TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Jezebel's Vigilante Squad

erwgv3g34

December 31, 2013
13 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Jezebel's Vigilante Squad
Author

erwgv3g34

Upvotes 13
Comments 16
Date December 31, 2013 3:03 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1u3dv6/jezebels_vigilante_squad/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/jezebels-vigilante-squad.231885
https://theredarchive.com/post/231885
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by erwgv3g34

The Archetypal Modern Woman: "She fucks uncountable alphas, ignoring the beta who likes her, through her years of youth & prettiness. She realizes how empty it all is, but only once the wall approaches & the good times end, so she uses the last of her charms to husband-up the barely tolerable beta."

654 upvotes
September 11, 2019
/r/TheRedPill

The Archetypal Modern Woman: "She fucks uncountable alphas, ignoring the beta who likes her, through her years of youth & prettiness. She realizes how empty it all is, but only once the wall approaches & the good times end, so she uses the last of her charms to husband-up the barely tolerable beta."

461 upvotes
June 9, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Untitled: "Let's not mince words. There is a growing trend in Internet feminism that works EXACTLY by conflating the ideas of nerd, misogynist, virgin, person who disagrees with feminist tactics or politics, and unlovable freak."

398 upvotes
August 23, 2019
/r/TheRedPill

"I try to be a nice guy who contributes to society and respects others; how come I'm a miserable 25-year-old virgin, whereas every bully and jerk and frat bro I know is able to get a semi-infinite supply of sex partners whom they seduce, abuse, and dump?"

301 upvotes
December 5, 2018
/r/TheRedPill

Radicalizing the Romanceless: "If you're smart, don't drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, & have no criminal history – then you're the population most at risk of being miserable & alone. In other words, everything that 'nice guys' complain of is pretty darned accurate."

217 upvotes
September 2, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Radicalizing the Romanceless: "If you're smart, don't drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, & have no criminal history – then you're the population most at risk of being miserable & alone. In other words, everything that 'nice guys' complain of is pretty darned accurate."

199 upvotes
September 1, 2019
/r/TheRedPill

Sluts: "Without posterity, soldiers will not fight, businessmen will not invest, & leaders will steal instead of lead. The big problem with sluts is that without security of paternity, men will not invest in the the future, & thus, civilizations without security of paternity disappear from history."

192 upvotes
June 15, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

One More Condom in the Landfill - "If you are decent guy, most everybody expects you to get shit on romantically and just take the lumps for a decade, then get the used-up, washed-out, emotionally-wrecked left-overs of the assholes' pillaging."

153 upvotes
June 10, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I wrote this last night, trying to explain how political dialogue is stifled by the feminst imperatives created in our school system. I think it may address Jezebel's Vigilante Squad's work:

Feminism (gender studies) is not an academic subject like others. It is not like chemistry or astronomy, nor even like philosophy or literary critique. Chemistry and astronomy have their principles that students must master to be able to correctly understand the processes of chemistry and the possibilities of astronomy. This follows the academic principle of using the power of human reason to inquire. Philosophy and literary critique and the like require an understanding of tools of reasoning, too, such as logic, argumentation, and reasonable grasping of historical and sociological principles to support logic and argumentation. At the end of the day, reason must be used, and better reason makes better arguments. This, again, is using the power of human reason to inquire. Feminism, on the other hand, sits down a bunch of 18 year olds and overwhelms them with emotional stories. There is no tool of human reason it uses, because any reasoning it employs is already tainted with a bias. i.e. "How does this relate to women?" Every "question" already has the coloring of an answer. An area of study like philosophy or sociology could use reason to come up with theories concerning women. But the discipline of gender studies already starts from the premise of its answers, i.e., assuming patriarchy, assuming heteronormativity as a biased norm. So, it prioritizes writing answers over asking questions. There is no subject matter in which it can ask questions without providing part of the answer within the question. Remember our friend's "Queering Literature" course in college? He basically watched a movie, and then interpreted the movie based on the principles of queer theory. Queer theory was not used to look rationally into anything. It can't be. It's not a logical tool. A logical tool could be used to inquire about queer theory but as it is presented (and, remember, to a late adolescent with little real-world experience to discern normal from not normal), queer theory is not inquired about, it is assumed, and it does not inquire, but re-frames. The class was simply an introduction to dogma, and then an exercise in re-writing according to the learned dogma. He re-wrote the meaning of "Neverending Story" as if it were about the AIDS epidemic. It wasn't even de-construction, which is semi-rational. It was re-construction. Propaganda. My epiphany about feminist/queer studies came when reading about this "educational" technique in use at Yale & Brown and other schools. Sorry, not an educational technique. A propaganda motivator:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5028

Summary: Fifteen universities worldwide — including Yale University, Brown University, and Pennsylvania State University — will offer college credit to students who “write feminist thinking” into Wikipedia.

Now, as a "thing that universities do"... this really cannot be seen as rational inquiry. And even worse, it is not done within the confines of the university, where ideas are tossed about protected from the world, but is actually going out into the world. But it is worth credit within the university. It is believed that "education" has been attained, not by learning, but by spreading outside the university re-constructed truths. So, this is the side of the equation called propaganda. The counter-activity to propaganda is not competing propaganda, but silencing/shaming.

In the university environment, one does not counter "writing feminist thinking" into Wikipedia by "writing masculinist thinking" into Wikipedia. Anyone who sees that the practice is wrong, would not think to oppose it by doing the same thing in an opposite way. Rather, because the practice is inherently misguided, not reasoning-based, the opponent will come out against the practice altogether. As such, the feminists will say that he is silencing them. The feminists will say, "You are blocking my freedom of speech. You are silencing me!" It is a clever trick. In fact, the opposite is true. The accusation is the silencing. The trick was that freedom of speech is being misused. Freedom of speech is the air in which rational inquiry breathes, but freedom of speech itself is not the process of rational inquiry. When I oppose your doing something not rational, I am presenting a rational argument. But because you have no argument (not just that you're wrong, but you truly are not in the business of defending arguments), because your only argument is the spreading of ideas, not the use of reason to inquire into ideas, the fact that I oppose you on rational grounds, means that I am blocking everything that you have. So you have to tell me that I am wrong for opposing you, because, rationally, you have no points to defend, you have only to defend the fact that you spread ideas, and any opposition to that is deadly, thus freedom of speech, for you, is not the air in which you breathe ideas, it is the yardstick by which you measure your success. Since there is no debate of true and false, there is only how much room do these ideas take up? The more they take up, the more successful the ideas are. (As I think of this, it's really a sort of analogy to lebensraum: I have to take over your space because your occupation of that space violates my freedom to be in that space, which I need to live.) So, quite masterfully, the feminist education value of propaganda occupies the space of rational inquiry. People don't notice because it was not understood that feminism and the new disciplines were not rational inquiry to begin with. I would suspect that universities knew this in the 70's, and were troubled by it, but had to make space for it due to political pressure. Similarly, African American studies is not, strictly speaking, an academic discipline, a discipline of the mind. It is a space to consolidate ideas.

So, few professors now are left from the 70's who remember that these disciplines were an actual shift in the function of a university. Contemporaries in and out of academia assume that gender studies has, not just as much academic merit as other fields of study, but an equal basis in rational inquiry. As if knowing gender theory were as beneficial to the mind as knowing principles of logic. The equal basis in rational inquiry cannot be questioned, because these disciplines, by their essence, silence you for questioning them. The same cannot be said of engineering. The value of engineering can be questioned. And in fact, gender theorists have questioned much about the STEM fields, not because of the values within those fields, or based on any other rational inquiry, but because of their non-cooperation with feminist theory (i.e. gender ratio of participating students, not 50%--which has no relation to the value of the thing studied, it only means something in a feminist perspective).

Here is how the cycle works.

The more woman/gender studies has prestige, the more it is assumed to be true and rational. The more it is assumed to be true and rational, the more it is obliged to be applied to places were "falsehood" reigns. The more it is applied to replace "falsehoods", the more it is omnipresent and feel natural. Thus, to increase prestige, is to increase its omnipresence. So, the more work you do in building the prestige, the more omnipresent the ideas become, and the easier it is to build more prestige.

The imperative of prestige is satisfied by winning in politics. Without political support, these fields fail in academia because they provide none of the rational methods that are required for success in academia as fields of rational inquiry, which, if done correctly, provides its own rewards as the increase of the mind and the increase of truth in knowledge. Gender and ethnic theories cannot increase truth of ideas, they can only increase the spread of ideas, independent of truth. As a necessary side-effect, they must also silence (not disqualify, but silence) opposing ideas.

The spread of ideas and the silencing of opposing ideas, independent of truth, is the domain of propaganda, and is especially efficient in the goals of political marketing.

Now, that was a long introduction to support the way political techniques of propaganda and shaming arise in academia. Though, it can be seen, that it is in fact a cycle, because the very techniques that politics borrows from academia, are the ones that politics put into academia, by pressuring the institution of academic fields not based in rational inquiry.

Basically, politics fertilized academia with non-rational fields of study that relied upon political support, and over the decades, it is reaping an intellectual soil that yields more minds accustomed to propaganda than rational inquiry. And yet the propaganda mindsets are doubly potent, because wombed in academia, they still have the whiff of the free exchange of ideas and rational inquiry. And so, we have a climate where disagreement with the popular wisdom is automatically invalid. And "we must silence it, because their attempts to argue are attempts to silence us." And (delusionally) they call that having reason on their side.

TL;DR The basis of feminism as an academic discipline is rooted in politics, not rational inquiry. And thus, as a discipline, it can only spread ideas, not evaluate them.

[–]weirdinternetstalker 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Simply excellent. Really very well written, and you make excellent points. This should be a post in and of itself.

[–]still_very_alive1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.

[–]trudatness 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, Jezebel is right. They have a right to "name and shame" as long as they don't "libel and defame".

We on the other hand, also have a right to "name and shame" and they should accept the game as it's played - especially when the epicenter of their bullshit rhetoric specifically names said rules.

Take "Big Red" for example... Oh boy oh boy did they ever whine and cry that she was dox'd (as she rightfully she should have fucking been dox'd), but right out of the other side of their mouths say that people basically have no Right To Anonymity when it comes to waging the cultural war from their side. To be expected, it's only unfair when they get held accountable by more speech.

We all know that Feminists are FLAMING HYPOCRITES, but we shouldn't be hypocrites too. We shouldn't bemoan the fact that we've lost a shit ton of ground in the cultural narrative war. No we shouldn't.

What we need to do need to is go on the offensive. We, as sleeping lions, should wake the fuck up and use our organizational and financial strength to shout these cunts down.

A core TRP principle is being self-determining - so we should put our money and our voices where our mouths are. Every single TRP subscriber should get a blog going. We should write books and publish them online - free for downloading. We should create sites that call out the bizarre immoral behavior of women individually. We should call it something like falseaccusers.com (already owned but sitting blank - and no I'm not the owner nor do I know him - we can choose something similar). We can create dox lists of women who act in a predatory way - from false rape accusers to false domestic violence accusers (especially when they benefit financially from levying the false accusation).

We can setup non-profs that take contributions and conduct actual non-biased gender studies - not the fake "gender studies" that exist in academia. We can use empirical evidence to disprove pervasive false narratives. We can take full page newspaper ads out in major cities that cite facts. We can talk about marriage rates, divorce rates and the number of children in America living estranged from their fathers. We can cite female to male college enrollment statistics, and factual employment statistics that disprove the myth of female wage inequality. We can cite the statistics of declining male grade school educational performance. We can publicize the workings of the innocence project and the large number of men who have been falsely jailed. We can show the proof that men and women are equally as likely to be sexually assaulted. We can show that men are more often the victims of domestic violence than women are. We can show all of the purposeful lies and all the disastrous results that encompass feminist narrative.

The only way to fight lies is with truth. Truth is the most powerful weapon we have at our disposal. We need to use it.

[–]darklogic4201 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Step one is to silent dissenters. Step two is to burn their books.

[–]7Vega-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I do not know a country where there is in general less intellectual independence and less freedom of discussion than in America.

Does this bitch live under a rock?

[–]Retsaot357 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Alexis de Tocqueville was a man -_-

[–]7Vega-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Just saw the picture of him and the monicker remains. The guy equated not getting a book published with being unable to speak freely?

Talk about a drama queen. French thinkers are the worst.

[–]Retsaot35-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

ಠ_ಠ

[–]CreepySmileBot6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ಠ◡ಠ

[–]7Vega0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry man. I just think America may not be perfect but has always been better than some places in the world.

[–]erwgv3g34[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Alexis de Tocqueville had the good fortune to live in a world where North Korea and the Soviet Union had never existed. Nevertheless, the fact that he finds American wanting tells us something.

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did see the outrage of the French Revolution.

I'd like to know more about the role that played.

[–]GrantNexus0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A) The old USA was not the modern USA with all the Nobel Prizes and scientific innovation.

B) The author using that is a bit misleading anyhow- it's not relevant.

[–]AllYouCanEatRedPills8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

One of the most profound insights about male and female psychology:

  • Men exaggerate the importance of large things, and negate the importance of small things.
  • Women negate the importance of large things, and exaggerate the importance of small things.

Result: The more freedom you give her, the less she feels like she has. If you free her, she feels confined. If you confine her, she feels free.

This is why men spend hours debating science, politics, or philosophy, and women spend hours fussing over what color something should be.

Why do you think so many women seek out and remain in abusive/controlling relationships? Why do they like big government and Big Brother watching everything they do?

There are exceptions, of course, but this is the rule.

[–]Justus2222 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn....that's deep bro. Never thought of it like that.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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