🧵 Assemblywomen by Aristophanes might be my favorite play. It predicts with surgical precision the degradation we see in our own time, of power being in the hands of geriatrics and women when the men degrade to such a degree that the exchange becomes interchangeable:
The play, a comedy in and of itself, presents the greatest critique of socialism and feminist ideology in the form of pure parody - all in 391 B.C.
Aristophanes wrote it to criticize the Athenian leadership of his time, as Athens was still reeling from the Peloponnesian War.
Despite its scathing reveal of what female leadership and political action actually entail (the sheer truth of it being why it's so funny), by and large, this isn't how normies who read it interpret it. It goes right over their heads.
The play starts with the women of Athens getting up before dawn, and walking to parliament dressed in their husband's clothing. Many are wearing fake beards and coach each other on what to say.
Their goal is to show up to parliament and change things for "the better"
The symbolism here is quite direct - the effeminate male leaders are so decrepit that their women can disguise as them and get away with it
Before we see how these women vote however, we get a ridiculous scene with Praxagora's (the main woman) husband, Blepyrus
Blepyrus is old, constipated, confused - completely oblivious to the fact his wife has gone off with a gaggle of her friends to cause regime change in Athens. He's dressed in his wife's clothing since she took his, and he's running around looking for a place to relieve himself.
Blepyrus is the contemporary man Aristophanes hates; content with his own weakness, quite relieved even when he finds out from his friend later that the "group" at parliament successfully voted to hand over control to Athens' women.
Praxagora's argument, apparently, was that the women deserved power because they never strayed from true Athenian tradition (a lie). They don't steal or cheat, don't kill and start wars; there will be peace for all if they had a say!
This reminds me of an argument Mary Daly, an ex-Christian feminist from the 70s, made regarding why men should embrace incoming reforms for equality.
It wasn't because it was the "right" thing to do, but that it would make their lives "easier"! An appeal to the bugman, basically
The laws of the new female-led Athens were as follows: no ownership of private wealth. Equal pay for all and a single standard of living. People will be provided for by a "common fund"
They make it so that men and women will be free to sleep with whomever they wish, as long as the old and ugly are prioritized.
As a result of this, parental responsibilities and the family are abolished, since knowing paternity gets wiped away with the massive fornication
As such, one of the main goals of the equalist female-led society is revealed: the oldest and ugliest women are given precedence to destroy any competition with the younger and prettier ones, who take up the attention of most men regardless of age group.
It also shows the big train of thinking that leads straight from communist delusion to feminism. Women are natural caretakers, who excel at managing the man's home in his absence. Feminism assumes that together, the entire country can be managed like one big household.
Also, because no one owns anything, there will be no more debt or lawsuits. Punishments for crimes will just be taking out a person's food rations, and it's assumed theft won't happen because everyone will get "their fair share"
Oh, but we still need slaves though. That's not going away.
“What a blessed future this city will have!”
The results are what you expect. A character named The Selfish Man is shown to immediately begin cheating the system, taking as much as he wants from the common pot whilst withholding his own property. It's implied (and obvious) that others begin to do the same.
Then, one of the funniest scenes of the whole play happens. A young woman waits for her boyfriend Epigenes, a handsome man, but gets into a brash argument with an old woman scouting for a hot date. Epigenes gets with his girl, but is interrupted by the old woman.
The poor young girlfriend of Epigenes loses the fight, but then, even more older and uglier women fight each other over who should have him, citing that the worst looking of them is most befitting of him. He's dragged away against his will.
The final scene shows the other end of this degeneracy, the older men taking charge of being with the younger women who have no men their age to be with.
In this very accurate parody, the lowest in society triumph, but their position and level of happiness don't change. The old and ugly women win at the expense of everyone else, but they're still clawing at each other as they feast on the misery of the majority.
It's also important to point out, at the end, how this play begins. Often we hear the stupid myth that feminism at its beginning was justified because of "abuses against women."
The reality as shown isn't that the women gathered due to being oppressed in such horrible ways,
(remember, Blepyrus didn't even care where his wife went in the middle of the night), but rather it came about when the men grew so weak and effeminate that their "leadership" became meaningless.
Also shows that this society we live in now wasn't entirely new in the minds of our predecessors. Often bits and pieces of this insanity were tried, and the consequences were disastrous.
But to the extent we have it now? That was always seen as a joke. Because we live in one.
Thank you everyone, if you like writings of this kind and interested in my long form stuff, check out and subscribe to my substack:
So it’s confirmed that American Psycho, the right-wing/straight male classic and Zoomer meme treasure, is being remade. I’m personally a big fan of the original — hilarious, predictive, and pisses off the right people who can’t stand its popularity despite its gruesome attitude. I originally wanted to talk about what I expect they’ll do exactly to ruin it as an F U to all the men who love it, but first I’ll have to explain, in layman’s terms, why it became so loved in the first place.
Brett Easton Ellis wrote the original novel as a frustrated young man (of fluid sexual inclinations) who couldn’t stand the vapid materialist consumerism of 80s yuppies. I haven’t read the novel yet, but read some passages and heard that it's far more graphic than what the film portrays in terms of Patrick Bateman’s killing. When the movie was made though, the novel, which didn’t have much of the now well-known “American Psycho Aesthetic” took on its modern flavor with Christian Bale and a female director who added an incredible comedic and philosophical punch (which I don’t think she even realizes she made in the movie.)
From the beginning, serial killer or not, Christian Bale shows an almost erotic care about his handsome looks. This opening scene was originally intended to be a parody of extreme narcissism, but today’s “Self-improvement” gurus make Bateman look very sane and tempered by comparison. Every day on Tiktok young men unironically get in front of a camera showing off their Bateman-esque routines filled with meticulously picked beauty products and a tailored fitness regime, 10 times more ridiculous than what anyone at the time envisioned. Reality beating American Psycho in insanity is recurring throughout the movie with just about every aspect of it.
After this, all young men see outside of Bateman’s crimes (and the admirable fashion/fitness) is a life they too recognize they would suffer from if subjected to, and in many ways are — just without the benefits. The unspoken view of young men who see and love the film, which I suspect drives its critics crazy when looking at it in today’s environment, is that Bateman’s psychotic inner life is in a way justified because of the insanities of modern urban "rich" life he’s subjected to. This is especially easier to think if you’re religious and believe in an afterlife; that this world is just a temporary abode and those who obsess over it solely are doomed.
The Bodybuilding Forum, one of the earliest fitness online communities, was shut down recently. It's incredible looking back on it, such a wild snapshot of the recent past before the cultural revolutions that made today's clown world. Here's a thread of my favorite posts:
1. The Dreamer Bulk. A 17-year-old kid in 2007 decided to "bulk up" and posted his routine/diet. He received so much ridicule he left the forum. The term "Dreamer Bulk" (getting fat under the pretense of bulking) came from this.
This was considered an insane, comical diet back in 2007. Today a significant % of Americans eat like this without any specified goal.
2. Another hall of famer: bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week. You used to encounter guys like this once in a lifetime and tell all your friends about it repeatedly. You now see people on X like this every day.
The ex-gangster/pimp turned Islamic speaker. The psychology major to “female scholar” pipeline. The redpill masculinity coach who converts to Islam because it’s “based”. The divorced single mother who wants to teach young Muslim girls “their worth”.
Any worthwhile islamicate will never come about as long as this type of Broken Muslim is allowed to even speak in public.
No one seems to talk about the undeniable historical fact that Broken Muslims with ridiculous pasts filled with degenerate behavior never cause any worthwhile change. At best they inspire some Muslims to cut out some sinning from their personal life and a few conversions, but that’s it. They never actually build anything yet we treat them like they do. It’s sickening.
They also won’t build anything if they’re psychological messes. I don’t care if their past was their fault or not. I regularly see looney toon proselytizers and “speakers” who use the story of Sayiduna Omar RA as an example of “THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS WAYS”, and it drives me insane how much they distort his story. Yes, his biggest and only glaring issue was his disbelief, but that was pretty much it. Other than that he was such a stand up guy to the Quraish that every Muslim in Mecca fantasized of the boon he’d be to Islam if he converted, which he lived up to and exceeded beyond their wildest dreams. He was elite stock, not a model for illiterate gangster MORONS
Nobody talks about how many Muslim girls implicitly reject guys for being too good/outshining them in basic character traits
You hear a lot about the opposite, but no one talks about the fact that loads of these girls are actually terrified of guys who are hyper aware about deen issues or have a mildly interesting inner life. They just want an empty headed retard who fits the materialistic aspects.
Dont believe the lie diasporoid girls say that they want a guy who’s “religious” and “smart”. These are just affectations they say to make themselves look good. Actual religiously conscious men terrify these women to the core.
🧵I haven’t made a “what I hate about popular entertainment” thread in a while, but regardless, this episode in Black Mirror’s latest season falls right into my “cultural sphere” and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about how utterly horrific it is
So let’s talk about it:
To preface: I’m sure you guys who follow me all know already, but almost all popular depictions of Muslims in media today all suck. Horrifically, gut wrenching levels of low quality trash. It’s libtard diversity token propaganda with cultural communist undertones and never delivers a positive message that leaves the audience fulfilled or having learned anything. You will always leave these productions feeling worse than before.
You might think: is this the usual case of white libs trying to write about cultures they don’t understand and failing as usual? Nope! Not this time.
These shows are made by — you guessed it — second generation “Muslim” diaspora. Where white and Jewish writers only seemed to portray Muslims as terrorists and tech support nerds, actual children of Muslim immigrants who were “traumatized” by such depictions decided to portray us as soy chugging losers “struggling with life” who don’t care about anything and are up for everything. Amazing!
I decided to give this a read. I knew it would be bad, but I didn't expect this. Lmao.
Let's go through it:
The point of this, according to this lady, is to "preserve the Islamic tradition" whilst extrapolating it into modern contexts. It uses, as a primary example to detail her thinking, a "case" she got of a woman who was "ghosted" during the courting process with a man after an argument. There was no nikah contract done, they were doing this purely moving along with social expectations. Therefore, under the tradition's law, there is nothing legally binding on this man. He doesn't owe her anything.
This text however argues, that because we allegedly don't live in a time where this man would be accosted and browbeaten for ghosting this girl (a lie), and that we aren't in Islamically sanctioned lands (in addition to other factors), we can use the sharia to hold him liable in this case. What could possibly go wrong?
Furthermore, she concludes from these reasons that this somehow makes the argument for a need of "female jurists" (AKA Muslim Longhouse Commissars) to help in these cases,
Ah yes, please hit me with "The modern world brings with it a total loss of Sharia, women most affected"
I'm sure this narcissistic perspective won't creep into the rest of this text at all
She then goes on to make her case as to how in the made-up, fake legal issue she has, the man has violated the girl and the sharia. The first point just assumes, as if they could read the mind the male defendant, that he used the courting process as a way to "have access" to her.
Other than this being insane on its face, the implication is very funny. Many Muslim men above the age of 20 have been through the process of trying to court a girl through parents at least once - what exactly are you, a Muslim man in a Western environment, allowed to do with a woman you're courting that's any more than what the rest of the non-mahrams that witnessed her in her life are allowed up until that point?
Seriously, think about it. This point assumes that the woman being courted was just living in a perfect cocoon, having never gone to school, college, etc. Would be great if that were the case, but Miss Badawi just carries this implication along without realizing it.
The only way she can stay consistent after this point is if she also thinks that Muslim women going out in public without a mahram and attending educational institutions in non-Muslim countries is haram. Is she willing to come out with that fatwa as well?