, too.
Toby McCasker over at Vice decided to go boldly where probably no man ought to go (safety purposes) and conducted an interview to try and get a better understanding of all this hullabaloo. Due to the fact that it is probably one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever read – it’s like a combination of 1984, Brave New World, and the Communist Manifesto…but with “feminism” – I’ve decided to include the interview in it’s entirety below.
She’s also 200 pages into what she’s hoping will be her 700 page manifesto outlining the philosophy of Femitheism. It’s tentatively titled The Ratio.
VICE: I assume The Ratio refers to your belief the male population should be reduced to between by 90 percent.
The Femitheist: I believe that conventional equality, with a 50/50 female-to-male ratio, is an inferior system. Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.
Assuming people are down for that, how could you reduce the male population by that much? Are you talking culling or selective breeding over years?
Obviously men comprise a substantial portion of the victims of violent crime and participate heavily in war, so there will always be deaths there—but certainly not culling. I don’t advocate selective slaughter or brutal processes.
So how would you achieve it?
Further research into designer babies will be necessary: manipulating gender or sex, prenatal sex discernment, sex-selective abortions, development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers), and numerous other mechanisms will be utilised in order to achieve these aspirations. They won’t be enforced or mandated to achieve the goal in the short-term, but merely heavily encouraged in the early stages. Unless one opposes abortion, there’s little ethical reason to find that too outrageous a proposition. The maths has already been done on all of the genetic and population-sustainment-related issues: population bottleneck, inbreeding, mutations, et cetera. Everything works out in favour of my ideas. I’ve been meticulous and cautious. I’ve had the work reviewed by people who are experts—or at least extremely knowledgeable—in biology and genetics, and I’ve received confirmation that it all works out.
That’s in theory, what about in practice?
It’ll require the re-teaching of everyone—female and male—in classrooms, homes, through literature, media, art, and networks. It is a process that would take decades, generations, and perhaps even a few centuries. Nevertheless, these are things that should be done to forge a new and vastly superior world. My mission is to devise and describe a framework for the carrying out and success of such objectives.
What kind of men would you choose for breeding? Do you base selection on physical or mental characteristics?
The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.
Genetic engineering is already taking place by way of tests given to couples when they marry to prevent the passing of dangerous genetic material. There is no doubt such concepts will expand as we understand more about how the genome actually works. Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not “brutes,” which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights. Any criteria decided upon as the quintessential grade would have to be extensively defined and revised as time goes on, or as science advances and the human species and its needs evolve.
Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.
But don’t men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.
What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn’t be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?
That’s kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.
Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.
What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.
But realistically that’s not what’s best for the kids.
Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.
Does this assume all women would automatically form lesbian relationships?
Relationships between females and males have been different throughout all of history. Associations between women and men differ with the time and popular socialisation. Today that is not common or normalised, but as time passes more women are interested in other women or are willing to indulge and experiment.
Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics—with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?
I’m not sure, you think it’s genetic?
Perhaps it’s partially genetic, but it’s also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn’t what a “man” is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.