Thread: are we headed for a wacko totalitarian breeding program?

Birth rates have been declining thanks to our asinine system that rigs the odds against men. We've watched as it gets harder and harder for any woman to find a husband. None of them see the truth that it's the fanatical ideology of feminism that's driving men away. Marriage was never a great deal for men, but it was somewhat acceptable at one point. You would be rewarded for your hard work, and would have a companion who was dedicated to you and took care of the reproduction, the offspring, and the household. In return, you worked your ass off to provide for everyone, and you got respect and authority over the family. Those days are gone. Nowadays you would be just a money and resources provider and sperm donor. You would have no authority, and she can just bail at any time and use your resources while fucking other man.

Men don't even need MGTOW to see what a shit deal this is. Millions of men who've never even heard of MGTOW are saying "No thanks" to dating and marriage. If they do find us, it's like, "Holy fuck, I'm not alone." That's what I felt like. I spent years trying to be a good feminist ally, and that got me nowhere other than treated like subhuman shit. The sad thing is, I was totally sincere. I saw a future of men and women totally respecting one another and always willing to listen open-mindedly to the other side. And that's exactly what I did. But feminists did NOT do that. The vilified men, including their allies.

Things will only get worse for decades. I have my doubts that I'll live long enough to see the results, but more and more people will be sans partner, and birth rates will decline. It's already happening, especially in countries like Japan. There aren't enough babies to replace existing people. We'll end up with a growing elderly population with a short supply of young and fit people to take care of them.

It makes me wonder if governments will panic and try some kind of authoritarian and extremist breeding program like the Nazis' Lebensborn program. That program was a Nazi attempt to breed a master race. They set up camps where supposedly racially pure women would fuck allegedly racially pure men. If you were an SS soldier, you were supposed to be part of the master race. You could get sent to one of those camps to fuck and knock up as many women as possible.

While feminists' ideology isn't identical to that of the Nazis, it's sick enough as it is. They view the supposed upper 20 percent as the only worthy men, while the lower 80 percent are treated as subhuman. It makes me wonder if we could eventually live in a feminist tyranny where the lower 80 percent are either pushed into work camps, and the upper 20 are required to be used as breeding stock, like sending a bull to impregnate a bunch of cows. Many women will realize that most men have bailed, and they can't have their one husband for themselves. Then maybe they'll accept going to a fascist feminist breeding camp to get their cunts penetrated by an über-Chad. Then at least she'll get her baby. And the government will justify the breeding camps by pointing to how it's helping to reverse the declining birth rate.

Fascist, extremist shit has always thrived when a populace is desperate. And this extremist, feminist shit has been making both men and women discontent, and has made many desperate for something better. What could be better for a desperate slattern with time running out to have some super-Chad bend her over and bang her snatch, fertilizing her with Chad's master race jizz? The more power feminists get, the more likely they are to turn to extremist horse shit like this.

Perhaps the government will simply subsidize (basically make free) the purchase of donor sperm. This will easily allow large numbers of women to have kids with their perfect men. 1 man could easily father 200-300+ children to women across the country.

Then those bottom 80% men can fight for the right to be with those women and support/raise the children. Judging by what dating sites have become — this is basically already happening with men throwing themselves at women with 2-3+ kids.

I think the West is terrified of China and Russia right now. India is a wild card that could side with the West or China in the event of war. In other words the two countries with over 1 billion people could be at war with us in the next few decades.

I would say a bigger population and more cannon fodder, errr people to draw on for your army would be a big plus. I wouldn't say it's a coincidence that they are trying to outlaw abortion again and right now the Left will blame the Republicans but I think we will see similar things with the Left soon as well.

I don't think feminists need those camps, OP. As I see it: it's already mainstream: young fertile women are riding the CC like there's no tomorrow and are already impregnated with the 20% of men. Personally I actually think the 80-20 rule is a 95-5 rule in reality.
My POV is one of the main agenda points of feminists is to create as much weak minded men raised by single mothers as possible.
I also think we're seeing the "endgame" of feminism being played out RN: the total sabotage of the very fabric of human societies. They've driven a wedge between the sexes and have managed to disrupt most of the world's societies. I must give them credit to their geniousness of their MO. My only question is: who or what is actually benefiting from this?

Originally Posted by RedPilledSimp

I also think we're seeing the "endgame" of feminism being played out RN: the total sabotage of the very fabric of human societies. They've driven a wedge between the sexes and have managed to disrupt most of the world's societies. I must give them credit to their geniousness of their MO. My only question is: who or what is actually benefiting from this?

A great question. My response is that you have to examine what is happening to see if the answer can be inferred by asking ourselves, who benefits?


The effect of feminism as you say has been to drive a wedge between the sexes. One must assume that this was the intended effect of encouraging this as an ideology across western society. Its why Russia and China are quick to not let it take root in their societies, because of its destructive effects, which is to atomise family units and households into individual work and tax slaves and hasten depopulation. The wedge driven by feminism weakens both men and women. Women are removed from the protection of men and encouraged to be work and tax slaves to the system just like men, i.e. “empowered”, which is double speak for ensnared. Men are weakened either economically through divorce or cut off at the knees by being branded as violent, toxic and dangerous. The younger ones are medicated and stigmatised from an early age, then disenfranchised out of higher education and salaried employment opportunities, ensuring that men never gain any foothold in terms of money or power, or ability to organize themselves – forever disenfranchised out of belonging to a household of which he is the decision maker. Ever notice how there are not really any role models for boys to latch on to the idea of masculinity? All the hollywood leading man heroes of old have been torn down or replaced by female versions. Anything overly masculine is deemed suspect and labelled toxic.


Who benefits from isolated and atomized corporate drones living in a cashless society - vaccinated and unable to acquire or pass on private property, subject to crippling inflation and rising fuel prices? Who benefits from the creation of economically enslaved and socially atomized workers herded into smart cities? Again, just looking at what is happening to try and infer the purpose; the masculinity of the males is dialled down by cultural propoganda together with removing male contact with fathers and other men, and devaluing fatherhood culturally. Boys raised by women at home and school receive unconscious programming on how to serve women, because deep down women know on a level that they cannot admit, that they aren't the ones that can build civilisations or infrastructure. I ended up having an absurd argument with a feminist who claimed that women don't pursue science or engineering because they don't have female role models, not because women inherently have very little interest due to so few having the aptitude.

On the other side of the coin, the masculinisation of females is encouraged through them having to think about surviving just like a man. Confusioning and questioning of gender is encouraged with the aim of creating gender as a “construct”, which means that it does not exist at all in reality, except in the minds of the “identifier” who can change his/her/their/whatever mind any time they feel. If you are encouraged to be "fluid" in your gender you can't be "rooted" in your masculinity. Its all effectively shaping humans into a more androgynous, submissive, physically weakened and cheerfully obedient type of being. If that's what is desired, then beings filled with testosterone become your enemy. Culturally this is about scrubbing out the old 19th and 20th century culture that valued men. Gone is the idea of man as rugged individualist, pioneer, explorer, adventurer, radical poet, or anything that represents his natural desire to be a force of agency in the world. Instead think of males 2.0 as meek, physically weakened, medicated, feminized drones barely clinging to survival in a society where they are propgandised at constantly telling them that women are better.


Who benefits from feminism encouraging women to act and think like men in the way that they run their working and domestic lives, because it has decreed that they don’t need a man? My experience of ending up in a relationshit with a feminist showed me exactly how her being “a strong independent single career woman” was deep down making her feel miserable in a way that she could never admit, because feminist dogma told her that she won the prize and men were at fault. Who benefits from promoting an ideology that is going to change the mass of women in society, into a being that won’t want to provide comfort or support to any man, and who only wants to get railed for fun by Chad her whole life?

Answers on a postcard, or down below.

That was one hell of an analysis by Jacknife. Kudos breh. Outstanding. The potential of war with China and Russia, at the same time, may have been the reason behind the possibility of overturning Roe V Wade, but getting dems charged up for the midterms is the more likely reason. Losing SWIFT members to CIPS seems highly likely, which would harm the petro dollar and America's money printing presses. All matriarchies fall.

The Ukraine war, like all wars, is about resources. Everybody wants what's buried beneath that country. Why? It's the next California Gold Rush. NATO is going to fight to the last Ukrainian. If that doesn't work, expect the false flags to start flying, the commencement of a conventional war and the deployment of tactical nukes. A lot of wealthy US oligarchs have a lot invested in Ukraine. Putin is the fly in their lobster bisque. I don't expect the US oligarch led NATO to give up easily.

Socialism can't be sustained without new wage and tax slaves, hence mass migration of anyone stupid enough to come here. The US if falling further and further down the list of tolerable nations in which to live.

On the one hand, as Jacknife made clear, feminism stratified gender relations and tanked abortion and marriage rates, which leads to fewer new wage and tax slaves and also reduces their quality. Mass migration brings in a lot of low skilled, low wage labor but also brings in a lot of lifetime welfare dependents. Mass migration also brings in easily exploitable and disposable male conscripts/combatants, in exchange for citizenship, which is blatant marginalization, exploitation, anti-male sexism, human sacrifice, war crimes and male disposability. All immigrants will also vote democrat, which is a feature, not a bug.

Then there's the reality that the mass media is a propaganda outlet for whamyn, GloboCorp and The State Pimps, all of whom have become thinly veiled, closeted communists, with the latter two serving as whamyn's violence proxies and sugar daddies.

I personally think that most 'leaders' are incompetent, sociopathic, closeted communists who are short sighted, greedy, unwise, malevolent and destructive on a global scale, which always leads to the eventual destruction of civilizations.

Deep down, there's a little Nazi trapped within all of us.

The state has their own best interests and the interests of their wealthy donors at heart. Common men are their cannon fodder of choice.

EDIT: Also, democrats can't impose a male-only draft. Because of feminism and democrat's history of draft dodging and draft riots, they've locked themselves in to a volunteer only military. White, heterosexual, cisgendered males have been proclaimed persona non grata by our communist GloboCorps and government, so any white males with half a brain are busy getting out of the military and prepping to burn any draft card that comes their way.

Originally Posted by Jacknife

<snip>

I can see how it's done: feminism has spread like a cancer to unsustainable and uncontrollable levels. Heck in my work I very often speak with women in fertile age with serious mental issues. All "good slaves" to the plantation because their girlfriends are doing the same thing. I'm not even trying to redpill them because I know how far "gone" they are. Feminism has spread into every aspect of life: cultural, education, media, justice system a.s.o. I can even think of a reason why feminism has been created: depopulation. Killing off humans doesn't help for very long. Populations will recover within 1 or 2 generations. Feminism seems to be a far more effective approach.

But I struggle with the question: who? Governments? How does a weak generation of simps benefit a country? Same goes for single mothers with their mental issues. Big corporations? Being forced to hire women who can't be productive and the only "exciting" question is: "when will she call in sick with mental issues?" Women? LMAO: women can't create shit. Let alone a movement which is so genius in it's execution as it is vile. Although it might seem women are the main benefactors of feminism, I think they're not. Why? Because men always have the option to walk away. Women don't. Yes they can screw around on the CC. But that's only temporary.

Interesting you mention Russia and China. Russia has been seeing a declining population since the fall of the USSR. China is heading for a demographic disaster because of their 1 child policy which they have implemented too long. So those countries wouldn't want to empower women at all I'd say. Hence the fact I rule out governments as having an advantage with feminism.

Perhaps the (tin foil hat alert) "overlords" who I believe are the actual rulers: too much of us "plebs" ruining this world. Which is their home as well. Moving to Mars doesn't seem very exciting: having to watch dust storms from behind your glass dome doesn't seem very attractive. (to me at least). Roast me over this idea but I do believe there is a small, select group of people, who are the actual leaders. Demented morons shacking hands with thin air, self delusional dicators who invade a shit country or leaders who thing they are Mao are IMO mere puppets of said people. To give us "plebs" the illusion of "chosing" our leaders. Why am I so sure about that? Because that's how I would do it if I were one of "them." I would also spread theories/ conspiricies with rings of truth in them so us plebs can bite our brains into believing the "illuminaty" or Bildenberg conference (f.e.) are the "main rulers."

But I'm very open to better suggestions than the one I can muster from my second neuron firing.

Originally Posted by RedPilledSimp

I can see how it's done: feminism has spread like a cancer to unsustainable and uncontrollable levels. Heck in my work I very often speak with women in fertile age with serious mental issues. All "good slaves" to the plantation because their girlfriends are doing the same thing. I'm not even trying to redpill them because I know how far "gone" they are. Feminism has spread into every aspect of life: cultural, education, media, justice system a.s.o. I can even think of a reason why feminism has been created: depopulation. Killing off humans doesn't help for very long. Populations will recover within 1 or 2 generations. Feminism seems to be a far more effective approach.

But I struggle with the question: who? Governments? How does a weak generation of simps benefit a country?

It doesn't benefit a government of any country.

But that is because the paradigm of 'nations' and 'governments' and 'countries' is the very thing that is being upheaved and eventually replaced.

This is the Great Reset. Feminism is just one of dozens of methods and tools at work to achieve this outcome. A weak generation of simps and compliant females is preferable to men rooted in a tradition and culture with no dependency on the state for survival. The latter would only get in the way by stubbornly clinging to outmoded concepts such as individuality, culture, suspicion of centralised authority and refusal to be herded into a global village with a pruned population.

Its not a conspiracy, and no need for a tinfoil hat. Its all spelled out in a book by Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum which is available to buy on amazon.

The ones who are in control want to lower the population, even going as far to say that by the year 2050 there will be several unemployable individuals who are basically a scourge to our species.

Maybe one hundred years from now there might be some sort of 'reproduction program' using artificial methods for conceiving our species, but it's hard to fathom why the machine won't choose to stop printing humans. Today it's microchips and brain implants (transhumanism) and tomorrow, how much more will man become machine than he is flesh?

I would say no. The government is hell bent on importing poverty from around the world. It's a convenient political talking point for both parties. One who wants to appear "humane," and another who wants to sound the alarm on borders being overrun- while not actually doing anything about it (because corporate and big Ag donors love cheap labor). They don't care if Westerners aren't having kids, the 3rd world is pumping out plenty, albeit also at a slower rate than in decades past.

I would like to add one point I think some folks have missed. The reason why the ultimate goals of the (very few) people driving the events we're witnessing today appear so opaque, and the reason those ultimate goals are so broadly disagreed upon, is because there aren't any ultimate goals. There's only a near-term goal, and that's to destroy everything that exists today. Nothing past that. You can go all the way back to Old Testament times to see example after example, or stay in the present and look at what happened in Nazi Germany, or what's happening today in, say, Mariupol. Or to a lesser extent, Portland and Chicago and New York City, or the conspiratorial pre-arranged BLM and Antifa riots, or the conspiratorial pre-arranged smash-and-grabs at upscale shops, or the way vaccinations and masks and isolation are bureaucratically/unconstitutionally decreed rather than legislated by Congress. The driving force common to all these events is the destruction of people and the physical and social frameworks they need to live happy lives.

I believe that making adjustments to society and/or its collective mindset and/or the cultural/political underpinnings on which modern societies operate aren't part of anyone's Master Plan. At least not yet. That's too timid an objective. For now, obliterate anything and everything associated with free, well-functioning societies -- that's the task at hand. (Think "now" and think "big", in other words.) After that job's done, only then start worrying about what to replace it with.

Originally Posted by kru-kut

I would like to add one point I think some folks have missed. The reason why the ultimate goals of the (very few) people driving the events we're witnessing today appear so opaque, and the reason those ultimate goals are so broadly disagreed upon, is because there aren't any ultimate goals. There's only a near-term goal, and that's to destroy everything that exists today. Nothing past that. You can go all the way back to Old Testament times to see example after example, or stay in the present and look at what happened in Nazi Germany, or what's happening today in, say, Mariupol. Or to a lesser extent, Portland and Chicago and New York City, or the conspiratorial pre-arranged BLM and Antifa riots, or the conspiratorial pre-arranged smash-and-grabs at upscale shops, or the way vaccinations and masks and isolation are bureaucratically/unconstitutionally decreed rather than legislated by Congress. The driving force common to all these events is the destruction of people and the physical and social frameworks they need to live happy lives.

I believe that making adjustments to society and/or its collective mindset and/or the cultural/political underpinnings on which modern societies operate aren't part of anyone's Master Plan. At least not yet. That's too timid an objective. For now, obliterate anything and everything associated with free, well-functioning societies -- that's the task at hand. (Think "now" and think "big", in other words.) After that job's done, only then start worrying about what to replace it with.

That's been my overall take as well. When you have people who fundamentally hate the society, culture and economy they're a part of (and have often benefited from), they have very limited goals- destroy the foundations/ institutions that bind a society together. Other than perhaps a vague goal of creating some type of "utopia," everything else is poorly defined. They're a lot like the underwear gnomes in South Park with their 3 step plan: 1. Collect underpants. 2. ?. 3. Profit!

Nah, like a few already said they want depopulation. Now the Uber rich now have the means to live without a large labour force they are actively killing off the masses as well as exploit the remaining people left into slavery (wage stagnation + raising cost of living + eviction and criminalization of the homeless = slave labor).

It a pretty fucked situation and one in where I am glad I never brought kids into this bitch of a earth.

Where I live , more and more women are coupling up. They have access to invitro and sperm banks and they can walk in into a building and walk out pregnant without any sexual intercourse. The issue is that we are actually over populated. Americas population can increase dramatically based on immigration. If we really run out of labor we will open the southern border. I would suggest anyone who doesn't Spanish to start. The omen was real.

Originally Posted by kru-kut

I believe that making adjustments to society and/or its collective mindset and/or the cultural/political underpinnings on which modern societies operate aren't part of anyone's Master Plan. At least not yet. That's too timid an objective. For now, obliterate anything and everything associated with free, well-functioning societies -- that's the task at hand. (Think "now" and think "big", in other words.) After that job's done, only then start worrying about what to replace it with.

Well said, but to what end, to what purpose?

It was for money. In other words "property and control" (which are the things that I feel women truly value most.) A big part of the current societal disruption is a result of social media algorithms, believe it or not. Back around 2008, when facebook was new, media outlets were trying to find the way to get the most Likes & Shares, and what consistently got the most attention and interaction was political outrage. So they started manufacturing outrage, usually with a title including as many keywords as possible, in order to try and got viral and make a few $$. That was bad enough, but when they started getting donations from corporations and non-profits and users, it all meshed into an abomination of money swirling from one non-profit to another to another to another. And this had an effect on users.

The consistent exposure to Outrage Media ended up creating a sort of "pop culture radicalization" in which people espoused talking points without thinking about where they came from, or what the effect was. This is Virtue Signaling, with people trying to establish a sort of "Activism Street Cred" among their peer groups. I've seen it happen in the manosphere too, and it seems to be endemic to the human species. People want to be valued, and try to make themselves valuable among their social groups. It's just part of the social instinct.

Twelve years later, of people constantly exposed to Outrage Culture, and you get some pretty odd tribalistic behaviours. The truth is, that MOST people are political moderates by nature, but many have been molded by peer groups and tabloid media to be radical in outlook (and appearance, in case you haven't noticed.) Alot of the Intersectional Feminism and activism that we rail against is nothing more than a fad, in my opinion. Eventually the activist class get older, get tired, and try to get on with life. It happened to me. It's called Activism Fatigue, when a person gets so mentally and physically exhausted that they sink into a depression as their very bodies DEMAND rest.

There was a truism among conservatives (and general grown-ups) that the radical activism would "stay at the colleges", because once people graduate and move away from their activist peers, the impetus to go out and raise hell would fade. And it was true, from basically the 60's to the 2000's. Then enter social media and the outrage industry. Suddenly these people were bombarded with reinforcement from the outlet of their choice. Outrage was just a button-click away. So the activism continues...

A big part of what we're seeing now, with the BLM and Antifa goons and radical feminists, results from a permutation among academia. Once upon a time, somebody brought up the (very true) observation that Feminism was mostly involved with the concerns of Educated White Women. It was mostly about them, and it's goals had been more or less achieved. But you can't let an industry go to waste, so they began concerning themselves with the "intersections" of race, gender, sex, class, wealth... the list is truly endless. And therefore, the outrage was endless. So now you have Educated White Women railing against a perceived threat that pretty much only exists within their own imaginations. Which would be fine, except that they very aggressively attack other people who diverge from their dogma. It's all very fundamentalist in it's approach.

Ultimately, I think these folks are in for a sad realization someday... that they've wasted an enormous amount of opportunities while engaging in their activism of choice. Much like the post-wall women who regrets spending her youth and beauty on the cock-carousel (and ending up alone with drastically less options in males), these activists are going to get old, one day. They will find themselves the target of the newer, younger activists (just as Generation X has) and see what a shambles their lives truly are.

Originally Posted by RedPilledSimp

we're seeing the "endgame" of feminism being played out RN: the total sabotage of the very fabric of human societies. [...]My only question is: who or what is actually benefiting from this?

SATAN, of course!

Stay with me for a minute, please. Just look at the classic list of Deadly Sins and see if they can be an accurate description of modern feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and other "progressive" individuals, Karens included:

Gluttony (extremely fat people)
Lust (CC riders)
Wrath (always irate)
Sloth (don't want to work to achieve success, wants everything for free)
Greed ("I want it all" is a typical female catch phrase)
Envy (hates the success hard-working men have... or the husbands feminine woman get...)
Pride (will never admit a mistake, entitlement)

We all know the feminist/socialist agenda is to seduce people with a "Heaven on Earth" utopia and then poisoning their minds to remove any trace of sense and accountability.

And if you think Satan doesn't exist, remember the worst enemy you can have is the one that you think wouldn't do any harm to you.

Do a little research and you will discover his original name was Luzbel, that means "the most beautiful light". That beauty seduces you just to end your life in Hell.

If that is not an accurate description of most ex-wives, i don't know what it is.

Originally Posted by gtrFreak

SATAN, of course!

Stay with me for a minute, please. Just look at the classic list of Deadly Sins and see if they can be an accurate description of modern feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and other "progressive" individuals, Karens included:

Gluttony (extremely fat people)
Lust (CC riders)
Wrath (always irate)
Sloth (don't want to work to achieve success, wants everything for free)
Greed ("I want it all" is a typical female catch phrase)
Envy (hates the success hard-working men have... or the husbands feminine woman get...)
Pride (will never admit a mistake, entitlement)

We all know the feminist/socialist agenda is to seduce people with a "Heaven on Earth" utopia and then poisoning their minds to remove any trace of sense and accountability.

And if you think Satan doesn't exist, remember the worst enemy you can have is the one that you think wouldn't do any harm to you.

Do a little research and you will discover his original name was Luzbel, that means "the most beautiful light". That beauty seduces you just to end your life in Hell.

If that is not an accurate description of most ex-wives, i don't know what it is.

Yes to all that.

Satan's M.O. is to "steal, kill, and destroy." That's straight out of the Book. To Hedon's question, note that "steal, kill, and destroy" proposes no strategic goal, no desired end point. That's because there isn't one in the usual sense. We're talking about rage and hatred distilled down to diamond-like purity, and nothing beyond that except... nothingness.

Here's something to ponder:

Q: Why would someone do something if it appears he has no ultimate goal in mind?
A: When that "something" IS ITSELF the ultimate goal.

Originally Posted by gtrFreak

SATAN, of course!

Stay with me for a minute, please. Just look at the classic list of Deadly Sins and see if they can be an accurate description of modern feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and other "progressive" individuals, Karens included:

Gluttony (extremely fat people)
Lust (CC riders)
Wrath (always irate)
Sloth (don't want to work to achieve success, wants everything for free)
Greed ("I want it all" is a typical female catch phrase)
Envy (hates the success hard-working men have... or the husbands feminine woman get...)
Pride (will never admit a mistake, entitlement)

We all know the feminist/socialist agenda is to seduce people with a "Heaven on Earth" utopia and then poisoning their minds to remove any trace of sense and accountability.

And if you think Satan doesn't exist, remember the worst enemy you can have is the one that you think wouldn't do any harm to you.

Do a little research and you will discover his original name was Luzbel, that means "the most beautiful light". That beauty seduces you just to end your life in Hell.

If that is not an accurate description of most ex-wives, i don't know what it is.

That's an amazing religious POV. Personally I don't believe in any "holy book" describing "the truth." But I do like the texts pointing towards the truth. What I'm saying is: I don't believe God is a guy in a dress, watching me jerk off (to quote TFM). Nor do I believe Satan is an "entity." As I see it: those made up entities are being used to get rid off one's own responsibility. I see the bible (f.e.) as a metaphor of all the good and bad things humans are capable of doing. Your described Karens use the same MO: "it wasn't me, it was Satan/ God/ the flying spaghetti monster's will"

And as I see this all: it's coming from literally the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer. Or: "us vs them." And that is still working like a charm. Even here.