TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AsteroidPlsHitEarth Archive

View 1 post and 27 comments by AsteroidPlsHitEarth on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Yes, Sweden and Norway are like that. Poland has no active mandatory service AFAIK but they require men to register. Hungary doesn't have it though so it's even better, plus Hungarian government seems to be more pragmatic and less aggressive than Polish leadership.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:56 PM
1

I will clarify my main problems with forced service. First and foremost, if someone is refusing to do something you expect him to, he's better off doing something else rather than being jailed or punished otherwise, because for example a factory worker is contributing more to war effort than a jail inmate. That's one example from purely pragmatic point of view. Then there's another issue. A society that can't find enough volunteers to defend itself has some serious flaws and problems that need t…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:54 PM
1

Women shouldn't be in the group that get exempted from being soldiers in "existential threat" situation. We can judge every individual on case-by-case basis. Woman found fit? Off you go to fight the carnivorous alien that is going to eat everyone if not eliminated. If the "existential threat" really happens and the society expects men to die but protects women, I will give you honest answer. I'd personally be rooting for that existential threat to win.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:40 PM
1

There's a difference between "allowed to take up arms" and "forced to take up arms". A huge difference. If country allows women to volunteer, then they are not a liability by their logic, and should be drafted too. If not drafted into military, they should at the very least, bare minimum, drafted into support roles, in factories, as nurses, and banned from leaving the country like everyone else. Comparing women to disabled people is a joke, because for example in Nazi Germany, in later stages of…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:32 PM
1

Any kind of society that expects men to die for it but gives free pass to women isn't a society I'd like to live in to begin with. If they kill me for refusing to participate then so be it, at least I would die true to my ideals instead of dying in some random trench on orders of some fat general.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:28 PM
1

If they change their mind and start killing COs again, then they will be evil and no better than nazis IMO. That's it.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:23 PM
2

Hungary seems to be the most realistic and decent option for now.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:22 PM
2

Thanks for the input. I will look into Hungary, Romania, etc.. That type of country seems to be best option.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:21 PM
1

On Finland's example, there's a known case. It executed one of its conscientious objectors, Arndt Pekurinen because back then they didn't provide civilian service in wartime. He now has a park dedicated to his name, so I wouldn't say even countries that still only draft men haven't learned their lesson. Finland for example allows conscientious objectors to do alternative civilian service to this day. What happened in 20th century doesn't justify modern treatment of men. Even if those countries i…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 05:17 PM
1

I was thinking of moving to Canada because of their easy migration system but yes, it's not going to be much of an upgrade. Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, also was considering one of those. I also looked through various developing countries. Romania seemed best out of those, Hungary is also decent, Serbia is cool too. Initially thought Georgia was good too but my friend from there convinced me otherwise, so maybe the aforementioned three aren't as good as I think either. Would use input from s…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 03:10 PM
1

Most of the time it's the type of guys who were raised like that, with "traditional" values, so they can't really know better. I used to be like that too as a teenager but seeing adult reality changed my views, but unfortunately not everyone ends up like that.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 03:05 PM
1

Is it that bad? I've seen your other comment too and it sounds very bad, but there's really not many places I can pick from either. Canada is the easiest migration destination for me. I'm not sure where else I can go, maybe Australia or Ireland.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 03:02 PM
7

He's an absolute piece of shit, a very rare type of scum, lowest of the low.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:43 AM
37

I'd prefer if we had a future that was human instead of dominated by one gender. What ideology to pick? Honestly no idea.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:33 AM
1

95% Men firefighters Bet the 4.99% women are phone call operators.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:29 AM
7

Disabled people are one exception, but everyone else who wants to participate in politics should be willing to take up arms to defend country, or at least do some sort of non-military service in times of war and crisis, like factory work or firefighting. Those who fight should have more weight to their vote. Do you mean to describe direct democracy? In that type of country right to vote is even more important.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:16 AM
7

Added it just in case but yes, you are right. Hope they don't show up.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:15 AM
4

Draft dodging is ok in every case if state refuses to provide you with alternative civilian service. Even in WW2, the semi-decent countries allowed conscientious objection. For example USA allowed conscientious objection and employed objectors in non-military duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Public_Service Only ones that didn't allow conscientious objection were the evil ones like Nazis, Japanese and Soviets. Yes, Soviets were evil, they attacked Poland in 1939 and collaborated wit…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:10 AM
17

Yeah... Good point, we always need to add a huge bold text disclaimer when saying something like that that we don't support something like this.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 02:08 AM
14

Then you should also believe that only those who are ready to defend the country should have right to vote, because if you don't defend the state, you don't have right to decide how it's run. I'll understand if that's your position.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:57 AM
4

You can be physically unfit, and also mentally unfit. You could be a strong muscle man but can't even bring yourself to shoot someone else. This kind of person is better off doing something else than combat. If someone refuses to take up arms, let them do something else rather than jailing them. There's also problem with determining what true existential threat means. Is there an enemy, for example some sort of horde of alien monsters that came out of a crash landed spacecraft coming that will e…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:54 AM
14

I'd also prefer duties evening out but yeah, the old system at least worked. Current "mix" of supposed progress and remnants of tradition is utter failure. For example it led to far below replacement rates of birth in my country. Korean birthrates dropped to 0.78 per woman in 2022. Other country with lowest birthrate is Singapore which also has mix of the old and new "values". It's a disaster and unless something is done, it will keep getting worse.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:49 AM
3

Yes, I understand what you said and agree. Conscripts that choose to pick the frontline combat roles should receive the most benefits to incentivize military service and to compensate for doing the most dangerous thing. Basically, people who risk the most, should rewarded the most, and those who risk the least, rewarded the least. Those who choose to risk nothing shouldn't even have right to vote IMO. I'm also a huge proponent of incentivized service rather than using threat of arrest to "compel…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:40 AM
3

Would you rather want an unmotivated, barely fit man who was dragged out of his home and forced to take up arms with threat of jail or execution fighting next to you in war? I guess it might be slightly better than woman who also underwent same treatment and is of similar build, but in the end, army made up of people forced to do it will never be good. Not only it's immoral, but also inefficient. This is why I described the "ideal" system as I did. It will not force anyone to take up arms, but e…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:37 AM
5

My main point is that forcing anyone to take up arms should never be permitted, and there must always be alternative service. The mandatory service of any kind, if it exists, must also apply to everyone regardless of gender. Alternative service encompasses many things. It ranges from extremely dangerous jobs like firefighting and construction to jobs like farming and cooking. The most important thing is equality before the law. It doesn't matter if military ends up recruiting more men regardless…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:14 AM
12

Everyone should be individually evaluated without gender being considered. Also, conscientious objection must be legal and nobody should be forced to take up arms, regardless of gender, but everyone must be subjected to being called up, not only men. "Everyone or no one" - This is the only correct philosophy in a society that values human dignity. This will mean that most of the prime military personnel will be very strong, fit and resilient men, and everyone else would be distributed in logisti…
/r/MensRights01/08/23 01:09 AM
22

Karma is low and account is new because I made this post on alternative new account, because my main one is used for hobbies, plus I don't want to get doxxed and have my opinions exposed just yet, because I still hope I can permanently get out of this utter disgrace of a "democracy" as soon as possible.
/r/MensRights01/08/23 12:26 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter