Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

What do you think of my social system idea?

SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 8h 49m
First of all, I want to premise this by saying that this is one in a long line of ideas that I've churned out in my head to try and solve this complex social issue. I am an experimentalist and pretty much like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So if I change my mind on this later, I don't want to hear people accusing me of "not sticking to my principles" or whatever.

I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the:soy::soy::soy: in the comments), religion, competence requirement, "responsibility to live", resistance to change, hatred of systemic explanations and solutions, the whole bit. I wish I could hate more of it- but I know reality, am sane, and don't want the West to fall to the much worse Muslims, or similar masculine barbaric groups that always rise up when great civilizations go "soft".

I hate the boring, inflexible, stifling, and oppressive to the point near evil nature of restrained patriarchy, but I understand that there are three primary modes of being that humans have operated under at least since the Great Bottleneck- restrained patriarchy, unrestrained patriarchy, and feminism.

Unrestrained patriarchy emerges in an environment where some groups have bountiful plenties and do not for whatever reason adequately stand up for themselves and do what feels "mean" in the short term to save their own superior way of life in the long run from those who would seek to plunder it. It's just barbaric tribes of bolgads (dominant assholes) and warlords, with most men dying young in clan battles and a small minority of survivors raping the women of their conquered village, with the chieftain keeping all of the women in his harem. It's little but war, violence, and cutthroat competition, always having to be on guard, very rarely getting pussy when you rape an enemy but otherwise watching your more competent leader fuck his harem for you. For women, it's little more than rape and life as a concubine treated like utter trash, with abuse unimaginable. Children seen to be raised collectively in this environment. In the absence of order, thugs and ISIS and any other group of violent, low IQ males out for pussy and glory are going to act this way. It's a terrible, miserable, evil system for both men and women, and is only really good for the chief warlord of the victors (and even he has to constantly watch his back and will eventually get killed by a stronger and more youthful challenger). It should be our goal to avoid this way of life spreading or conquering our own at all costs.

Restrained patriarchy involves a collective realization by men that they are tired of unrestrained patriarchy. The first thing men do is decide that they want to seize the means of reproduction to encourage behaviors that they notice lead to less suffering in men. Since women still have no authority, this is no issue. They overthrow the harem king. They institute enforced monogamy. Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers. To ensure women don't breed bolgads, they make draconian punishments for sex outside of marriage. They create institutions to deter aggression. They make a religion that emphasizes "wisdom of the ancients" and extreme punishments for defying these moral codes. They build walls to keep to bolgads out. They invent things, they make long-term plans. Children are raised by family, not the community. Wars become less frequent. Women are treated with chivalry provided they be good homemakers, mothers, and wives. Things get better.

In fact, things get a LOT better. People get comfortable with the way things are going, and begin to expect better and better all the time. Men get nicer and nicer, and whole generations are raised with little contact with bolgads and historical tyranny, and little to no sociological understanding. But what they DO notice is this: "Women are people, too! :soy::soy::soy::foidSoy::foidSoy::foidSoy:Resources are plentiful, so women don't need no man! Why can't they be equal!:soy::soy::soy:" By having men continue to support society (because they have to to survive), women abdicate their part of the social contract and take away men's authority, more of men's money, womb-access for non-bolgads, children, sex, housework, you name it, while men continue to largely be responsible for them. They do so individually, as it is their "right" because "men do it, too!" With the help of thoroughly cucked men, women succeed. Children seen to go back a bit to bring raised by the community as opposed to families. This system is called feminism.

But that's not the end of the story, is it? No. Scroll back up to the top of the "unrestrained patriarchy" paragraph. What environment creates a perfect breeding ground for barbaric bolgads? Literally, breeding ground. From both within and without- but mostly, from without. Bolgads are always lurking, looking for opportunities to strike, and destroy "weak" societies with lots of resources and pussy for the taking. So obviously, whores are disloyal to their nation, the nation lets the bolgads in to be more inclusive:soy: , the society forgets what made it great and how to do it, and falls into unrestrained patriarchy again- chaos.

There is clearly a civilizational cycle that oscilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.

So, from all this (and I'm sure many of you are thinking, "water is wet, just get to the point"), it might seem like we just need to return to restrained patriarchy, right? Wrong. Not only does the cycle seem inevitable (meaning restrained patriarchy nearly inevitably leads to feminism), it also- and let me make this clear- sucks. I may have just described restrained patriarchy in a rosy-sounding way, but that's only in comparison to the two other options.

The truth is, feminism sucks for 80% of men, but the main issue with feminism is that it enables and collapses into unrestrained patriarchy (a substantially worse system in terms of lived experience for most men and all women). Unrestrained patriarchy is the true evil, feminism only paves the way for it. Restrained patriarchy, however, sucks for both men and women in a unique way, in how boring, hard and stifling it is. The toiling labor required for upkeep of restrained patriarchy, the social resources wasted, the needless worry on all the excessive social cues- or is it needless? is incredibly GRUELLING. While physically safer and less painful than unrestrained patriarchy, and more sexually and familially secure than either feminism or unrestrained patriarchy, restrained patriarchy tends to have the highest upkeep cost. The strict rules stifle individuality in some ways more than either of the other two. At least feminism honestly allows for the most individual expression (even for men, ie you can be a furry or a wide variety of identities) and usually involves the most material luxury due to being at the end of an empire. Restrained patriarchy doesn't work that way. In other words, restrained patriarchy? It SUCKS, too, and it seems to always lead to something resembling feminism (which, in turn, leads to unrestrained patriarchy, etc).

In fact, when the cycle stops, with the exception of some odd Tibetan matriarchy out there, it usually stops at unrestrained patriarchy, so it can be argued that unrestrained patriarchy is the MOST sustainable of the three. This is because the feminism/unrestrained patriarchy parts of the cycle decimate the gene pool, and unrestrained patriarchy takes active effort and initiative to overcome. However, it still trends towards restrained patriarchy.

So, the cycle sucks. The question is, what can be done to STOP this cycle? Well, there are a few ways:

1) Extinction. This one is one that we've come close to several times- as long ago as the Great Bottleneck and as recently as the Cold War. There are a million ways this could go down, but it will probably come down to human retardation and ideas that disagree with mine:feelzez:. It could be through nuclear war, through straight up dysgenics, but it will most likely have something to do with new technology. Maybe robots will kill us all. Maybe AI will arrive at the singularity and either kill us for it's convenience or put us into an unrecognizable state. Maybe a superbug modified with CRISPR will wipe us all out. Maybe transhumanistfags will convince everyone to give up our humanity and become one with the "global machine" (I consider this to be extinction).

2) Gene modification makes sex obsolete
This is another possibility. What if artificial wombs, synthetic waifus, synthetic females, gene modifications to change women's brains, gene modifications to make men reproduce through mitosis...there are near infinite possibilities. I hate gene modification because of its ethical and foundational implications. Additionally, I'd prefer natural eugenics anyway over being dependent on civilization for my genetic health (the capacity to return to monke if one chooses is a human right). Do I want to allow our underlying genome to deteriorate so much that we would die instantly if not for daily CRISPR "booster updates" administered by the pharmaceutical/Monsanto government Corp? No thanks.

3) We come up with a sixth way, one that does not involve repeating any of the same three steps in the cycle but also does not fundamentally alter or destroy humanity
To me, this is the only option. I have made it a hobby to come up with certain ways to solve this problem.

Specifically, I want to create a system that maintains 90% of the benefits of restrained patriarchy, such as:

-Understanding that people are more likely to get more of what they want when they behave in a way that, if everyone behaved that way, they would be more likely to get what they want
-Understanding that males must work hard enough to sustain themselves and produce additional, surplus value to support women and children, for anything good to come out of society or for it to even function
-Understanding that females must make and raise the children of the man who takes care of her so that productive, intelligent genes are injected into the gene pool
-Understanding that women must provide womb-access to good males and make their children and take care of them early on, especially breastfeeding
-Understanding that bolgads are terrible for everything
-Understanding that men are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor in the form of womb-access and should rise up in revolt and fight for it if it is denied them, and that women are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor (literally, labor), in the form of safety, security, protection, provision, and privilege.
-Understanding that policy action that hurts people in the short run must be implemented to keep out bolgads in the long run
-Understanding that making babies with more than one person in life is bad
-Understanding that taking care of someone else's kid is bad
-Understanding that transgenderism is retarded
-Treating women with care rather than throwing acid on their face for "disrespect"
-In other words, keeping bolgads out and being sustainable and not evil

while:

-Not being inherently religious, because religion is cringe
-Promoting self-awareness and critical philosophical thinking to come to better conclusions instead of promoting blind loyalty to tradition
-Not being toxically masculine
-Understanding that liberation is desirable and only unfeasible for practical reasons
-Supporting cooperation and opposing forcing hierarchy where it doesn't belong (ie constant fistfights, constant need to belittle and one up others and "you're a pussy if you don't participate")
-Understanding that parents are not entitled to anything from their children and their job is to raise adults, not create a picturesque family the way it's "supposed" to be
-Understanding that spanking and other instances of aggressive physical punishment except as to relocate to a different part of or off of one's property are bad, deprivation is a better motivator
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
-Exterminating the "bootstraps" mentality (while still looking rationally at people's options)
-Understanding that competence and morality are both tools, not virtues
-Abolishing gender, using sex instead
-Stopping sayings like "man up" that give validity to transgender theorists by implying that the other person isn't already a man to begin with
-Not leading to feminism by:
-Having BETTER OPTICS and not look like a society that oppresses women even if you're not
-Openly privileging women beyond chivalry, looking optically more gynocentric than the modern West, while not actually being
-Allowing them to provide labor freely, not only to boost productivity but to not openly discriminate
-Understanding that single fathers work fine after age two and that living apart can still raise a fine child
-Understanding that human sexuality is not one-size-fits-all and love is a chemical that literally disappears after 2-3 years, thus attempting to repress promiscuity that does not result in pregnancy with more than one person is paranoid and while efficient to repress, does more harm than good (call me Jewish, but promiscuity is natural, healthy, and as long as good guys are getting something at home from their promiscuous partners, helps women and the top 20% of men more than it hurts the 80% of men). Sex isn't zero-sum if you force it. Basically what I'm saying is that an open relationship with one man and one woman where both partners are allowed to have sex that doesn't result in children other than with each other on the side, the woman still fucks the man, and neither party minds is not bad and in fact a great bargaining chip.
-Getting rid of the concept of "prestige" as a virtue
-Embracing individual expression

This is what I seek to do (for now). Now for a (brief) government policy prescription:

When a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.

The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.

One can only have one caretaker ever (if you lose them, that's it) and one can only be the caretaker for one person, ever.

Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this post). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.

I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.

Thoughts? Is it enough to keep women from choosing bolgads, or at least prefering them, in the process of choosing a caretaker? Is it enough to keep women from delaying pregnancy into their thirties? You tell me. It seems to minimally coercively create some kind of sexual redistribution and be eugenic while if anything appearing like a privilege to women.
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 20434

Deleted member 20434

Cops don't like me. So I don't like cops.
-
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Posts
7,855
Online
82d 2h 58m
I read every word.
 
Pixycel

Pixycel

Pass the weed, bitch, I don’t like to pass the gas
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Posts
10,119
Online
237d 19h 5m
I'm going to keep it real with you boyo no one is going to read the collage essay that you just posted.
Can you boil it down to just a few main points?
 
unuser

unuser

incelwikibrasil.netlify.app
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Posts
1,462
Online
19d 19h 8m
First of all, I want to premise this by saying that this is one in a long line of ideas that I've churned out in my head to try and solve this complex social issue. I am an experimentalist and pretty much like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So if I change my mind on this later, I don't want to hear people accusing me of "not sticking to my principles" or whatever.

I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the:soy::soy::soy: in the comments), religion, competence requirement, "responsibility to live", resistance to change, hatred of systemic explanations and solutions, the whole bit. I wish I could hate more of it- but I know reality, am sane, and don't want the West to fall to the much worse Muslims, or similar masculine barbaric groups that always rise up when great civilizations go "soft".

I hate the boring, inflexible, stifling, and oppressive to the point near evil nature of restrained patriarchy, but I understand that there are three primary modes of being that humans have operated under at least since the Great Bottleneck- restrained patriarchy, unrestrained patriarchy, and feminism.

Unrestrained patriarchy emerges in an environment where some groups have bountiful plenties and do not for whatever reason adequately stand up for themselves and do what feels "mean" in the short term to save their own superior way of life in the long run from those who would seek to plunder it. It's just barbaric tribes of bolgads (dominant assholes) and warlords, with most men dying young in clan battles and a small minority of survivors raping the women of their conquered village, with the chieftain keeping all of the women in his harem. It's little but war, violence, and cutthroat competition, always having to be on guard, very rarely getting pussy when you rape an enemy but otherwise watching your more competent leader fuck his harem for you. For women, it's little more than rape and life as a concubine treated like utter trash, with abuse unimaginable. Children seen to be raised collectively in this environment. In the absence of order, thugs and ISIS and any other group of violent, low IQ males out for pussy and glory are going to act this way. It's a terrible, miserable, evil system for both men and women, and is only really good for the chief warlord of the victors (and even he has to constantly watch his back and will eventually get killed by a stronger and more youthful challenger). It should be our goal to avoid this way of life spreading or conquering our own at all costs.

Restrained patriarchy involves a collective realization by men that they are tired of unrestrained patriarchy. The first thing men do is decide that they want to seize the means of reproduction to encourage behaviors that they notice lead to less suffering in men. Since women still have no authority, this is no issue. They overthrow the harem king. They institute enforced monogamy. Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers. To ensure women don't breed bolgads, they make draconian punishments for sex outside of marriage. They create institutions to deter aggression. They make a religion that emphasizes "wisdom of the ancients" and extreme punishments for defying these moral codes. They build walls to keep to bolgads out. They invent things, they make long-term plans. Children are raised by family, not the community. Wars become less frequent. Women are treated with chivalry provided they be good homemakers, mothers, and wives. Things get better.

In fact, things get a LOT better. People get comfortable with the way things are going, and begin to expect better and better all the time. Men get nicer and nicer, and while generations are raised with little contact with bolgads and historical tyranny, and little to no sociological understanding. But what they DO notice is this: "Women are people, too! :soy::soy::soy::foidSoy::foidSoy::foidSoy: Resources are plentiful, so women don't need no man! Why can't they be equal!:soy::soy::soy:" By having men continue to support society (because they have to to survive), women abdicate their part of the social contract and take away men's authority, more of men's money, womb-access for non-bolgads, children, sex, housework you name it. They do so individually, as it is their "right" because "men do it, too!" With the help of thoroughly cucked men, women succeed. Children seen to go back a bit to bring raised by the community as opposed to families. This system is called feminism.

But that's not the end of the story, is it? No. Scroll back up to the top of the "unrestrained patriarchy" paragraph. What environment creates a perfect breeding ground for barbaric bolgads? Literally. From both within and without- but mostly, from without. Bolgads are always lurking, looking for opportunities to strike, and destroy weak societies with lots of resources and pussy for the taking. So obviously, whores are disloyal to their nation, the nation lets the bolgads in to be more inclusive:soy: , the society forgets what made it great and how to do it, and falls.

There is clearly a civilizational cycle that osilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.

So, from all this (and I'm sure many of you are thinking, "water is wet, just get to the point"), it might seem like we just need to return to restrained patriarchy, right? Wrong. Not only does the cycle seem inevitable, it also- and let me make this clear- sucks. I may have just described restrained patriarchy in a rosy-sounding way, but that's only in comparison to the two other options.

The truth is, feminism sucks for 80% of men, but the main issue with feminism is that it enables and collapses into unrestrained patriarchy (a substantially worse system in terms of lived experience for most men and all women). Unrestrained patriarchy is the true evil, feminism only paves the way for it. Restrained patriarchy, however, sucks for both men and women in a unique way, in how boring, hard and stifling it is. The toiling labor required for upkeep of restrained patriarchy, the social resources wasted, the needless worry on all the excessive social cues- or is it needless? is incredibly GRUELLING. While physically safer and less painful than unrestrained patriarchy, and more sexually and familiarly secure than either feminism or unrestrained patriarchy, restrained patriarchy tends to have the highest upkeep cost. The rules stifle individuality in some ways more than either of the other two. At least feminism honestly allows for the most individual expression (even for men, ie you can be a furry or a wide variety of identities) and usually involves the most material luxury due to being at the end of an empire. Restrained patriarchy doesn't work that way. In other words, restrained patriarchy? It SUCKS, too, and it seems to always lead to something resembling feminism.

In fact, when the cycle stops, with the exception of some odd Tibetan matriarchy out there, it usually stops at unrestrained patriarchy, so it can be argued that unrestrained patriarchy is the MOST sustainable of the three. This is because the feminism/unrestrained patriarchy parts of the cycle decimate the gene pool, and unrestrained patriarchy takes active effort and initiative to overcome. However, it still trends towards restrained patriarchy.

So, the cycle sucks. The question is, what can be done to STOP this cycle? Well, there are a few ways:

1) Extinction. This one is one that we've come close to several times- as long ago as the Great Bottleneck and as recently as the Cold War. There are a million ways this could go down, but it will probably come down to human retardation and ideas that disagree with mine:feelzez:. It could be through nuclear war, through straight up dysgenics, but it will most likely have something to do with new technology. Maybe robots will kill us all. Maybe AI will arrive at the singularity and either kill us for it's convenience or put us into an unrecognizable state. Maybe a superbug modified with CRISPR will wipe us all out. Maybe transhumanistfags will convince everyone to give up our humanity and become one with the "global machine" (I consider this to be extinction).

2) Gene modification makes sex obsolete
This is another possibility. What if artificial wombs, synthetic waifus, synthetic females, gene modifications to change women's brains, gene modifications to make men reproduce through mitosis...there are near infinite possibilities. I hate gene modification because of it's ethical and foundational implications. Additionally, I'd prefer natural eugenics anyway over being dependent on civilization for my genetic health. If we allow our underlying genome to deteriorate so much that we would die instantly if not for daily CRISPR "booster updates" administered by the pharmaceutical/Monsanto government Corp? No thanks.

3) We come up with a sixth way, one that does not involve repeating any of the same three steps in the cycle but also does not fundamentally alter or destroy humanity
To me, this is the only option. I have made it a hobby to come up with certain ways to solve this problem.

Specifically, I want to create a system that maintains 90% of the benefits of restrained patriarchy, such as:

-Understanding that people are more likely to get more of what they want when they behave in a way that, if everyone behaved that way, they would be more likely to get what they want
-Understanding that males must work hard enough to sustain themselves and produce additional, surplus value to support women and children, for anything good to come out of society or for it to even function
-Understanding that females must make and raise the children of the man who takes care of her so that productive, intelligent genes are injected into the gene pool
-Understanding that women must provide womb-access to good males and make their children and take care of them early on, especially breastfeeding
-Understanding that bolgads are terrible for everything
-Understanding that men are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor in the form of womb-access and should rise up in revolt and fight for it if it is denied them, and that women are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor (literally, labor), in the form of safety, security, protection, provision, and privilege.
-Understanding that policy action that hurts people in the short run must be implemented to keep out bolgads in the long run
-Understanding that making babies with more than one person in life is bad
-Understanding that taking care of someone else's kid is bad
-Understanding that transgenderism is retarded
-Treating women with care rather than throwing acid on their face for "disrespect"
-In other words, keeping bolgads out and being sustainable and not evil

while:

-Not being inherently religious, because religion is cringe
-Promoting self-awareness and critical philosophical thinking to come to better conclusions instead of promoting blind loyalty to tradition
-Not being toxically masculine
-Understanding that liberation is desirable and only unfeasible for practical reasons
-Supporting cooperation and opposing forcing hierarchy where it doesn't belong (ie constant fistfights, constant need to belittle and one up others and "you're a pussy if you don't participate")
-Understanding that parents are not entitled to anything from their children and their job is to raise adults, not create a picturesque family the way it's "supposed" to be
-Understanding that spanking and other instances of aggressive physical punishment except as to relocate to a different part of or off of one's property are bad, deprivation is a better motivator
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
-Exterminating the "bootstraps" mentality (while still looking rationally at people's options)
-Understanding that competence and morality are both tools, not virtues
-Abolishing gender, using sex instead
-Stopping sayings like "man up" that give validity to transgender theorists by implying that the other person isn't already a man to begin with
-Not leading to feminism by:
-Having BETTER OPTICS and not look like a society that oppresses women even if you're not
-Openly privileging women beyond chivalry, looking optically more gynocentric than the modern West, while not actually being
-Allowing them to provide labor freely, not only to boost productivity but to not openly discriminate
-Understanding that single fathers work fine after age two and that living apart can still raise a fine child
-Understanding that human sexuality is not one-size-fits-all and love is a chemical that literally disappears after 2-3 years, thus attempting to repress promiscuity that does not result in pregnancy with more than one person is paranoid and while efficient to repress, does more harm than good (call me Jewish, but promiscuity is natural, healthy, and as long as good guys are getting something at home from their promiscuous partners, helps women and the top 20% of men more than it hurts the 80% of men). Sex isn't zero-sum if you force it. Basically what I'm saying is that an open relationship with one man and one woman where both partners are allowed to have sex that doesn't result in children other than with each other on the side, the woman still fucks the man, and neither party minds is not bad and in fact a great bargaining chip.
-Getting rid of the concept of "prestige" as a virtue
-Embracing individual expression

This is what I seek to do (for now). Now for a (brief) government policy prescription:

When a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.

The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.

One can only have one caretaker ever (if you lose them, that's it) and one can only be the caretaker for one person, ever.

Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this post). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.

I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.

Thoughts? Is it enough to keep women from choosing bolgads, or at least prefering them, in the process of choosing a caretaker? Is it enough to keep women from delaying pregnancy into their thirties? You tell me. It seems to minimally coercively create some kind of sexual redistribution and be eugenic while if anything appearing like a privilege to women.
Extremely high IQ thread, you have a better understanding of the situation than 99% of us :bigbrain::bigbrain::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink:

Your analysis of restrained/unrestrained patriarchy and feminism is on point, and I think it would be a solid formalized theory

You are completely right in hating religion, traditionalism etc, but I disagree with some of your solutions

However I'm too lazy and brain-rotten to be able to respond now, so if I decide to do it will be later

I just followed you, sir :feelsokman::feelsokman:
 
Last edited:
J

jjbref

Aziz ansari lookalike
Joined
Jan 28, 2022
Posts
99
Online
1d 23h 14m
@SentimentalCel

Read till the halfway point because I wasn't convinced with how the 3 social systems you mentioned are cyclical. They're definitely linear in terms of progression, with us having seen evidence of unrestrained patriarchy --> restrained patriarchy --> feminism in history, but I don't get how feminism --> unrestrained patriarchy. That would require society to go "backwards" (repress women's rights). Unrestrained patriarchy was only possible because women had little/no social/political importance.

I'll give you an example to help prove my point. Africans when first brought to the US/West were enslaved and had little/no rights --> then were slowly given rights as time passed (vote was worth 3/5 of a white man's, racial segregation) --> Black people in the US are now equal (in the eyes of the law) when compared to a white person. Equal rights --> Enslaved will never happen
 
Last edited:
Reprisial

Reprisial

Subscribe to my YouTube channel
★★★
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Posts
729
Online
12d 2h 27m
Wordwordwordswordswords
I sure do love how the education system forces people to write more than they need to
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 8h 49m
Read till the halfway point because I wasn't convinced with how the 3 social systems you mentioned are cyclical. They're definitely linear in terms of progression, with us having seen evidence of unrestrained patriarchy --> restrained patriarchy --> feminism in history, but I don't get how feminism --> unrestrained patriarchy. That would require society to go "backwards" (repress women's rights). Unrestrained patriarchy was only possible because women had little/no social/political importance.

I'll give you an example to help prove my point. Africans when first brought to the US/West were slaved and had little/no rights --> then were slowly given rights as time passed (vote was worth 3/5 of a white man's, racial segregation) --> Black people in the US are now equal (in the eyes of the law) when compared to a white person. Equal rights --> Enslaved will never happen
It's not a perfect model, it's moreso a framework, and you're right not always cyclical. I did mention (maybe you didn't get to that part yet) that unrestrained patriarchy often stays that way and never changes, and that the system often stops in its tracks or stays a certain way for a long period of time. There are in-between transition phases as well, and the transition has upticks and downticks but merely TRENDS (over an inconceivably long period of time) towards a direction.

But your portrayal of feminism as "equal rights" is naive in the face of evidence, at least if you were portraying that as a good thing. Feminism takes and takes from men the things that women must provide while expecting almost all of the same things from men- as a result, even if women provide significant GDP value they currently provide almost no or even negative value when they work jobs because of the opportunity cost of what they're NOT doing. If you're holding on to a cliff for dear life with your fingers and rather than helping you, someone takes their time to make you a really good-tasting, nice, refreshing glass of lemonade, is that "helping" you? No, because value is relative to need which is variable and differs from sex to sex.

Feminism, by promoting general egalitarian values, giving women systemic authority, allowing women to breed bolgads (the men genetically inclined to, when left to their own devices, make unrestrained patriarchy) and spread their genes, and allowing women to shit-test by doing what they crave which is inviting over unrestrained patriarchy creators (bolgads, who when genetically prominent and extreme enough will overcome contrary environmental pressures and act like bolgads, see almost all American blacks), unrestrained patriarchy gets a window in for domination through outbreeding the low birth rate of the collapsing civilization.

Do you deny that unrestrained patriarchy in the modern world (Islamists being an example that is mixed with a little restrained patriarchy but still mostly unrestrained patriarchy (it's a spectrum, not always "pure") and ghetto blacks being an example that is mixed with some feminism) is strengthen by feminism's cuckoldry?

We are at a very unique point in history where technology has allowed us to advance to a much more advanced stage of feminism than ancient Rome or China ever did during even during their most egalitarian cycles, while also bringing us to the point where technology might finally break the cycle in a disastrous way. However, this is the exception, not the norm.

I discuss this in my post- how the "cycle" may very well be stopped by either extinction or gene modification making sex obsolete. If it weren't for technology, the West probably would have already been taken over by Islamic Civilization (then again, it probably would have take us much longer to advance to this point, so maybe not), but the West's restrained patriarchy was so great and had so much knowledge to build on that it basically made the Industrial Revolution impossible to avoid.
 
D

Deleted member 37148

Self-banned
-
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Posts
2,512
Online
49d 17h 14m
Anybody read that shit :feelsjuice:
 
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Hope is Cope
★★★
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
1,753
Online
46d 9h 6m
This post should be pinned. I agree with alot of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think humanity has the foresight to stop this rollercoaster ride to hell that we’re currently on. I think our best option is extinction. Too many people( men and women) are unwilling to realize/ accept the basic truths espoused in your post. It’s clear that the elite don’t really care for a solution. I think the most realistic solution is extinction through nuclear conflict. Not enough men are awake ( incels excluded) to whats going on. How can we find a solution when most men are unaware/uncaring for what’s currently occurring?
 
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
4,092
Online
109d 23h 14m
Didn’t read
 
K

kampman

waiting for the end
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Posts
7,519
Online
196d 13h 38m
Very interesting observation

I think the description of this cycle of three historic phases is very accurate, although I don't find it likely that any group of humans will ever be able to freeze the cycle at a certain point, much less create something new, or even a mixture of several systems.

I particularly agree with yor rejection of religion and stereotypical tradcuck behavior (violent masculinity, etc.)

Your support for this idea of "regulated promiscuity" would receive severe backlash on this forum, if more than 3% of the members were able to read such a long post.
 
Jez

Jez

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 19, 2022
Posts
94
Online
9h 14m
Oh god it's the bible guy again.
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 8h 49m
This post should be pinned. I agree with alot of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think humanity has the foresight to stop this rollercoaster ride to hell that we’re currently on. I think our best option is extinction. Too many people( men and women) are unwilling to realize/ accept the basic truths espoused in your post. It’s clear that the elite don’t really care for a solution. I think the most realistic solution is extinction through nuclear conflict. Not enough men are awake ( incels excluded) to whats going on. How can we find a solution when most men are unaware/uncaring for what’s currently occurring?
Pinned? I am flattered :feelzez: .And while I acknowledge that you are PROBABLY right, I think it's worth fighting for. Think about it- if we or high IQ factions (groups "in the know") never get enough influence to save the world, then we or they most likely won't have enough influence for our or their attempt to save the world to meaningfully get in the way of human extinction, anyway. Either we get enough influence to save humanity, or we never even get enough influence to stop extinction.

The most logical thing to do is to spend one's effort fighting for the salvation of humanity from hell, IMO.
Very interesting observation

I think the description of this cycle of three historic phases is very accurate,
Thank you!
although I don't find it likely that any group of humans will ever be able to freeze the cycle at a certain point,
Some societies in Africa have been hard patriarchies for a long time. But I see your point.
much less create something new,
Read my other comment in this thread. I think that technology puts us in unique, historically abnormal situation where gene modification, AI, and nukes make us more likely to break the cycle through either extinction or being changed into something unrecognizable.
or even a mixture of several systems.
Keep in mind that a mixture of several systems has existed.

While it's obvious that early Medieval Europe was an unrestrained patriarchy and late Medieval Europe was a restrained patriarchy, Medieval Europe had a transition phase around the year 1000 where monogamy was enforced but chivalry was common yet and extramarital rape was common. I call this "transition patriarchy".

In the US in the 1950s, women could vote, own property, etc. but marriage bars were common (banning married women from employment), women were expected to get married and have babies, discrimination was common, breadwinner/housewife households were the norm and expectation, divorce was made extremely difficult and penalized, etc. Of course, this was unsustainable, as the period between 1920 and 1980 represented a transition phase where more and more women felt empowered to strip things away from men while demanding the same old things or even more. The 1950s were themselves a period of sliding down this slope. 1964 probably marks the official "beginning" of feminism, if I was to give one. But I would call the system practiced in the 1950s "social traditionalism". This is believed in by a certain subsect of hardline Christian conservatives who aren't willing to fully commit to patriarchy. The prevalent ideology of the 1980s was more "masculine gynocentrism", one that is still believed in by mainstream conservatives (Republicans) today, although it is currently losing popularity compared to ideologies further up or down the cycle than it, "muh 1980s" is still the mainstream Republican platform.
I particularly agree with yor rejection of religion and stereotypical tradcuck behavior (violent masculinity, etc.)
Good. Fuck that shit.
Your support for this idea of "regulated promiscuity" would receive severe backlash on this forum, if more than 3% of the members were able to read such a long post.
Why even comment if they're not going to read the post? And yeah, I've always tried to integrate human nature with societal flourishing in the least harmful way possible- what do YOU think of it?
Oh god it's the bible guy again.
What do you mean?
 
K

kampman

waiting for the end
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Posts
7,519
Online
196d 13h 38m
what do YOU think of it?
I don't know if a society with such sexual and relationship customs will lead to the majority being sexually and/or emotionally satisfied. I have my doubts, especially concerning males who have a harder time accepting non-monogamic sexual behavior from females they are in relationship with. I don't need to tell you the reasons why.
 
Jmax

Jmax

captive elephant
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Posts
589
Online
11d 15h 5m
Your assessment of societal systems is astute, though I was confused about this part:
I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.
When you say "giving money", do you mean that women should be outlawed from having jobs to encourage dedicating themselves in partnerships with men, or do you mean simping should be outlawed? If you mean that these things would not be outlawed, and that men are voluntarily choosing to stop giving women resources, how would you motivate them to do so? Would they not rather end up in the same state we see now, with feminism, where they throw money at women for a crumb of validation? And if that is the case, how practically could the shift be made when so many men have been indoctrinated by feminism? How will power be usurped from the matriarchy?
 
JealousyandHatred

JealousyandHatred

#manletpride2022 vulnerable boy abused by AD
★★★★
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Posts
1,362
Online
36d 16h 24m
Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting
:soy::soy:

Why make some weak, long-winded post just to cuckpill people? Cook your ideas a bit longer in your head before fully disclosing them. Your post is all over the place. I advice you also partake in discussion before spitting a whole essay out in one-go.
 
Deleted member 40050

Deleted member 40050

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 4, 2022
Posts
744
Online
7d 22h 8m
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
This is your thread in a nutshell. You're basically saying "you should be aware if you're genetic trash, just go gay or kill yourself bro!"
:soy::soy:

Why make some weak, long-winded post just to cuckpill people? Cook your ideas a bit longer in your head before fully disclosing them. Your post is all over the place. I advice you also partake in discussion before spitting a whole essay out in one-go.
OP is just trying to turn incels gay or get them to rope
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 8h 49m
I don't know if a society with such sexual and relationship customs will lead to the majority being sexually and/or emotionally satisfied. I have my doubts, especially concerning males who have a harder time accepting non-monogamic sexual behavior from females they are in relationship with. I don't need to tell you the reasons why.
I simply believe that either should be an option. I am not saying all people should be forced to accept open relationships, I am saying we should create a system that (theoretically) allows those who prefer monogamy and those who prefer one man one woman open relationships (as well as homosexual relationships) to all coexist while still being functional with sustainable fertility, women breeding young, eugenic (or at least non-dysgenic) outcomes, and more redistributed sex than unrestrained patriarchy or feminism.
Your assessment of societal systems is astute, though I was confused about this part:

When you say "giving money", do you mean that women should be outlawed from having jobs to encourage dedicating themselves in partnerships with men, or do you mean simping should be outlawed? If you mean that these things would not be outlawed, and that men are voluntarily choosing to stop giving women resources, how would you motivate them to do so? Would they not rather end up in the same state we see now, with feminism, where they throw money at women for a crumb of validation? And if that is the case, how practically could the shift be made when so many men have been indoctrinated by feminism? How will power be usurped from the matriarchy?
When I say "giving money" I mean both careers AND simping, but I'm talking about voluntary, private unions, not outlawing in this case (though I can see an argument for that). Assuming that such policies would be implemented, we are already assuming that men come to a collective realization that they must do something about matriarchy.

Consider that during the 1950s women could vote, own property, and basically do whatever legally, but social pressure for them to "voluntarily" enter into binding marriage contracts coupled with marriage bars (the private and spontaneous practice of men freely and voluntarily, free of government intervention, choosing to bar married women from employment) helped somewhat enforce patriarchy. Now, granted, this didn't last, but it's an example that men can spontaneously bar women who don't do their duty from sustaining themselves without being dependent on men.

And you're right that modern men are cucked, but it's possible that we can change that. Is it unlikely? Yes it's a long shot, but we should try it anyway. It's not like we have anything better to do, IMO.
:soy::soy:

Why make some weak, long-winded post just to cuckpill people? Cook your ideas a bit longer in your head before fully disclosing them. Your post is all over the place. I advice you also partake in discussion before spitting a whole essay out in one-go.
I've been "cooking" these ideas for years. And I make multiple points in my post because I'm trying to fill people in on the background. I don't think that's a bad thing. Also, literally:
Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the:soy::soy::soy: in the comments),
Congratulations, you are the :soy::soy::soy: in the comments.
This is your thread in a nutshell. You're basically saying "you should be aware if you're genetic trash, just go gay or kill yourself bro!"
Who says I'm singling out guys who are genetic trash? And who says it's genetic trash who aren't getting laid? Blackpillers and idiots, I'm aware, but I am not even blackpilled.

I'm not telling anyone to go gay, I'm saying if you're already gay, you should be allowed to have gay sex and relationships without being judged, ie the cultural stigma around it should not be brought back.

Who says my take is that everyone should kill themselves? I'm just saying it's never wrong, not that it's always right. And "Chad" is never wrong in killing himself either.
OP is just trying to turn incels gay or get them to rope
:feelstastyman::feelstastyman::feelstastyman: My ideas, by making life optional, would result in LESS suicide if implemented, because rather than being forced into ostracization by a shaming society people would be allowed the liberty to continue or not. Suicidal genes would be wiped out of the gene pool faster in the short-term, and in the long-term people would be happier with more control over their bodies, they wouldn't feel the NEED to kill myself. Were suicide normalized and society stopped locking people up for potentially being a "danger to themselves", I know I would become less suicidal, not moreso, and so would millions of mentally ill people who are the demographic most likely to kill themselves. But sure, have fun with your War on Drugs-tier imprisoning people for being "a danger to themselves or others" that just makes people into more dangerous slaves in the long run, JFL :feelshaha::feelshaha::feelshaha:.
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 40050

Deleted member 40050

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 4, 2022
Posts
744
Online
7d 22h 8m
I'm not telling anyone to go gay, I'm saying if you're already gay, you should be allowed to have gay sex and relationships without being judged, ie the cultural stigma around it should not be brought back.
If you do that then gays will do stuff like demand marriage rights and try to indoctrinate children and promote "experimenting". They aren't content with just having rights for themselves, they wanna push it on society, (see the pride parades).
 
RandomGuy

RandomGuy

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 20, 2018
Posts
6,109
Online
144d 9h 54m
A0C9E0CA 35F2 4942 B84E 37FD00D706BC
 
C

CurrycelRaja

Officer
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Posts
576
Online
5d 7h 40m
This shit will end like the
Do the Evolution Music Video by Pearl Jam
:feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink::feelsthink:
 
Filipinocel

Filipinocel

Ricecel subspecie
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Posts
1,082
Online
12d 14h 18m
I'm gonna credit you for the term bolgad.:feelsthink:
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 8h 49m
I'm gonna credit you for the term bolgad.:feelsthink:
Oh, if you like this, and want to understand bolgads more comprehensively, you'll love my post here. It is long, so skip to the section labelled "The retardation of lookism and the basedness of Bolgad Theory."
 
YBP Yxngcel

YBP Yxngcel

Neurodivergent
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Posts
1,551
Online
20d 3h 26m
First of all, I want to premise this by saying that this is one in a long line of ideas that I've churned out in my head to try and solve this complex social issue. I am an experimentalist and pretty much like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So if I change my mind on this later, I don't want to hear people accusing me of "not sticking to my principles" or whatever.

I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the:soy::soy::soy: in the comments), religion, competence requirement, "responsibility to live", resistance to change, hatred of systemic explanations and solutions, the whole bit. I wish I could hate more of it- but I know reality, am sane, and don't want the West to fall to the much worse Muslims, or similar masculine barbaric groups that always rise up when great civilizations go "soft".

I hate the boring, inflexible, stifling, and oppressive to the point near evil nature of restrained patriarchy, but I understand that there are three primary modes of being that humans have operated under at least since the Great Bottleneck- restrained patriarchy, unrestrained patriarchy, and feminism.

Unrestrained patriarchy emerges in an environment where some groups have bountiful plenties and do not for whatever reason adequately stand up for themselves and do what feels "mean" in the short term to save their own superior way of life in the long run from those who would seek to plunder it. It's just barbaric tribes of bolgads (dominant assholes) and warlords, with most men dying young in clan battles and a small minority of survivors raping the women of their conquered village, with the chieftain keeping all of the women in his harem. It's little but war, violence, and cutthroat competition, always having to be on guard, very rarely getting pussy when you rape an enemy but otherwise watching your more competent leader fuck his harem for you. For women, it's little more than rape and life as a concubine treated like utter trash, with abuse unimaginable. Children seen to be raised collectively in this environment. In the absence of order, thugs and ISIS and any other group of violent, low IQ males out for pussy and glory are going to act this way. It's a terrible, miserable, evil system for both men and women, and is only really good for the chief warlord of the victors (and even he has to constantly watch his back and will eventually get killed by a stronger and more youthful challenger). It should be our goal to avoid this way of life spreading or conquering our own at all costs.

Restrained patriarchy involves a collective realization by men that they are tired of unrestrained patriarchy. The first thing men do is decide that they want to seize the means of reproduction to encourage behaviors that they notice lead to less suffering in men. Since women still have no authority, this is no issue. They overthrow the harem king. They institute enforced monogamy. Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers. To ensure women don't breed bolgads, they make draconian punishments for sex outside of marriage. They create institutions to deter aggression. They make a religion that emphasizes "wisdom of the ancients" and extreme punishments for defying these moral codes. They build walls to keep to bolgads out. They invent things, they make long-term plans. Children are raised by family, not the community. Wars become less frequent. Women are treated with chivalry provided they be good homemakers, mothers, and wives. Things get better.

In fact, things get a LOT better. People get comfortable with the way things are going, and begin to expect better and better all the time. Men get nicer and nicer, and whole generations are raised with little contact with bolgads and historical tyranny, and little to no sociological understanding. But what they DO notice is this: "Women are people, too! :soy::soy::soy::foidSoy::foidSoy::foidSoy:Resources are plentiful, so women don't need no man! Why can't they be equal!:soy::soy::soy:" By having men continue to support society (because they have to to survive), women abdicate their part of the social contract and take away men's authority, more of men's money, womb-access for non-bolgads, children, sex, housework, you name it, while men continue to largely be responsible for them. They do so individually, as it is their "right" because "men do it, too!" With the help of thoroughly cucked men, women succeed. Children seen to go back a bit to bring raised by the community as opposed to families. This system is called feminism.

But that's not the end of the story, is it? No. Scroll back up to the top of the "unrestrained patriarchy" paragraph. What environment creates a perfect breeding ground for barbaric bolgads? Literally, breeding ground. From both within and without- but mostly, from without. Bolgads are always lurking, looking for opportunities to strike, and destroy "weak" societies with lots of resources and pussy for the taking. So obviously, whores are disloyal to their nation, the nation lets the bolgads in to be more inclusive:soy: , the society forgets what made it great and how to do it, and falls into unrestrained patriarchy again- chaos.

There is clearly a civilizational cycle that oscilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.

So, from all this (and I'm sure many of you are thinking, "water is wet, just get to the point"), it might seem like we just need to return to restrained patriarchy, right? Wrong. Not only does the cycle seem inevitable (meaning restrained patriarchy nearly inevitably leads to feminism), it also- and let me make this clear- sucks. I may have just described restrained patriarchy in a rosy-sounding way, but that's only in comparison to the two other options.

The truth is, feminism sucks for 80% of men, but the main issue with feminism is that it enables and collapses into unrestrained patriarchy (a substantially worse system in terms of lived experience for most men and all women). Unrestrained patriarchy is the true evil, feminism only paves the way for it. Restrained patriarchy, however, sucks for both men and women in a unique way, in how boring, hard and stifling it is. The toiling labor required for upkeep of restrained patriarchy, the social resources wasted, the needless worry on all the excessive social cues- or is it needless? is incredibly GRUELLING. While physically safer and less painful than unrestrained patriarchy, and more sexually and familially secure than either feminism or unrestrained patriarchy, restrained patriarchy tends to have the highest upkeep cost. The strict rules stifle individuality in some ways more than either of the other two. At least feminism honestly allows for the most individual expression (even for men, ie you can be a furry or a wide variety of identities) and usually involves the most material luxury due to being at the end of an empire. Restrained patriarchy doesn't work that way. In other words, restrained patriarchy? It SUCKS, too, and it seems to always lead to something resembling feminism (which, in turn, leads to unrestrained patriarchy, etc).

In fact, when the cycle stops, with the exception of some odd Tibetan matriarchy out there, it usually stops at unrestrained patriarchy, so it can be argued that unrestrained patriarchy is the MOST sustainable of the three. This is because the feminism/unrestrained patriarchy parts of the cycle decimate the gene pool, and unrestrained patriarchy takes active effort and initiative to overcome. However, it still trends towards restrained patriarchy.

So, the cycle sucks. The question is, what can be done to STOP this cycle? Well, there are a few ways:

1) Extinction. This one is one that we've come close to several times- as long ago as the Great Bottleneck and as recently as the Cold War. There are a million ways this could go down, but it will probably come down to human retardation and ideas that disagree with mine:feelzez:. It could be through nuclear war, through straight up dysgenics, but it will most likely have something to do with new technology. Maybe robots will kill us all. Maybe AI will arrive at the singularity and either kill us for it's convenience or put us into an unrecognizable state. Maybe a superbug modified with CRISPR will wipe us all out. Maybe transhumanistfags will convince everyone to give up our humanity and become one with the "global machine" (I consider this to be extinction).

2) Gene modification makes sex obsolete
This is another possibility. What if artificial wombs, synthetic waifus, synthetic females, gene modifications to change women's brains, gene modifications to make men reproduce through mitosis...there are near infinite possibilities. I hate gene modification because of its ethical and foundational implications. Additionally, I'd prefer natural eugenics anyway over being dependent on civilization for my genetic health (the capacity to return to monke if one chooses is a human right). Do I want to allow our underlying genome to deteriorate so much that we would die instantly if not for daily CRISPR "booster updates" administered by the pharmaceutical/Monsanto government Corp? No thanks.

3) We come up with a sixth way, one that does not involve repeating any of the same three steps in the cycle but also does not fundamentally alter or destroy humanity
To me, this is the only option. I have made it a hobby to come up with certain ways to solve this problem.

Specifically, I want to create a system that maintains 90% of the benefits of restrained patriarchy, such as:

-Understanding that people are more likely to get more of what they want when they behave in a way that, if everyone behaved that way, they would be more likely to get what they want
-Understanding that males must work hard enough to sustain themselves and produce additional, surplus value to support women and children, for anything good to come out of society or for it to even function
-Understanding that females must make and raise the children of the man who takes care of her so that productive, intelligent genes are injected into the gene pool
-Understanding that women must provide womb-access to good males and make their children and take care of them early on, especially breastfeeding
-Understanding that bolgads are terrible for everything
-Understanding that men are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor in the form of womb-access and should rise up in revolt and fight for it if it is denied them, and that women are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor (literally, labor), in the form of safety, security, protection, provision, and privilege.
-Understanding that policy action that hurts people in the short run must be implemented to keep out bolgads in the long run
-Understanding that making babies with more than one person in life is bad
-Understanding that taking care of someone else's kid is bad
-Understanding that transgenderism is retarded
-Treating women with care rather than throwing acid on their face for "disrespect"
-In other words, keeping bolgads out and being sustainable and not evil

while:

-Not being inherently religious, because religion is cringe
-Promoting self-awareness and critical philosophical thinking to come to better conclusions instead of promoting blind loyalty to tradition
-Not being toxically masculine
-Understanding that liberation is desirable and only unfeasible for practical reasons
-Supporting cooperation and opposing forcing hierarchy where it doesn't belong (ie constant fistfights, constant need to belittle and one up others and "you're a pussy if you don't participate")
-Understanding that parents are not entitled to anything from their children and their job is to raise adults, not create a picturesque family the way it's "supposed" to be
-Understanding that spanking and other instances of aggressive physical punishment except as to relocate to a different part of or off of one's property are bad, deprivation is a better motivator
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
-Exterminating the "bootstraps" mentality (while still looking rationally at people's options)
-Understanding that competence and morality are both tools, not virtues
-Abolishing gender, using sex instead
-Stopping sayings like "man up" that give validity to transgender theorists by implying that the other person isn't already a man to begin with
-Not leading to feminism by:
-Having BETTER OPTICS and not look like a society that oppresses women even if you're not
-Openly privileging women beyond chivalry, looking optically more gynocentric than the modern West, while not actually being
-Allowing them to provide labor freely, not only to boost productivity but to not openly discriminate
-Understanding that single fathers work fine after age two and that living apart can still raise a fine child
-Understanding that human sexuality is not one-size-fits-all and love is a chemical that literally disappears after 2-3 years, thus attempting to repress promiscuity that does not result in pregnancy with more than one person is paranoid and while efficient to repress, does more harm than good (call me Jewish, but promiscuity is natural, healthy, and as long as good guys are getting something at home from their promiscuous partners, helps women and the top 20% of men more than it hurts the 80% of men). Sex isn't zero-sum if you force it. Basically what I'm saying is that an open relationship with one man and one woman where both partners are allowed to have sex that doesn't result in children other than with each other on the side, the woman still fucks the man, and neither party minds is not bad and in fact a great bargaining chip.
-Getting rid of the concept of "prestige" as a virtue
-Embracing individual expression

This is what I seek to do (for now). Now for a (brief) government policy prescription:

When a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.

The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.

If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.

One can only have one caretaker ever (if you lose them, that's it) and one can only be the caretaker for one person, ever.

Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this post). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.

I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.

Thoughts? Is it enough to keep women from choosing bolgads, or at least prefering them, in the process of choosing a caretaker? Is it enough to keep women from delaying pregnancy into their thirties? You tell me. It seems to minimally coercively create some kind of sexual redistribution and be eugenic while if anything appearing like a privilege to women.
Please Please Please! For the sake of anybody even reading your long ass essay posts. Break it down to the MAIN points that your trying put out. Trim out all the extra stuff that won't help us get the main point. Just some advice boyo
 
Deleted member 41061

Deleted member 41061

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
-
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Posts
1,336
Online
8d 2h 1m
Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers.
I will possibly send you to Auschwitz because of that stuping saying. Breadwinner :lul::lul::lul: What the fuck? What do I have to do to get a foid? Build a ship? Dance? Masturbate? You take the bitch and rape her. Muh breadwinner.
 
Intellau_Celistic

Intellau_Celistic

5'3 KHHV Mentalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Posts
14,890
Online
182d 7h 36m
i read the first sentence and gave up
Wordwordwordswordswords
I sure do love how the education system forces people to write more than they need to
Anybody read that shit :feelsjuice:
Didn’t read
Oh god it's the bible guy again.

Under ordinary circumstances, it should take only about four to seven minutes to read and comprehend this.

Note: "Ordinary".
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 41061

Deleted member 41061

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
-
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Posts
1,336
Online
8d 2h 1m
Max Stirner destroyed your view 200 years ago. Generally why should I care about your system? Why should I care about anyone benefits but mine? It is all idee fixe, an ideal like any other system. People are all egoists and create philosphy, systems and all of that shit just to control individual for collective and collective's ruler/rulers.

I prefer anarchy, but even then you motherfuckers will try by creating collective to make me succumb to you or else death right?

That's why it would be better if life never existed
 
grondilu

grondilu

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Posts
7,242
Online
179d 21h 19m
There is clearly a civilizational cycle that oscilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.


Ding ding ding.:feelsautistic:



I've long suspected that too. I think these cycles are longer than the historic period, so we only know one part of them, but I suspect there are hints of these cycles in historic documents. Be it the old mythologies, the Mayan calendar or even the Hebraic bible.


I also suspect that these historic accounts of the "old ways" are voluntarily cryptic, because those who know about them don't want to revive them by letting the people know that other ways exist. But they also want to transmit the knowledge to the younger generations so that they can reckognize amd fight what you call the "bolgads* if they ever "wake up".

In Greek mythology for instance, I think this is more or less what the Titanomachy is about :


Basically, the Titans were the bolgads, the Olympians were what you call the restraigned patiarchs, and Western civilization are the feminists. The hebraic civilizations were transitional IMHO, they essentially worship familly (thus Hera) and they led to feminism.
 
Last edited:
turbosperg

turbosperg

PTSD ADD NW4 5'9 4/10 sperg
★★★★
Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Posts
393
Online
4d 11h 12m
@SentimentalCel Cool system for a sci-fi novel, but won't work in real world. These 3 eras are cyclical and non-transitive, like a rock-paper-scissors game (there is no ultimate stable strategy). The reason for that is thus: foids are biologically wired (hypergamy) to give themselves and their resources (see Tinder Swindler) to chads/bolgads/alpha males; alphas give women and resources to beta males, to keep them productive, loyal and obedient and thus help him outcompete other alphas; beta males give their resources to women in order to score some pussy. Thus the cycle is complete.

Feminism is just the phase of foid supremacy, in which foids accumulated so many resources, privileges, etc. that they don't need beta males anymore, so they incelize them. These foids will throw themselves and all their resources at Tinder Swinders, chads, and consumption of corporate products to enrich chads and jews.

Since foids are feeble, irresponsible, and desire nothing more than to be taken care of by chad (put in a harem), they can't maintain civilization, so the collapse is inevitable. After the collapse, chads will own all the foids and resources, the only competition they'll have is a game of one-upmanship with other chads . In order to succeed these alphas will need to recruit talent (from incel betas) in exchange for pussy and money (or a promise thereof). This is unrestrained patriarchy.

These incel betas will de-incelize, form families, and compete with other betas for pussy. In order to out-bid the next beta they will offer ever increasing amounts of resources and privileges to foids until society becomes foid-supremacist (feminist) once again. This is restrained patriarchy.

The only way out of this 3-stage cycle is if we breed a race in which the foids don't display hypergamy, the alphas don't display competitiveness, and betas don't display simping. These behaviors are innate to humans, so there is no way out of it without serious selective breeding (eugenics), transhumanism, etc.

@grondilu
 
K

kampman

waiting for the end
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Posts
7,519
Online
196d 13h 38m
@SentimentalCel Cool system for a sci-fi novel, but won't work in real world. These 3 eras are cyclical and non-transitive, like a rock-paper-scissors game (there is no ultimate stable strategy). The reason for that is thus: foids are biologically wired (hypergamy) to give themselves and their resources (see Tinder Swindler) to chads/bolgads/alpha males; alphas give women and resources to beta males, to keep them productive, loyal and obedient and thus help him outcompete other alphas; beta males give their resources to women in order to score some pussy. Thus the cycle is complete.

Feminism is just the phase of foid supremacy, in which foids accumulated so many resources, privileges, etc. that they don't need beta males anymore, so they incelize them. These foids will throw themselves and all their resources at Tinder Swinders, chads, and consumption of corporate products to enrich chads and jews.

Since foids are feeble, irresponsible, and desire nothing more than to be taken care of by chad (put in a harem), they can't maintain civilization, so the collapse is inevitable. After the collapse, chads will own all the foids and resources, the only competition they'll have is a game of one-upmanship with other chads . In order to succeed these alphas will need to recruit talent (from incel betas) in exchange for pussy and money (or a promise thereof). This is unrestrained patriarchy.

These incel betas will de-incelize, form families, and compete with other betas for pussy. In order to out-bid the next beta they will offer ever increasing amounts of resources and privileges to foids until society becomes foid-supremacist (feminist) once again. This is restrained patriarchy.

The only way out of this 3-stage cycle is if we breed a race in which the foids don't display hypergamy, the alphas don't display competitiveness, and betas don't display simping. These behaviors are innate to humans, so there is no way out of it without serious selective breeding (eugenics), transhumanism, etc.

@grondilu
Seems accurate, there's no way out of the cycle.
It will happen again, and again and again, and again.
 
Dassadeinmush

Dassadeinmush

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Posts
444
Online
2d 5h 28m
OP types like a foid
 
Dassadeinmush

Dassadeinmush

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Posts
444
Online
2d 5h 28m
It's not a perfect model, it's moreso a framework, and you're right not always cyclical. I did mention (maybe you didn't get to that part yet) that unrestrained patriarchy often stays that way and never changes, and that the system often stops in its tracks or stays a certain way for a long period of time. There are in-between transition phases as well, and the transition has upticks and downticks but merely TRENDS (over an inconceivably long period of time) towards a direction.

But your portrayal of feminism as "equal rights" is naive in the face of evidence, at least if you were portraying that as a good thing. Feminism takes and takes from men the things that women must provide while expecting almost all of the same things from men- as a result, even if women provide significant GDP value they currently provide almost no or even negative value when they work jobs because of the opportunity cost of what they're NOT doing. If you're holding on to a cliff for dear life with your fingers and rather than helping you, someone takes their time to make you a really good-tasting, nice, refreshing glass of lemonade, is that "helping" you? No, because value is relative to need which is variable and differs from sex to sex.

Feminism, by promoting general egalitarian values, giving women systemic authority, allowing women to breed bolgads (the men genetically inclined to, when left to their own devices, make unrestrained patriarchy) and spread their genes, and allowing women to shit-test by doing what they crave which is inviting over unrestrained patriarchy creators (bolgads, who when genetically prominent and extreme enough will overcome contrary environmental pressures and act like bolgads, see almost all American blacks), unrestrained patriarchy gets a window in for domination through outbreeding the low birth rate of the collapsing civilization.

Do you deny that unrestrained patriarchy in the modern world (Islamists being an example that is mixed with a little restrained patriarchy but still mostly unrestrained patriarchy (it's a spectrum, not always "pure") and ghetto blacks being an example that is mixed with some feminism) is strengthen by feminism's cuckoldry?

We are at a very unique point in history where technology has allowed us to advance to a much more advanced stage of feminism than ancient Rome or China ever did during even during their most egalitarian cycles, while also bringing us to the point where technology might finally break the cycle in a disastrous way. However, this is the exception, not the norm.

I discuss this in my post- how the "cycle" may very well be stopped by either extinction or gene modification making sex obsolete. If it weren't for technology, the West probably would have already been taken over by Islamic Civilization (then again, it probably would have take us much longer to advance to this point, so maybe not), but the West's restrained patriarchy was so great and had so much knowledge to build on that it basically made the Industrial Revolution impossible to avoid.
Actions > Words. You can't change nature with new kewl complex ideas, primordial truth remains
 
Transcended Trucel

Transcended Trucel

Scholar of Conciousness
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Posts
35,466
Online
349d 21h 13m
I will possibly send you to Auschwitz because of that stuping saying. Breadwinner :lul::lul::lul: What the fuck? What do I have to do to get a foid? Build a ship? Dance? Masturbate? You take the bitch and rape her. Muh breadwinner.
giga based. women should be property and nothing more. How a man treats his property should be solely his business
 
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Autistic social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
11,479
Online
63d 1h 43m
I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the:soy::soy::soy: in the comments),
Why say it then if you're already aware that you're a soy idiot? :feelsjuice:
 
sub human

sub human

not virgin
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
6,259
Online
30d 23h 40m
Read more books
 
Izayacel

Izayacel

LUMINOUS LUTHER "
★★★★★
Joined
May 5, 2018
Posts
12,033
Online
49d 17h 1m
This post should be pinned. I agree with alot of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think humanity has the foresight to stop this rollercoaster ride to hell that we’re currently on. I think our best option is extinction. Too many people( men and women) are unwilling to realize/ accept the basic truths espoused in your post. It’s clear that the elite don’t really care for a solution. I think the most realistic solution is extinction through nuclear conflict. Not enough men are awake ( incels excluded) to whats going on. How can we find a solution when most men are unaware/uncaring for what’s currently occurring?
 

Similar threads

Swedeguy93
Replies
11
Views
227
BarrelStuffer
B
I
Replies
12
Views
528
Detro
Detro
Swedeguy93
Replies
9
Views
326
berais
berais
The Hanged Man
Replies
6
Views
221
Lv99_BixNood
Lv99_BixNood
Edmund_Kemper
Replies
56
Views
2K
anonymous106
anonymous106
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top