I've been thinking about a few ideas related to the blackpill while I write my book. The blackpill itself can be boiled down into
- Genetic determinism
- Societal gynocentrsim
We are all aware here of genetic determinism, so I will skip over that section. Societal gynocentrism is a far more interesting topic to me, since it is not as discussed in the wider blackpill circles as much as it needs to be. We must understand, above all else, that females are
biologically inherently more valuable than males due to their reproductive monopoly. They are the genetic filters of our species, and the only known source of new humans. The average male is simply more expendable than the average female. This is the source and basis of all gynocentrism, the latest political manifestation of which we refer to as feminism. It is from this basis that a social contract between the sexes forms. The current paradigm was formed sometime after the spread of agriculture, which caused a major bottleneck amongst the male population. This was likely caused by the collection of resources/capital by a smaller group of men. This led to the rise and spread of patrilineal descent and patrilocality. Before then, we had a different social contract, one that placed far more importance on female mate selection over pure ownership of resources. This is what humanity operated under for several millions of years of hunter-gathering, and is what we are returning to under "relative" post-scarcity due to industrialization.
Industrialization has changed the agriculture based social contract. Prior to about 300 years ago, the vast majority of humans lived in rural farming communities. It was here that we saw the establishment of cultural and political norms that allowed what many call the "patriarchy" to flourish. The "patriarchy" is nothing more than a contract between males to share reproductive access. Obviously, females did not like this arrangement, but due to the subsistence level of living many people were in, it was tolerated as part of a broader deal. Women were still able to have their own trades and commercial enterprises, but reproduction was something that required community, church and family approval. The general idea was that if a man did honest work, and was not a complete failure, he could land himself a wife and secure a genetic legacy. This began to change with industrialization, which allowed women to perform the same work as men, broadly speaking. A woman could run the same machine a man could, and the man's natural strength, an asset in agriculture and hunter-gathering, began to diminish. First wave feminism popped up around this era, and women's rights as a modern concept began to take shape.
As time went on, and technology became more and more complex, women were gradually liberated by industrialization. The final nail in the coffin came in the 20th century, when after a combination of WW1 and WW2, women were fully integrated into the workforce alongside men. This arrangement "functioned" for about 20 years or so, until the social revolutions of the 60s and 70s radically challenged the old social structure and contracts. Rather than the old system that men followed, which was a straightforward path to breeding, things became increasingly like the old pre-agricultural norm. Digital technologies only sped up the disintegration. Instant communication and relatively quick travel (cars and planes) opened up the female mating pool to a much broader one. Women could suddenly choose a sexual partner from dozens of men, where before they were limited to their friends and local networks. Social media came into the picture around 2005, and radically changed everything. Now women had access to hundreds of men, and within 10 years, that pool would grow to literal thousands of potential mates. Looks gradually displaced all other forms of a man's worth, until we got to where we have been for the last 10 years or so.
This is all a very brief and abridged version of what actually happened, but it serves its purpose well enough.
Solutions:
There are three schools of thought floating around in our community. I will discuss each of them briefly.
1) Return to traditional values
2) Looksmaxxing
3) LDAR (voluntary withdrawal to speed up the collapse)
All three of these approaches are flawed. The first one is flawed by "traditional values" cannot exist in a non traditional world. Those values do not function when instant communication, mass media, and rapid personal transport exist. They were already starting to crack before widespread adoption of these technologies, and these technologies just delivered a finishing blow to the old patriarchal system. The process of industrialization requires that all human capital be put to use. The nation that uses women as workers will outcompete the one that doesn't. You can see the spread of feminism in real time as the world industrializes. Latin America is a great example of this in action, as is sub-Saharan Africa. Education and women's earning potential are negatively correlated with fertility rate, and its impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. If the Taliban are having trouble doing this, than you better believe it will be impossible for us.
The second solution is the one commonly associated with the blackpill. It will not work long term because of inflation. Gym used to be something only a few guys did back in the 2000s. Now it is required if you want to seriously attempt to date. The same thing will happen to all softmaxxing techniques, something we already see happening ever since Tiktok got a hold of looksmaxxing. Women will adjust their baseline expectations to make sure that the 80/20 rule is maintained. This is how we get hoeflation and looksflation. Looksmaxxers today would've slayed in the 90s and 00s. Now? They are just another fish in the ocean. And looksmaxxing doesn't acknowledge the bigger problem, which is that there will always be a better looking man than you around. As a result, you cannot beat hypergamy.
LDAR is the third commonly proposed solution, which posits that if enough men opt out from participation in feminist society, that society will collapse. Besides the dubiousness of a few million NEETs destroying the system by burdening it down (if it ever became a real problem, it could be fixed politically very easily), NEETing is a very bad idea in the age of advanced copes. It is generally good idea to be a richcel (or just have some savings) versus being a poorcel. No different than gym in this case. You want to be as financially independent as possible, especially since it looks like surplus males everywhere will be on the chopping block in the coming global conflicts brought on by geopolitical multipolarity. I remember speaking to a ukrainian poster on discord who was glad that he had savings. He left in 2022 a few days after the conflict, and he is still alive, unlike some of his mates from back home.
Modern gynocentric society will never allow itself to be reformed in favor of men due to structural bias, and trying to win in a rigged dating market is a waste of time. For many of us, no amount of looksmaxxing will save us from hypergamy and no amount of traditional values will fix the technology problem (as we see in Islamic fertility decline). The only real choices are to revert to a very old subsistence lifestyle, like the Amish, or fully embrace technology and use it to replace women in the same way industrialization has replaced men.
This leads me to the title of this thread, which is male separatism. More radical MSTOW guys back in the early to mid 10s were making predictions that something like the modern blackpill would arise and go mainstream within ten years. Back in those days, in that community, relations with women were considered wastes of time for most men (sub 6s), and that the rest of the manosphere would eventually catch up to that realization. Well look where we are now. MRA was a failure (nobody gives a shit about men's rights), PUA was proven to be bullshit, looksmaxxing is being proven to be bullshit as we speak (just repackaged redpill self improooovement garbage), and MSTOW was absorbed into our ideology. While this was all happening, AI was improving rapidly, as I mentioned above. When I first joined this site, I remember telling everybody that AI companions would be viable within 10 years. Some people called me retarded. It is safe to say now that I was indeed right, and if you want to be in the best possible position to take advantage of these advanced copes, you will need to moneymaxx. I will reiterate my prediction that we will have working sex robots by 2035 or 2040 at the most, and that artificial womb technology will be commercially available by 2050 (early versions are currently in clinical trials for extreme premature babies). It will be entirely possible within 20 years to have a child without involving a woman, and it is currently possible to do all of these things without a romantic relationship (AI gf + surrogacy to be a single dad). Its only a question of how much money you want to spend.
The typical arguments used against this technology will gradually fall away as they become more normalized. We already see AI companions being increasingly used by younger boys and teens, and its likely that they will end up preferring the bots over human females in adulthood. In the same way porn was once viewed as a dirty vice only degenerates looked at, it is now as common as water. AI companions and sexdolls/sexbots will follow the same path. Gradual normalization over a period of about 20 years. How do you think males, partially raised by technology and whose formative dating and romantic encounters were with Turing-complete AI, will react to the increasing financial and social demands of the increasingly vitriolic female sex? Do you think they will choose to coexist with them? Or will they try to minimize and eventually eliminate them from their daily lives? Ask yourself this brocel. If you never had to see another female again for the rest of your life, would you be happy, sad, or indifferent?
Ectogenesis and commercial surrogacy are also gaining steam, as the surrogacy industry continues to expand, and ectogenesis moves from concept to clinical trials. The price of surrogacy has also come down, with globalization driving the price to as low as $60k in some jurisdictions. It is now possible for a middle class male to save up enough money to effectively buy an heir, and, if he practices proper financial management, he could even raise the boy himself (single dads tend to have better outcomes than single moms).
This is where I think the next phase of the blackpill is. It simply makes more sense to pursue these alternatives than to continue to try and placate women who hate you or to just give up and let society fuck you over. I don't exactly know the details of how this transformation will happen, and because the topic is relatively niche even in our circles, I'm not sure how the broader bp community will react to it. But I have a strong prediction that what I've discussed above will be a common discussion point in mainstream society in 15 years as demographic trends continue to progress along their current path and the gender divide becomes even worse. The eventual result of all of this will be the gradual elimination of the female sex over a period of about 120 years (four generations), similar to how internal combustion and electric engines gradually displaced beasts of burden in industrialized society. It will make very little sense to continue supporting them when literally every thing they do could be done better by a man or by a machine. This might not be great news for us today, but the scourge of inceldom, which has existed since the evolutionary introduction of sexual reproduction, will finally end for our species.
