ebs21
Theorycel
★
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2022
- Posts
- 89
*Whitepill at the end - apologies in advance for being longwinded.
I think we can all agree that the current times (with sexual market capitalism, technocracy, 80/20 rule, lesbianpill, etc) fucking suck, but I have been reading around today and I've collected some thoughts that make me feel a little bit better about our sorry state.
We all know that men and women are essentially different species. They don't behave the same way, they are motivated by entirely different things, they don't even really experience life/love/attraction the same way. Men are supposed to claim women with their strength, cunning, etc, and fight to defend them. This is how most of human history was pre-abrahamic religion. In this scenario, the strong won and the weak could go suck shit. You all know this. It's been said to death a million times on this forum and elsewhere.
Religious monogamy and arranged marriage made this better, as imposed grand morals kept relative monogamy compared to natural polygamy/harems, but men could still channel their inherent masculinity by defending their ownership of their wife from out-groups that did not subscribe to the same morality, or otherwise stood in the way of their in-group. You all also already know this. Plus, nobody gives a fuck if you're balding young if you're the provider and protector of your family/community. In harder times, people simply have more pressing things to worry about than physical appearance, so selection is far more weighted towards fitness and survival capability than sexual selection/attractiveness.
Modern life has completely*** (I will get back to this) eliminated the need for men. Modern life's core tenet is not justice, it is STABILITY. The pre-modern world's instability (wars that were not just meat grinders for ruling class interests) meant that there was always a core component of life that required men's natural physical superiority & protective instinct. Even in relatively recent history, such as the settling of most of the US, there was an out-group that made women feel as though they need to be protected - and thus made them feel essential for men.
Modern women no longer have any need for men. The modern west operates on the illusion that history is over and that all governments and societies need to do is maintain stability. With history being over, there is no need for Men - who are prototypical dominant creators/builders and the primary driving force of history, just women - who are passive enjoyers/inhabitants of societies built by men, and undoubtedly made for submission/cooperation.
This is why everything is catered towards women. This is where the lesbianpill fits in. (I'm not gonna restate what the lesbianpill is, we all already know) Even women's own attraction is shifting towards other women, because they subconsciously recognize that neither themselves or society has any need for men, except in the rare case for those top 10% of men who are able bring them maximum hedonistic pleasure. Apart from that, they simply find women more attractive, (objectively true) relatable, and easier to dominate socially so they can raise their social status. Women do not experience attraction to men the same way men experience attraction to women. They want us ONLY if they need us. And they do not, as of right now, need us.
Modern society's gynocentric policing is a part of this too. Police fill the role of providing stability for women, but are kept on a leash as to only receive financial compensation and not affection in return. Thus, they allow the state to fulfill the husband's traditional role of protector in the modern woman's life.
Men are supreme in times of conflict, women utterly superior in times of peace - from the vantage point of those in power. Who needs men running around trying to dominate others and make a name for themselves and cause change when you can just prop up women, let them fuck each other, let them run everything (now with women politicians who perform the maternal role of managing, rather than the paternal role of LEADING) and let men rot and push the grindstone behind the scenes? The only thing we are really useful for is labor...
...Until there is a war. This is the grand miscalculation made by those who support this gynocentric dystopia: History is not over. As I said before, the notion of history being over, popularized by Fukuyama, is an illusion. Fukuyama himself has even recanted the notion that history is over.They actually DO need us, we just don't give a fuck about them anymore, and will use a war to benefit ourselves rather than defend a society we have absolutely no stake in.
We are not in Weimar Germany, at the cusp of WWII, we are in Weimar Earth at the cusp of what may be the most widespread global conflict ever seen. I won't pretend I know when said conflict will start, or who will fire the first shot, but it's coming.
And here's the thing - we win in almost every conceivable conflict scenario:
A) A World War (that does not spiral into total collapse) would mean most healthy men in the west have to go fight, meaning during and post-war there will be a shortage of young, fit males (normies and chads primarily) Incels could also be drafted, but we can game such a scenario to our advantage. We have to posture as anti-war (even while secretly being thrilled at the concept of it) so that we can dodge the draft, etc. If we make this out to be a hippy "no dying for the rich!!!" thing we could probably gain social clout (and foids) off of that alone, since this is more or less what happened surrounding vietnam. And then with a shortage of men, we as the remaining men are more adequately positioned to shape how society is rebuilt post-war.
B) There is large scale collapse but the world doesn't end: This would mean the end of stability and the return of men as a necessity for women's survival and protection against rape. Total 100% victory for incels regardless of who dies in the war itself. Imagine no internet for hypergamy, no police for safety. Society would return to relative tradition within a generation.
C) We all get fucking vaporized or killed in combat, allowing us to die without committing suicide, preserving our dignity. (and access to our respective afterlives)
Literally no matter what happens, we win. We either die, or we regain our value. So we should cheer on any global actors who agitate for military conflict between major countries. I'm literally praying that Putin invades Ukraine or that Biden/some NATO stooge goes apeshit and preemptively provokes Russia. Or maybe it will be something else? NA in general is looking ripe for domestic conflict and civil war, and China is getting hungrier (literally) by the day.
Keep hope, bros.
I think we can all agree that the current times (with sexual market capitalism, technocracy, 80/20 rule, lesbianpill, etc) fucking suck, but I have been reading around today and I've collected some thoughts that make me feel a little bit better about our sorry state.
We all know that men and women are essentially different species. They don't behave the same way, they are motivated by entirely different things, they don't even really experience life/love/attraction the same way. Men are supposed to claim women with their strength, cunning, etc, and fight to defend them. This is how most of human history was pre-abrahamic religion. In this scenario, the strong won and the weak could go suck shit. You all know this. It's been said to death a million times on this forum and elsewhere.
Religious monogamy and arranged marriage made this better, as imposed grand morals kept relative monogamy compared to natural polygamy/harems, but men could still channel their inherent masculinity by defending their ownership of their wife from out-groups that did not subscribe to the same morality, or otherwise stood in the way of their in-group. You all also already know this. Plus, nobody gives a fuck if you're balding young if you're the provider and protector of your family/community. In harder times, people simply have more pressing things to worry about than physical appearance, so selection is far more weighted towards fitness and survival capability than sexual selection/attractiveness.
Modern life has completely*** (I will get back to this) eliminated the need for men. Modern life's core tenet is not justice, it is STABILITY. The pre-modern world's instability (wars that were not just meat grinders for ruling class interests) meant that there was always a core component of life that required men's natural physical superiority & protective instinct. Even in relatively recent history, such as the settling of most of the US, there was an out-group that made women feel as though they need to be protected - and thus made them feel essential for men.
Modern women no longer have any need for men. The modern west operates on the illusion that history is over and that all governments and societies need to do is maintain stability. With history being over, there is no need for Men - who are prototypical dominant creators/builders and the primary driving force of history, just women - who are passive enjoyers/inhabitants of societies built by men, and undoubtedly made for submission/cooperation.
This is why everything is catered towards women. This is where the lesbianpill fits in. (I'm not gonna restate what the lesbianpill is, we all already know) Even women's own attraction is shifting towards other women, because they subconsciously recognize that neither themselves or society has any need for men, except in the rare case for those top 10% of men who are able bring them maximum hedonistic pleasure. Apart from that, they simply find women more attractive, (objectively true) relatable, and easier to dominate socially so they can raise their social status. Women do not experience attraction to men the same way men experience attraction to women. They want us ONLY if they need us. And they do not, as of right now, need us.
Modern society's gynocentric policing is a part of this too. Police fill the role of providing stability for women, but are kept on a leash as to only receive financial compensation and not affection in return. Thus, they allow the state to fulfill the husband's traditional role of protector in the modern woman's life.
Men are supreme in times of conflict, women utterly superior in times of peace - from the vantage point of those in power. Who needs men running around trying to dominate others and make a name for themselves and cause change when you can just prop up women, let them fuck each other, let them run everything (now with women politicians who perform the maternal role of managing, rather than the paternal role of LEADING) and let men rot and push the grindstone behind the scenes? The only thing we are really useful for is labor...
...Until there is a war. This is the grand miscalculation made by those who support this gynocentric dystopia: History is not over. As I said before, the notion of history being over, popularized by Fukuyama, is an illusion. Fukuyama himself has even recanted the notion that history is over.They actually DO need us, we just don't give a fuck about them anymore, and will use a war to benefit ourselves rather than defend a society we have absolutely no stake in.
We are not in Weimar Germany, at the cusp of WWII, we are in Weimar Earth at the cusp of what may be the most widespread global conflict ever seen. I won't pretend I know when said conflict will start, or who will fire the first shot, but it's coming.
And here's the thing - we win in almost every conceivable conflict scenario:
A) A World War (that does not spiral into total collapse) would mean most healthy men in the west have to go fight, meaning during and post-war there will be a shortage of young, fit males (normies and chads primarily) Incels could also be drafted, but we can game such a scenario to our advantage. We have to posture as anti-war (even while secretly being thrilled at the concept of it) so that we can dodge the draft, etc. If we make this out to be a hippy "no dying for the rich!!!" thing we could probably gain social clout (and foids) off of that alone, since this is more or less what happened surrounding vietnam. And then with a shortage of men, we as the remaining men are more adequately positioned to shape how society is rebuilt post-war.
B) There is large scale collapse but the world doesn't end: This would mean the end of stability and the return of men as a necessity for women's survival and protection against rape. Total 100% victory for incels regardless of who dies in the war itself. Imagine no internet for hypergamy, no police for safety. Society would return to relative tradition within a generation.
C) We all get fucking vaporized or killed in combat, allowing us to die without committing suicide, preserving our dignity. (and access to our respective afterlives)
Literally no matter what happens, we win. We either die, or we regain our value. So we should cheer on any global actors who agitate for military conflict between major countries. I'm literally praying that Putin invades Ukraine or that Biden/some NATO stooge goes apeshit and preemptively provokes Russia. Or maybe it will be something else? NA in general is looking ripe for domestic conflict and civil war, and China is getting hungrier (literally) by the day.
Keep hope, bros.
Last edited: