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.

Why I am not blackpilled

SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 9h 49m
First of all, let me clarify something- THE FUCKING "INCEL" PROBLEM, IF IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST, HAS NEVER, IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS. Let me say that again- THE "INCEL" PROBLEM IS SYSTEMIC, NOT INDIVIDUAL, and therefore, NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ASCENSION WILL FIX THIS. In fact, thinking that it can is the DEFINITION of bluepill/redpill.

When presenting the issue of hypergamy and female denial of anything worthwhile to males to normies or redpillers, their response will often be, "just work harder on x, inkwell/bro." In the case of bluepillers and normies, they will tell us to take showers, engage in physical contact with lawns, and stop being misogynistic. In the case of redpillers and PUAs, they will tell us to be more "alpha" and work on our "game". In both cases, they are ignoring the critical issue- the injustice. The problem that is the effort differential, the problem of the female monopoly over the womb in the absence of cultural pressure for them to be anything other than independent work-units. But more importantly, what they are ignoring is that the system of sexual capitalism, in the absence of external incentives other than "people are equal!! :soy::soy:" fundamentally requires an underclass that includes both "incels" AND "normies". ~80% of males, to be exact. This is because of the reasons that I state here:

In the absence of any gender or sex-based legal discrimination, in an environment where males and females are on equal legal standing in every way, females are by definition privileged in an unjust way. This is because:

1. Any laws that protect people against physical violence disproportionately benefit females because they are smaller and weaker than males

2. A welfare state (at least, in their usual, current implementations) provides the money (resources) that mothers are short on but does not provide the sex or children access that fathers are short on, thus giving mothers a greater deal of independence (read: to hurt fathers) by taking from fathers while giving the fathers nothing in return on the other end, and fathers must support who they impregnate through child support on top of that

3. Females have a natural monopoly over how many kids are produced, which females produce them, which males produce them, who takes care of them, and whether they live or die inside or outside the womb (basically, everything about our future), whiles males get absolutely no say in the future other than the "choice" of impregnating a female in the off chance that she requests it with the full knowledge that if he doesn't, he has missed what may have been his only chance, deprived the world of a child, she can just choose anyone else on the planet if he says "no" thus giving him no bargaining power, and if he DOES choose to impregnate her, all the power is now in her hands, including whether or not to take money from him for potentially the rest of his life, all because it is "her body"

4. Males (as a species, not necessarily individually) are evolutionarily predetermined to do everything for and live their entire lives in service of females in pursuit of the womb, whereas the reverse is not true (females are not evolutionarily predetermined to provide money or sex in return for money to males, only to make babies occasionally or out of necessity to secure resources from males when males demand babies in return), thus meaning that any female who isn't horrifically deformed has an easy way to have an entire race of slaves at her disposal who exist only to care for and coddle her to to whatever extent she desires but the same cannot be said in reverse for men

Let me ask you: How is this fair? How is it just? How is it RIGHTEOUS? That females have the privilege to determine who makes babies (both male and female) and how many are made, thus meaning males must bargain with them and constantly give and give and give to them to bribe them to not let the human race go extinct, but males have none of these privileges and only must shoulder the responsibility?

As a result of all of this, and the fact that males pursue and females are pursued inevitably (in the absence of such draconian measures as to be impractical and terrible) females are naturally predetermined to deprive males of sex while voluntarily and willingly reaping the vast majority of the benefits provided from males' labor (as well as 110% of the benefits from their own labor).

You see, the fact remains that IF THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE IS TRUE, THEN TELLING GUYS TO ASCEND OR EVEN POINTING OUT WAYS THAT THEY COULD ASCEND IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CORE ISSUE. This is because if our goal is to maximize social good to create a world where no one ever has to be an incel ever again (or at least steps are actively and systemically taken to reduce its likelihood), then NO MATTER HOW MANY LE LEDDITORS YOU TEACH TO TOUCH GRASS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH "MUH FREE MARKETS" INCREASE YOUR COUNTRY'S WEALTH, NO MATTER HOW MANY MEN YOU GET TO ASCEND WITH PUA BOOT CAMPS, YOU ARE NOT, AND CAN NOT, HELP MEN AS A WHOLE THROUGH ASCENSION WITHIN THE SYSTEM. This is because women will always pursue the top, not in absolute terms, but by percentage. This means that when you ascend, you are effectively displacing someone else, or are at least likely to. It may not seem this way, but assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, this is the case.

I think a reason why this is such a hard thing for blackpillers and incels to understand is because many people here have origins in the 2014-2017 "Anti-SJW" wave of YouTube content that built the "manosphere" and led them to MGTOW and eventually here, and a lot of those movements have origins in right-wing thought. "Right-wing" philosophy, especially the boomer conservatism variety, tends to emphasize individual solutions to all social issues and de-emphasize systemic solutions to social issues. Part of the reason for this is because they are wary of the extreme overuse of "muh socioeconomics" to explain literally everything by the general leftist zeitgeist. But in order to be truly "blackpilled" philosophically, one must learn to do more than just instinctually reject all systemic explanations, and by extension all systemic solutions, as "libtard Obammunism". One must understand that systemic explanations are not inherently good or bad, but can be good or bad and should be examined and weighed on their own merits. In other words, actually engage with the fucking ideas instead of rejecting them on a feeling of them being "encouraging laziness" or whatever. This is why we should NOT be conservatives.

THIS is the problem that this community should be focused on. The fact that, at its core, a society that aims to sustain itself and protect its women and does so (which, in the absence of AI taking over the workforce/world) but does not even begin to attempt on any level to redistribute sex (and is proud of it) is a fundamentally unjust one, one not only worth fighting against, but one that us in the 80% are capable of defeating if we would only unite.

This is a clear problem with truly "blackpilled" types, that they think that nothing is possible, and are so determined to do this that they'll "LDAR" and insist it is the only logical option. No, anything is possible, just some things are more likely than others. Is a "beta uprising" unlikely? Absolutely, but it's possible, and there is no better use of our time than maximizing the possibility that a revolution occurs and that, when it does, the winning faction is at least slightly more sympathetic to us than the current ruling elites (which is actually less unlikely than most of you think). For tips on how to do that, I look to Uncle Ted, AKA the Unabomber.

One major problem I've seen on this website is that we have stupid debates like "volcel if you wouldn't" and threads like this, where people try to gatekeep the community on a false, arbitrary category of "incel". But this cannot be emphasized enough- one of the reasons that "blackpill" arguments are so weak and easily refuted by outsiders is because "inceldom" is not a solid category, but a fluid spectrum. In other words, it's not like you're either "incel for life" or "not an incel".

As someone who doesn't believe in free will, the idea of an "involuntary celibate" is silly on its face (all celibacy, all things by extension, are involuntary and predetermined, the idea that "voluntary" even exists is :feelstastyman:). Furthermore, as MGTOW purists like to point out, "escortcelling" is an available option for basically all "incels" basically everywhere in the world, so is it really the involuntary celibacy that is the problem by itself, like the name suggests? No, of course not, and we all know it. What actually exists in reality is a complex interplay of dynamics, but one that in the modern world (especially the West) is fundamentally a ZERO-SUM GAME, a hierarchy where no matter how much men "improve themselves" the bottom 80% are left with scraps. However, this does not change the fact that, technically, EVERYONE COULD, THEORETICALLY, ASCEND (yes, even "reeeeee muh balding, 5'2" "curry" janitors"), and not just with escorts, either.

The problem, as I've already established, is that under our current system, some individuals are, for reasons out of their control, much less likely to ascend than others, that some individuals will mathematically never ascend, that effort spent by men "chasing pussy" is therefore fundamentally socially wasted energy because while it's great fun for and affords great privilege for women, it destroys society, which hurts women's material luxury as well, in the long-term, as so much innovation, creation, and resource generation is stifled or destroyed by the eternal rat race.

SO STOP GATEKEEPING SPACES FRIENDLY TO THESE IDEAS. WE NEED A SPACE TO DISCUSS OUR IDEOLOGY, AND IT IS UNFAIR TO GATEKEEP SEX-HAVERS FROM THAT COMMUNITY.

To be clear, I am a kissless virgin. "But reeeee, we incels (I suppose, the guys who have it the hardest under our current system) need a space because any other space will shame us for being us!" Well, why not just ban shamers, then? Or, why not have a separate website, one for discussing ideology, and the other for incels alone?

WHILE INCELDOM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT INCELS EXIST, AND THAT IT IS A CATEGORY WORTH IDENTIFYING WITH FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS AN INHERENTLY IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM AND ONE THAT MUST BE DEFENDED. "INCEL" IS A TERM USED WITHIN AN IDEOLOGY (THE BLACKPILL), SO TO CALL ONESELF AN INCEL IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO CALL ONESELF BLACKPILLED, AND THEREFORE IDEOLOGICAL. TO DENY THIS IS RETARDED.

The retardation of lookism and the basedness of Bolgad Theory:

For this, we have to look at how women evolved, and no, it wasn't just to like strong jawlines and 6+ foot height. It's entirely possible that before the Agricultural Revolution and the Great Bottleneck, women were mostly attracted to stable providers and would pairbond with nearly any available male in the area, like chimps or other relatives. However, the Agricultural Revolution changed everything, when, for the first time in their history, humans became sitting ducks living almost exclusively on farms, allowing men who had the characteristics of violence, aggression, immorality, sleaziness, cruelty, tyranny, savageness, a lack of empathy, dominant status, a lack of willingness to take care of children, physical dominance, a lack of innate inhibition, and extreme lust (signs of low IQ and high testosterone) were strongly selected for genetically, something utterly unprecedented in history. I call men who are genetically the most strongly inclined towards these traits (say, the top 20% of men) in society "bolgads".

What happened when bolgads invaded a neolithic village was more terrible than one could possibly imagine, and what "traditionalism" as a philosophy worldwide was ultimately an overreaction to. Obviously, the men who were in the village (who were more likely to be produce because productive villages were more invaded because they had better harvests) and who generally had fewer bolgad characteristics all around were slaughtered and their sons often as well, (subconsciously) to keep them out of the gene pool. And the women were raped, blah blah, and the ones who didn't enjoy the rape didn't breed and the ones who didn't submit immediately to the irrational bolgads were often killed (wiping them out of the gene pool). But women faced a problem, here- how would they maximize their survival, and their sons' survival, in an environment where bolgads were raping their way across the Old World, destroying everything good in their path? A rational deduction wouldn't work- in the heat of an invasion, there just wasn't enough time. So, evolution came up with a solution- the man who was best at making her feel dominated. Instead of males competing with one another for access to females and then the female having sex with whoever gets access to her (or the female being attracted to who wins the male dominance competition) like is common in other animal species and probably pre-Bottleneck humans, women were now constantly trying to find ways to deny attraction to men who didn't make them feel dominated enough.

Rather than side with the neurotic, high-IQ providers in your village inventing tools and taking care of her, if a female knew of the existence of any group of bolgads outside the village who sought domination, (in an environment where an invading army is more likely to win than lose purely on virtue of invading), she would be best served GENETICALLY by pledging loyalty to the outside group to the MAXIMUM extent that wouldn't get her or her children killed, or her mutilated, by her own village members. Since bolgad genes are most likely to win in this environment, it makes sense that she would develop an innate "sense" that bolgads are dominant and non-bolgad genes are not, and thus she would do everything she could to deny her womb to non-bolgads, as once the bolgad army came in and won, her having been their ally "all along" assured her a higher status among concubines and guaranteed her that perverted bolgads would want to breed her to spread her blood especially so that many daughters would be their "submissive sluts". Furthermore, her denying reproductive access to non-bolgads would have helped her children reproduce, as bolgad sons would spread their genes far and wide and her daughters would be desirable either way. The selection was so rapid and so powerful that women don't just pursue bolgads, they are addicted to them, they crave them, they like them.

What happened in the aftermath is history (but through this lens it reads a bit different): Non-bolgad men almost went extinct. The few that were left got tired of bolgad shit and united together to form a collective, rational, productive plan to stop the bolgads, keep their harvests, and keep their women in check. Their answer was a massive (but perhaps necessary at the time, or, "they did their best", to save the human race from potentially becoming so degenerate as to lose its ability to pursue higher meaning or even go extinct through absurd amounts of warfare and violence) undertaking called "ancient traditionalism"- build massive walls, establish comically cruel gods to punish women for having sex outside of marriage, being disobedient, being immodest, not marrying young, not making lots of babies, etc., obsess over strength and competence and tie it all up with gender ("masculinity"), obsess over wisdom of the ancients and massive architectural feats (to intimidate bolgad factions and keep the system from reverting back to hell), punish and stigmatize homosexuality and noncompliance in general, and establish strict and borderline evil hierarchies-all to keep out the counter-intuitively far greater evil of a world ruled by bolgads.

Since then, women have been under constant traditionalist pressure- however, this has not made their nature go away. In fact, there is no evidence that their nature has even weakened substantially- the selection has not been that strong, especially since the more women throw their pussies at bolgads while rejecting non-bolgads, the more of a turn-on she is to nearly all men, in all societies- not just because of bolgads and them spreading their genes around so that we probably nearly all have a bit of bolgad in us, but also because non-bolgad men benefit from being turned on intensely by basic facts of female nature, because they are there are they will thus more enthusiastically breed women if they like their evilness rather than hating it. Polygamy and the existence of whores throughout may have also weakened selection. While men have undergone significant genetic progress in terms of selection, women were mostly just bred for caring about "social acceptability/status" more at the end of the day, which hasn't helped things much. Their nature remains the same, and now that they are breeding freely and not breeding good guys' genes, it is only getting worse again.

Today, we are seeing those systems put in place questioned and fall apart, and the result is exactly what the traditionalists would have predicted. Bolgads and bolgad-loving genes in women are exploding in the gene pool, to the point where it could be called "The Second Bolgad Event" in history. I only wish there was a "fourth way"- my ideology is dedicated to finding out whether a "fourth way"- one that is anti-bolgad, one that keeps bolgads out and keeps women from enabling/breeding them as is their nature like feminism/modernity fails to do while not being as oppressive, stifling, religious, and, let's face it, retarded, as traditionalism. Traditionalists be reeing, but it is, I know to be true, a worthwhile endeavor.

With this view of history, it is quite clear that "lookism" is retarded. Women aren't attracted purely to looks. Women are bolgad-detection machines, and since bolgads are always the victor (historically), they are always the minority (about 20%). They are attracted to the characteristics that made a male more likely to be a bolgad in a neolithic environment. Height tends to signal warrior strength, as does frame, jawline and big dick tends to signal high T, youth, health, and a willingness to expand her regardless of how she feels about it, but "thugmaxxed" behaviors fundamentally do far more to help a male's chances of getting womb-access and anything worthwhile (sex, love, romance, etc.). Aggression, violence, tyranny, cruelty. These are the characteristics that make a female feel dominated, because they were the characteristics most common in successful conquerors in an ancient environment. That's what determines who is at the top of the 80/20 hierarchy.

And I think I speak for any human being who isn't a joke when I say- THIS IS A BAD THING, and WOMEN DO NOT SELECT FOR THE BEST GENES, THEY SELECT FOR THE WORST GENES. So stop referring to the genes that women prefer as "good genes" and yours as "bad genes" (I can assure you in the areas that really matter for civilization, this forum has above-average genes), and STOP BEING LOOKISTS.

That, my friends, is why I am not blackpilled. :dab::dab::dab:
 
Richard Coper

Richard Coper

involuntary celibate
★★★★
Joined
Jan 14, 2022
Posts
2,311
Online
20d 2h 10m
.
 

Attachments

  • 5644C1C7-86AE-4D0A-8803-823D7DAFDE26.jpeg
    5644C1C7-86AE-4D0A-8803-823D7DAFDE26.jpeg
    67.3 KB · Views: 157
JealousyandHatred

JealousyandHatred

#manletpride2022
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Posts
1,476
Online
41d 14h 53m
Didn’t read, go kill yourself.
Also, @Fat Link ban. Denying the blackpill openly should warrant a ban.

Go drop your essays somewhere else failed normie. If you are gonna make a long post don’t drop it with such a clickbait/reddit faggot title. Then we might perhaps bother with your shit.

Based should have spat in the mic some more.

Also you might have confused the blackpill with the redpill. We don’t believe in the redpill here, put simply the blackpill states that it’s over, you can’t do anything sbout your romantic success as a subhuman male.
 
Last edited:
DepravedAndDeprived

DepravedAndDeprived

And then one day, for no reason at all...
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Posts
5,761
Online
58d 17h 33m

>he croakmaxxes to make his voice seem deep
Holy hell I cringed hard

As a result of all of this, and the fact that males pursue and females are pursued inevitably (in the absence of such draconian measures as to be impractical and terrible) females are naturally predetermined to deprive males of sex while voluntarily and willingly reaping the vast majority of the benefits provided from males' labor (as well as 110% of the benefits from their own labor).
Yes bro. This is why I emphasise often that the blackpill state of reality is to some degree natural. Granted, inceldom has been exacerbated by modern technology, social media, feminism etc. but at its core, females have always been selective in their choice of mate. Inceldom is a universal curse upon males.

It truly never began.
 
D

Deleted member 39443

Self-banned
-
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Posts
248
Online
12d 20h 33m
Based, I agree with all your points
 
DepravedAndDeprived

DepravedAndDeprived

And then one day, for no reason at all...
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Posts
5,761
Online
58d 17h 33m
Didn’t read, go kill yourself.
Also, @Fat Link ban. Denying the blackpill openly should warrant a ban.

Go drop your essays somewhere else failed normie. If you are gonna make a long post don’t drop it with such a clickbait/reddit faggot title. Then we might perhaps bother with your shit.
Fuck you fag. If you had even bothered to read his first paragraph, you would've seen that the post contains reasonable critique of some of the blackpill philosophy.

Also there's not a single rule that enforces a specified blackpill philosophy.
 
Alumpofflesh

Alumpofflesh

Unbound
-
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
266
Online
5d 19m
Too high IQ for here, some autists brains are melting.
 
Deleted member 39562

Deleted member 39562

Self-banned
-
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Posts
46
Online
3d 15h 4m
First of all, let me clarify something- THE FUCKING "INCEL" PROBLEM, IF IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST, HAS NEVER, IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS. Let me say that again- THE "INCEL" PROBLEM IS SYSTEMIC, NOT INDIVIDUAL, and therefore, NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ASCENSION WILL FIX THIS. In fact, thinking that it can is the DEFINITION of bluepill/redpill.

When presenting the issue of hypergamy and female denial of anything worthwhile to males to normies or redpillers, their response will often be, "just work harder on x, inkwell/bro." In the case of bluepillers and normies, they will tell us to take showers, engage in physical contact with lawns, and stop being misogynistic. In the case of redpillers and PUAs, they will tell us to be more "alpha" and work on our "game". In both cases, they are ignoring the critical issue- the injustice. The problem that is the effort differential, the problem of the female monopoly over the womb in the absence of cultural pressure for them to be anything other than independent work-units. But more importantly, what they are ignoring is that the system of sexual capitalism, in the absence of external incentives other than "people are equal!! :soy::soy:" fundamentally requires an underclass that includes both "incels" AND "normies". ~80% of males, to be exact. This is because of the reasons that I state here:

In the absence of any gender or sex-based legal discrimination, in an environment where males and females are on equal legal standing in every way, females are by definition privileged in an unjust way. This is because:

1. Any laws that protect people against physical violence disproportionately benefit females because they are smaller and weaker than males

2. A welfare state (at least, in their usual, current implementations) provides the money (resources) that mothers are short on but does not provide the sex or children access that fathers are short on, thus giving mothers a greater deal of independence (read: to hurt fathers) by taking from fathers while giving the fathers nothing in return on the other end, and fathers must support who they impregnate through child support on top of that

3. Females have a natural monopoly over how many kids are produced, which females produce them, which males produce them, who takes care of them, and whether they live or die inside or outside the womb (basically, everything about our future), whiles males get absolutely no say in the future other than the "choice" of impregnating a female in the off chance that she requests it with the full knowledge that if he doesn't, he has missed what may have been his only chance, deprived the world of a child, she can just choose anyone else on the planet if he says "no" thus giving him no bargaining power, and if he DOES choose to impregnate her, all the power is now in her hands, including whether or not to take money from him for potentially the rest of his life, all because it is "her body"

4. Males (as a species, not necessarily individually) are evolutionarily predetermined to do everything for and live their entire lives in service of females in pursuit of the womb, whereas the reverse is not true (females are not evolutionarily predetermined to provide money or sex in return for money to males, only to make babies occasionally or out of necessity to secure resources from males when males demand babies in return), thus meaning that any female who isn't horrifically deformed has an easy way to have an entire race of slaves at her disposal who exist only to care for and coddle her to to whatever extent she desires but the same cannot be said in reverse for men

Let me ask you: How is this fair? How is it just? How is it RIGHTEOUS? That females have the privilege to determine who makes babies (both male and female) and how many are made, thus meaning males must bargain with them and constantly give and give and give to them to bribe them to not let the human race go extinct, but males have none of these privileges and only must shoulder the responsibility?

As a result of all of this, and the fact that males pursue and females are pursued inevitably (in the absence of such draconian measures as to be impractical and terrible) females are naturally predetermined to deprive males of sex while voluntarily and willingly reaping the vast majority of the benefits provided from males' labor (as well as 110% of the benefits from their own labor).

You see, the fact remains that IF THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE IS TRUE, THEN TELLING GUYS TO ASCEND OR EVEN POINTING OUT WAYS THAT THEY COULD ASCEND IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CORE ISSUE. This is because if our goal is to maximize social good to create a world where no one ever has to be an incel ever again (or at least steps are actively and systemically taken to reduce its likelihood), then NO MATTER HOW MANY LE LEDDITORS YOU TEACH TO TOUCH GRASS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH "MUH FREE MARKETS" INCREASE YOUR COUNTRY'S WEALTH, NO MATTER HOW MANY MEN YOU GET TO ASCEND WITH PUA BOOT CAMPS, YOU ARE NOT, AND CAN NOT, HELP MEN AS A WHOLE THROUGH ASCENSION WITHIN THE SYSTEM. This is because women will always pursue the top, not in absolute terms, but by percentage. This means that when you ascend, you are effectively displacing someone else, or are at least likely to. It may not seem this way, but assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, this is the case.

I think a reason why this is such a hard thing for blackpillers and incels to understand is because many people here have origins in the 2014-2017 "Anti-SJW" wave of YouTube content that built the "manosphere" and led them to MGTOW and eventually here, and a lot of those movements have origins in right-wing thought. "Right-wing" philosophy, especially the boomer conservatism variety, tends to emphasize individual solutions to all social issues and de-emphasize systemic solutions to social issues. Part of the reason for this is because they are wary of the extreme overuse of "muh socioeconomics" to explain literally everything by the general leftist zeitgeist. But in order to be truly "blackpilled" philosophically, one must learn to do more than just instinctually reject all systemic explanations, and by extension all systemic solutions, as "libtard Obammunism". One must understand that systemic explanations are not inherently good or bad, but can be good or bad and should be examined and weighed on their own merits. In other words, actually engage with the fucking ideas instead of rejecting them on a feeling of them being "encouraging laziness" or whatever. This is why we should NOT be conservatives.

THIS is the problem that this community should be focused on. The fact that, at its core, a society that aims to sustain itself and protect its women and does so (which, in the absence of AI taking over the workforce/world) but does not even begin to attempt on any level to redistribute sex (and is proud of it) is a fundamentally unjust one, one not only worth fighting against, but one that us in the 80% are capable of defeating if we would only unite.

This is a clear problem with truly "blackpilled" types, that they think that nothing is possible, and are so determined to do this that they'll "LDAR" and insist it is the only logical option. No, anything is possible, just some things are more likely than others. Is a "beta uprising" unlikely? Absolutely, but it's possible, and there is no better use of our time than maximizing the possibility that a revolution occurs and that, when it does, the winning faction is at least slightly more sympathetic to us than the current ruling elites (which is actually less unlikely than most of you think). For tips on how to do that, I look to Uncle Ted, AKA the Unabomber.

One major problem I've seen on this website is that we have stupid debates like "volcel if you wouldn't" and threads like this, where people try to gatekeep the community on a false, arbitrary category of "incel". But this cannot be emphasized enough- one of the reasons that "blackpill" arguments are so weak and easily refuted by outsiders is because "inceldom" is not a solid category, but a fluid spectrum. In other words, it's not like you're either "incel for life" or "not an incel".

As someone who doesn't believe in free will, the idea of an "involuntary celibate" is silly on its face (all celibacy, all things by extension, are involuntary and predetermined, the idea that "voluntary" even exists is :feelstastyman:). Furthermore, as MGTOW purists like to point out, "escortcelling" is an available option for basically all "incels" basically everywhere in the world, so is it really the involuntary celibacy that is the problem by itself, like the name suggests? No, of course not, and we all know it. What actually exists in reality is a complex interplay of dynamics, but one that in the modern world (especially the West) is fundamentally a ZERO-SUM GAME, a hierarchy where no matter how much men "improve themselves" the bottom 80% are left with scraps. However, this does not change the fact that, technically, EVERYONE COULD, THEORETICALLY, ASCEND (yes, even "reeeeee muh balding, 5'2" "curry" janitors"), and not just with escorts, either.

The problem, as I've already established, is that under our current system, some individuals are, for reasons out of their control, much less likely to ascend than others, that some individuals will mathematically never ascend, that effort spent by men "chasing pussy" is therefore fundamentally socially wasted energy because while it's great fun for and affords great privilege for women, it destroys society, which hurts women's material luxury as well, in the long-term, as so much innovation, creation, and resource generation is stifled or destroyed by the eternal rat race.

SO STOP GATEKEEPING SPACES FRIENDLY TO THESE IDEAS. WE NEED A SPACE TO DISCUSS OUR IDEOLOGY, AND IT IS UNFAIR TO GATEKEEP SEX-HAVERS FROM THAT COMMUNITY.

To be clear, I am a kissless virgin. "But reeeee, we incels (I suppose, the guys who have it the hardest under our current system) need a space because any other space will shame us for being us!" Well, why not just ban shamers, then? Or, why not have a separate website, one for discussing ideology, and the other for incels alone?

WHILE INCELDOM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT INCELS EXIST, AND THAT IT IS A CATEGORY WORTH IDENTIFYING WITH FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS AN INHERENTLY IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM AND ONE THAT MUST BE DEFENDED. "INCEL" IS A TERM USED WITHIN AN IDEOLOGY (THE BLACKPILL), SO TO CALL ONESELF AN INCEL IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO CALL ONESELF BLACKPILLED, AND THEREFORE IDEOLOGICAL. TO DENY THIS IS RETARDED.

The retardation of lookism and the basedness of Bolgad Theory:

For this, we have to look at how women evolved, and no, it wasn't just to like strong jawlines and 6+ foot height. It's entirely possible that before the Agricultural Revolution and the Great Bottleneck, women were mostly attracted to stable providers and would pairbond with nearly any available male in the area, like chimps or other relatives. However, the Agricultural Revolution changed everything, when, for the first time in their history, humans became sitting ducks living almost exclusively on farms, allowing men who had the characteristics of violence, aggression, immorality, sleaziness, cruelty, tyranny, savageness, a lack of empathy, dominant status, a lack of willingness to take care of children, physical dominance, a lack of innate inhibition, and extreme lust (signs of low IQ and high testosterone) were strongly selected for genetically, something utterly unprecedented in history. I call men who are genetically the most strongly inclined towards these traits (say, the top 20% of men) in society "bolgads".

What happened when bolgads invaded a neolithic village was more terrible than one could possibly imagine, and what "traditionalism" as a philosophy worldwide was ultimately an overreaction to. Obviously, the men who were in the village (who were more likely to be produce because productive villages were more invaded because they had better harvests) and who generally had fewer bolgad characteristics all around were slaughtered and their sons often as well, (subconsciously) to keep them out of the gene pool. And the women were raped, blah blah, and the ones who didn't enjoy the rape didn't breed and the ones who didn't submit immediately to the irrational bolgads were often killed (wiping them out of the gene pool). But women faced a problem, here- how would they maximize their survival, and their sons' survival, in an environment where bolgads were raping their way across the Old World, destroying everything good in their path? A rational deduction wouldn't work- in the heat of an invasion, there just wasn't enough time. So, evolution came up with a solution- the man who was best at making her feel dominated. Instead of males competing with one another for access to females and then the female having sex with whoever gets access to her (or the female being attracted to who wins the male dominance competition) like is common in other animal species and probably pre-Bottleneck humans, women were now constantly trying to find ways to deny attraction to men who didn't make them feel dominated enough.

Rather than side with the neurotic, high-IQ providers in your village inventing tools and taking care of her, if a female knew of the existence of any group of bolgads outside the village who sought domination, (in an environment where an invading army is more likely to win than lose purely on virtue of invading), she would be best served GENETICALLY by pledging loyalty to the outside group to the MAXIMUM extent that wouldn't get her or her children killed, or her mutilated, by her own village members. Since bolgad genes are most likely to win in this environment, it makes sense that she would develop an innate "sense" that bolgads are dominant and non-bolgad genes are not, and thus she would do everything she could to deny her womb to non-bolgads, as once the bolgad army came in and won, her having been their ally "all along" assured her a higher status among concubines and guaranteed her that perverted bolgads would want to breed her to spread her blood especially so that many daughters would be their "submissive sluts". Furthermore, her denying reproductive access to non-bolgads would have helped her children reproduce, as bolgad sons would spread their genes far and wide and her daughters would be desirable either way. The selection was so rapid and so powerful that women don't just pursue bolgads, they are addicted to them, they crave them, they like them.

What happened in the aftermath is history (but through this lens it reads a bit different): Non-bolgad men almost went extinct. The few that were left got tired of bolgad shit and united together to form a collective, rational, productive plan to stop the bolgads, keep their harvests, and keep their women in check. Their answer was a massive (but perhaps necessary at the time, or, "they did their best", to save the human race from potentially becoming so degenerate as to lose its ability to pursue higher meaning or even go extinct through absurd amounts of warfare and violence) undertaking called "ancient traditionalism"- build massive walls, establish comically cruel gods to punish women for having sex outside of marriage, being disobedient, being immodest, not marrying young, not making lots of babies, etc., obsess over strength and competence and tie it all up with gender ("masculinity"), obsess over wisdom of the ancients and massive architectural feats (to intimidate bolgad factions and keep the system from reverting back to hell), punish and stigmatize homosexuality and noncompliance in general, and establish strict and borderline evil hierarchies-all to keep out the counter-intuitively far greater evil of a world ruled by bolgads.

Since then, women have been under constant traditionalist pressure- however, this has not made their nature go away. In fact, there is no evidence that their nature has even weakened substantially- the selection has not been that strong, especially since the more women throw their pussies at bolgads while rejecting non-bolgads, the more of a turn-on she is to nearly all men, in all societies- not just because of bolgads and them spreading their genes around so that we probably nearly all have a bit of bolgad in us, but also because non-bolgad men benefit from being turned on intensely by basic facts of female nature, because they are there are they will thus more enthusiastically breed women if they like their evilness rather than hating it. Polygamy and the existence of whores throughout may have also weakened selection. While men have undergone significant genetic progress in terms of selection, women were mostly just bred for caring about "social acceptability/status" more at the end of the day, which hasn't helped things much. Their nature remains the same, and now that they are breeding freely and not breeding good guys' genes, it is only getting worse again.

Today, we are seeing those systems put in place questioned and fall apart, and the result is exactly what the traditionalists would have predicted. Bolgads and bolgad-loving genes in women are exploding in the gene pool, to the point where it could be called "The Second Bolgad Event" in history. I only wish there was a "fourth way"- my ideology is dedicated to finding out whether a "fourth way"- one that is anti-bolgad, one that keeps bolgads out and keeps women from enabling/breeding them as is their nature like feminism/modernity fails to do while not being as oppressive, stifling, religious, and, let's face it, retarded, as traditionalism. Traditionalists be reeing, but it is, I know to be true, a worthwhile endeavor.

With this view of history, it is quite clear that "lookism" is retarded. Women aren't attracted purely to looks. Women are bolgad-detection machines, and since bolgads are always the victor (historically), they are always the minority (about 20%). They are attracted to the characteristics that made a male more likely to be a bolgad in a neolithic environment. Height tends to signal warrior strength, as does frame, jawline and big dick tends to signal high T, youth, health, and a willingness to expand her regardless of how she feels about it, but "thugmaxxed" behaviors fundamentally do far more to help a male's chances of getting womb-access and anything worthwhile (sex, love, romance, etc.). Aggression, violence, tyranny, cruelty. These are the characteristics that make a female feel dominated, because they were the characteristics most common in successful conquerors in an ancient environment. That's what determines who is at the top of the 80/20 hierarchy.

And I think I speak for any human being who isn't a joke when I say- THIS IS A BAD THING, and WOMEN DO NOT SELECT FOR THE BEST GENES, THEY SELECT FOR THE WORST GENES. So stop referring to the genes that women prefer as "good genes" and yours as "bad genes" (I can assure you in the areas that really matter for civilization, this forum has above-average genes), and STOP BEING LOOKISTS.

That, my friends, is why I am not blackpilled. :dab::dab::dab:
Incredibly based and true, thanks for teaching me something new OP
 
iamsubhuman

iamsubhuman

pls play Tekken 7, MK11, SSBU, or For Honor wit me
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
4,938
Online
90d 12h 49m
not reading this wall of text. if you're not blackpilled go to r/ForeverAlone or r/IncelTear

we don't need more people to ruin this forum.
 
Ericfffc

Ericfffc

Officer
★★
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Posts
691
Online
162d 12h 15m
To long didnt read
 
Broly

Broly

i do shit that these niggas just can’t do
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Posts
31,974
Online
205d 8h 17m
Not a single letter
 
Pepsicel

Pepsicel

Escortcel consultant in Incels.co
-
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Posts
706
Online
13d 11h 6m
The blackpill is reconizing that looks affect our sexual life due to hypergamy and how it does it.

My headcanon and the headcanon of many other blackpilled incels is that ancient civilizations swallowed the blackpill and enforced monogamy to let society works.

Back then physical prowess was more important than brains though.

I guess that this is your headcanon too. Also, social media apps boosted foids options so hypergamy is higher by now.
 
Last edited:
Hikikomori_cel

Hikikomori_cel

I need compassion, but sadly, don't deserve it.
★★★
Joined
Sep 18, 2021
Posts
3,780
Online
91d 19h 31m
Dnrd grayfaggot
 
Deleted member 37049

Deleted member 37049

Rey's husband
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2021
Posts
1,904
Online
36d 6h 27m
Not a single soul in this website is trully blackpilled anyway, if stacy gave them a chance to lick her foot they'll start worshipping her, a chance to get married and betabuxx? Probably 80% of the guys here would agree in a heartbeat, if they ascend they'd become the soys they once "hated", it's all because of the situation they're in.
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 9h 49m
I did not read fully because it was full of flawed premises.
Which premises we're flawed? What were the premises? Please elaborate, I'm always trying to expand my understanding.
Not a single soul in this website is trully blackpilled anyway, if stacy gave them a chance to lick her foot they'll start worshipping her, a chance to get married and betabuxx? Probably 80% of the guys here would agree in a heartbeat, if they ascend they'd become the soys they once "hated", it's all because of the situation they're in.
:bigbrain: True, if we want something we have to fight for it which means we, men, must exercise some self-control. Which I have failed to do at times myself :feelsbadman:. But we cannot blame women for pursuing the easiest option when we actively work to make it easier for them to systemically deprive good men of their wombs for a short term high.
 
I want to believe

I want to believe

I enjoy self-destruction.
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Posts
11,265
Online
99d 16h 40m
Then why no woman likes bald dudes, for example? It doesn't influence anything but looks. The same goes for having an ugly eye area, btw.
Then why do women prefer a skinny but tall and handsome pretty boy over an ugly (let's say he still looks masculine) and strong (gymmaxxed) dude of average height?
 
Last edited:
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 9h 49m
I take one little example:

"1. Any laws that protect people against physical violence disproportionately benefit females because they are smaller and weaker than males"

-Name the disproportionate benefit. Why is the benefit disproportionate? Is there a benefit?

If you dont do that then it makes people not want to read it because it looks like arbitrary stuff thrown together.
That was actually a very minor point, and the core of my argument remains true even if that was entirely wrong. But I will attempt to explain the idea I was trying to convey here.

Basically, women have a greater legal "halo" around them when it comes to physical contact encounters- not just because they get less prison time and better prisons, disproportionate concern of female rape over male rape, the courts are more likely to take her side, you get more prison time for attacking a woman, etc. but also because it simply takes more resources to get people to protect the vulnerable, not necessarily legal but in terms of how hard you have to propagandize people. Do I support attacking or raping women for no reason? No, but this is true regardless.

Laws protecting women against men are far more relevant than laws protecting men against women.

"Is there a benefit?" Women have it p great in gynocentric modernity, the only thing they have against them is a higher cosmetic social requirement and less children, which understandably causes some stress, but overall the gynocentric "halo effect" that is partly just a natural result of equal legal protections helps women individually, even if hurts them AND men in the long run.
Then why no woman likes bald dudes, for example? It doesn't influence anything but looks. The same goes for having an ugly eye area, btw.
Then why do women prefer a skinny but tall and handsome pretty boy over an ugly (let's say he still looks masculine) and strong (gymmaxxed) dude of average height?
Wtf on the bald dudes point. Jeremy Meeks was literally bald. There are bald bolgads and slayers everywhere. I agree it negatively impacts SMV, but realistically only slightly.

I never said looks don't matter, I'm just making the point that the 80/20 principle is based on which guys make a woman feel the most dominated in a primitive sense. Because women are increasingly shallow and judgemental, and they have more options than ever, a lot of what this is based on is "vibes" that she gets from vague impressions, and how much he looks like a warrior jungle slayer certainly plays a role in that. But, thugmaxxed "truecel" also slays, even if he has an "ugly eye area" or is short.

Women do look for bolgad genetics, and your example of and ugly gymmaxxed dude of average height doesn't exactly exude bolgad genes. See, between these two dudes in this example, you're only giving me physical characteristics, not behavioral ones. Assuming behavior and personality are equal, the only advantage that little guy has is his "strength". However, he is still *perceived* (perception is what matters, at the end of the day) as more of a "warrior" in terms of raw ability due to his height and frame.
 
Last edited:
entombed

entombed

Short af
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Posts
410
Online
7d 23h 48m
Mecoja

Mecoja

stompin on a dream
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Posts
19,291
Online
226d 5h 49m
I really wanted to read it all but its goddamn too long. We live in gynocracy, the more the women withhold sex from lover value males the more lvm will put them on piedestal and worship them. The price of the pussy will only rise.
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 9h 49m
I really wanted to read it all but its goddamn too long. We live in gynocracy, the more the women withhold sex from lover value males the more lvm will put them on piedestal and worship them. The price of the pussy will only rise.
Agreed.
 
Leorio

Leorio

Recruit
★★★
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Posts
282
Online
15d 2h 39m
The black pill just describes how life works. The consequences of the black pill don't matter if they are negative or positive. You can't control the reality of the black pill because you can't change the nature of the world but you can use the black pill to make your life better.
 
P

Philosopher

Greycel
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
8
Online
5h 34m
I really enjoyed this post. I wish we had more people around here that thought deeply and critically about things. That's not to say I agree with everything said here, but the big picture, that the root of the incel problem is more systemic than it is on an individual level, I totally agree with. There seems to be this notion among many here that if you blame anything other than women for our inceldom, that you're somehow not a real incel. A major reason I decided to start posting here after lurking for a bit was to hopefully engage some critical thinking, and challenge the idea that women alone are to blame for our problems, while still acknowledging the validity of the inceldom. As far as I'm concerned, being incel simply means that you desire a relationship with a woman but cannot get one, due to factors out of your control. Those factors may include but are not limited to, nor do they have to include at all, that "women are evil."

To the guys that responded to this post saying "I didn't read," I want to know, then why leave a comment at all? I mean, you can do what you want; it makes me no difference, but I don't get what the point is. I think it's always a great thing to deepen your perspective on things, and I'm sure time is not an issue for you guys when it comes to reading long posts. You can take it or leave it, but unless you have a well thought out rebuttal to the points made in such a post, there is no reason for anybody to take you seriously.
 
Deleted member 40710

Deleted member 40710

Self-banned
-
Joined
Feb 1, 2022
Posts
183
Online
3d 18h 2m
This is a hig iq and great post.
 
SupremeGentleman48

SupremeGentleman48

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 26, 2022
Posts
533
Online
4d 9h 5m
Ain't reading all that shit,next time post a tldr version at the top.
JFL. I read the first paragraph then thought "just how long is this shit?" After 2 speed scrolls with my thumb i was like "ain't no fucking way"
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,879
Online
192d 2h 12m
@SentimentalCel You wouldn't happen to have a dog, by any chance, would you?
 
Hairline Subhuman

Hairline Subhuman

They want to send me in PH AGAIN :)
★★★★
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Posts
1,843
Online
26d 2h 55m
Ban this nigga fakecel spotted.
 
nice_try

nice_try

Chad always wins
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Posts
11,809
Online
100d 12h 36m
hmmm yeah, naaah. Not gonna read that. I'm not here to read books.
 
SentimentalCel

SentimentalCel

Non-bolgadcel
★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
113
Online
3d 9h 49m
@SentimentalCel You wouldn't happen to have a dog, by any chance, would you?
My parents have a dog and I live with my parents, yes. I am against pet ownership. What relevance does that have?
 
cvh1991

cvh1991

Captain
★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,764
Online
7d 2h 33m
First of all, let me clarify something- THE FUCKING "INCEL" PROBLEM, IF IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST, HAS NEVER, IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS. Let me say that again- THE "INCEL" PROBLEM IS SYSTEMIC, NOT INDIVIDUAL, and therefore, NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ASCENSION WILL FIX THIS. In fact, thinking that it can is the DEFINITION of bluepill/redpill.

When presenting the issue of hypergamy and female denial of anything worthwhile to males to normies or redpillers, their response will often be, "just work harder on x, inkwell/bro." In the case of bluepillers and normies, they will tell us to take showers, engage in physical contact with lawns, and stop being misogynistic. In the case of redpillers and PUAs, they will tell us to be more "alpha" and work on our "game". In both cases, they are ignoring the critical issue- the injustice. The problem that is the effort differential, the problem of the female monopoly over the womb in the absence of cultural pressure for them to be anything other than independent work-units. But more importantly, what they are ignoring is that the system of sexual capitalism, in the absence of external incentives other than "people are equal!! :soy::soy:" fundamentally requires an underclass that includes both "incels" AND "normies". ~80% of males, to be exact. This is because of the reasons that I state here:

In the absence of any gender or sex-based legal discrimination, in an environment where males and females are on equal legal standing in every way, females are by definition privileged in an unjust way. This is because:

1. Any laws that protect people against physical violence disproportionately benefit females because they are smaller and weaker than males

2. A welfare state (at least, in their usual, current implementations) provides the money (resources) that mothers are short on but does not provide the sex or children access that fathers are short on, thus giving mothers a greater deal of independence (read: to hurt fathers) by taking from fathers while giving the fathers nothing in return on the other end, and fathers must support who they impregnate through child support on top of that

3. Females have a natural monopoly over how many kids are produced, which females produce them, which males produce them, who takes care of them, and whether they live or die inside or outside the womb (basically, everything about our future), whiles males get absolutely no say in the future other than the "choice" of impregnating a female in the off chance that she requests it with the full knowledge that if he doesn't, he has missed what may have been his only chance, deprived the world of a child, she can just choose anyone else on the planet if he says "no" thus giving him no bargaining power, and if he DOES choose to impregnate her, all the power is now in her hands, including whether or not to take money from him for potentially the rest of his life, all because it is "her body"

4. Males (as a species, not necessarily individually) are evolutionarily predetermined to do everything for and live their entire lives in service of females in pursuit of the womb, whereas the reverse is not true (females are not evolutionarily predetermined to provide money or sex in return for money to males, only to make babies occasionally or out of necessity to secure resources from males when males demand babies in return), thus meaning that any female who isn't horrifically deformed has an easy way to have an entire race of slaves at her disposal who exist only to care for and coddle her to to whatever extent she desires but the same cannot be said in reverse for men

Let me ask you: How is this fair? How is it just? How is it RIGHTEOUS? That females have the privilege to determine who makes babies (both male and female) and how many are made, thus meaning males must bargain with them and constantly give and give and give to them to bribe them to not let the human race go extinct, but males have none of these privileges and only must shoulder the responsibility?

As a result of all of this, and the fact that males pursue and females are pursued inevitably (in the absence of such draconian measures as to be impractical and terrible) females are naturally predetermined to deprive males of sex while voluntarily and willingly reaping the vast majority of the benefits provided from males' labor (as well as 110% of the benefits from their own labor).

You see, the fact remains that IF THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE IS TRUE, THEN TELLING GUYS TO ASCEND OR EVEN POINTING OUT WAYS THAT THEY COULD ASCEND IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CORE ISSUE. This is because if our goal is to maximize social good to create a world where no one ever has to be an incel ever again (or at least steps are actively and systemically taken to reduce its likelihood), then NO MATTER HOW MANY LE LEDDITORS YOU TEACH TO TOUCH GRASS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH "MUH FREE MARKETS" INCREASE YOUR COUNTRY'S WEALTH, NO MATTER HOW MANY MEN YOU GET TO ASCEND WITH PUA BOOT CAMPS, YOU ARE NOT, AND CAN NOT, HELP MEN AS A WHOLE THROUGH ASCENSION WITHIN THE SYSTEM. This is because women will always pursue the top, not in absolute terms, but by percentage. This means that when you ascend, you are effectively displacing someone else, or are at least likely to. It may not seem this way, but assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, this is the case.

I think a reason why this is such a hard thing for blackpillers and incels to understand is because many people here have origins in the 2014-2017 "Anti-SJW" wave of YouTube content that built the "manosphere" and led them to MGTOW and eventually here, and a lot of those movements have origins in right-wing thought. "Right-wing" philosophy, especially the boomer conservatism variety, tends to emphasize individual solutions to all social issues and de-emphasize systemic solutions to social issues. Part of the reason for this is because they are wary of the extreme overuse of "muh socioeconomics" to explain literally everything by the general leftist zeitgeist. But in order to be truly "blackpilled" philosophically, one must learn to do more than just instinctually reject all systemic explanations, and by extension all systemic solutions, as "libtard Obammunism". One must understand that systemic explanations are not inherently good or bad, but can be good or bad and should be examined and weighed on their own merits. In other words, actually engage with the fucking ideas instead of rejecting them on a feeling of them being "encouraging laziness" or whatever. This is why we should NOT be conservatives.

THIS is the problem that this community should be focused on. The fact that, at its core, a society that aims to sustain itself and protect its women and does so (which, in the absence of AI taking over the workforce/world) but does not even begin to attempt on any level to redistribute sex (and is proud of it) is a fundamentally unjust one, one not only worth fighting against, but one that us in the 80% are capable of defeating if we would only unite.

This is a clear problem with truly "blackpilled" types, that they think that nothing is possible, and are so determined to do this that they'll "LDAR" and insist it is the only logical option. No, anything is possible, just some things are more likely than others. Is a "beta uprising" unlikely? Absolutely, but it's possible, and there is no better use of our time than maximizing the possibility that a revolution occurs and that, when it does, the winning faction is at least slightly more sympathetic to us than the current ruling elites (which is actually less unlikely than most of you think). For tips on how to do that, I look to Uncle Ted, AKA the Unabomber.

One major problem I've seen on this website is that we have stupid debates like "volcel if you wouldn't" and threads like this, where people try to gatekeep the community on a false, arbitrary category of "incel". But this cannot be emphasized enough- one of the reasons that "blackpill" arguments are so weak and easily refuted by outsiders is because "inceldom" is not a solid category, but a fluid spectrum. In other words, it's not like you're either "incel for life" or "not an incel".

As someone who doesn't believe in free will, the idea of an "involuntary celibate" is silly on its face (all celibacy, all things by extension, are involuntary and predetermined, the idea that "voluntary" even exists is :feelstastyman:). Furthermore, as MGTOW purists like to point out, "escortcelling" is an available option for basically all "incels" basically everywhere in the world, so is it really the involuntary celibacy that is the problem by itself, like the name suggests? No, of course not, and we all know it. What actually exists in reality is a complex interplay of dynamics, but one that in the modern world (especially the West) is fundamentally a ZERO-SUM GAME, a hierarchy where no matter how much men "improve themselves" the bottom 80% are left with scraps. However, this does not change the fact that, technically, EVERYONE COULD, THEORETICALLY, ASCEND (yes, even "reeeeee muh balding, 5'2" "curry" janitors"), and not just with escorts, either.

The problem, as I've already established, is that under our current system, some individuals are, for reasons out of their control, much less likely to ascend than others, that some individuals will mathematically never ascend, that effort spent by men "chasing pussy" is therefore fundamentally socially wasted energy because while it's great fun for and affords great privilege for women, it destroys society, which hurts women's material luxury as well, in the long-term, as so much innovation, creation, and resource generation is stifled or destroyed by the eternal rat race.

SO STOP GATEKEEPING SPACES FRIENDLY TO THESE IDEAS. WE NEED A SPACE TO DISCUSS OUR IDEOLOGY, AND IT IS UNFAIR TO GATEKEEP SEX-HAVERS FROM THAT COMMUNITY.

To be clear, I am a kissless virgin. "But reeeee, we incels (I suppose, the guys who have it the hardest under our current system) need a space because any other space will shame us for being us!" Well, why not just ban shamers, then? Or, why not have a separate website, one for discussing ideology, and the other for incels alone?

WHILE INCELDOM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT INCELS EXIST, AND THAT IT IS A CATEGORY WORTH IDENTIFYING WITH FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS AN INHERENTLY IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM AND ONE THAT MUST BE DEFENDED. "INCEL" IS A TERM USED WITHIN AN IDEOLOGY (THE BLACKPILL), SO TO CALL ONESELF AN INCEL IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO CALL ONESELF BLACKPILLED, AND THEREFORE IDEOLOGICAL. TO DENY THIS IS RETARDED.

The retardation of lookism and the basedness of Bolgad Theory:

For this, we have to look at how women evolved, and no, it wasn't just to like strong jawlines and 6+ foot height. It's entirely possible that before the Agricultural Revolution and the Great Bottleneck, women were mostly attracted to stable providers and would pairbond with nearly any available male in the area, like chimps or other relatives. However, the Agricultural Revolution changed everything, when, for the first time in their history, humans became sitting ducks living almost exclusively on farms, allowing men who had the characteristics of violence, aggression, immorality, sleaziness, cruelty, tyranny, savageness, a lack of empathy, dominant status, a lack of willingness to take care of children, physical dominance, a lack of innate inhibition, and extreme lust (signs of low IQ and high testosterone) were strongly selected for genetically, something utterly unprecedented in history. I call men who are genetically the most strongly inclined towards these traits (say, the top 20% of men) in society "bolgads".

What happened when bolgads invaded a neolithic village was more terrible than one could possibly imagine, and what "traditionalism" as a philosophy worldwide was ultimately an overreaction to. Obviously, the men who were in the village (who were more likely to be produce because productive villages were more invaded because they had better harvests) and who generally had fewer bolgad characteristics all around were slaughtered and their sons often as well, (subconsciously) to keep them out of the gene pool. And the women were raped, blah blah, and the ones who didn't enjoy the rape didn't breed and the ones who didn't submit immediately to the irrational bolgads were often killed (wiping them out of the gene pool). But women faced a problem, here- how would they maximize their survival, and their sons' survival, in an environment where bolgads were raping their way across the Old World, destroying everything good in their path? A rational deduction wouldn't work- in the heat of an invasion, there just wasn't enough time. So, evolution came up with a solution- the man who was best at making her feel dominated. Instead of males competing with one another for access to females and then the female having sex with whoever gets access to her (or the female being attracted to who wins the male dominance competition) like is common in other animal species and probably pre-Bottleneck humans, women were now constantly trying to find ways to deny attraction to men who didn't make them feel dominated enough.

Rather than side with the neurotic, high-IQ providers in your village inventing tools and taking care of her, if a female knew of the existence of any group of bolgads outside the village who sought domination, (in an environment where an invading army is more likely to win than lose purely on virtue of invading), she would be best served GENETICALLY by pledging loyalty to the outside group to the MAXIMUM extent that wouldn't get her or her children killed, or her mutilated, by her own village members. Since bolgad genes are most likely to win in this environment, it makes sense that she would develop an innate "sense" that bolgads are dominant and non-bolgad genes are not, and thus she would do everything she could to deny her womb to non-bolgads, as once the bolgad army came in and won, her having been their ally "all along" assured her a higher status among concubines and guaranteed her that perverted bolgads would want to breed her to spread her blood especially so that many daughters would be their "submissive sluts". Furthermore, her denying reproductive access to non-bolgads would have helped her children reproduce, as bolgad sons would spread their genes far and wide and her daughters would be desirable either way. The selection was so rapid and so powerful that women don't just pursue bolgads, they are addicted to them, they crave them, they like them.

What happened in the aftermath is history (but through this lens it reads a bit different): Non-bolgad men almost went extinct. The few that were left got tired of bolgad shit and united together to form a collective, rational, productive plan to stop the bolgads, keep their harvests, and keep their women in check. Their answer was a massive (but perhaps necessary at the time, or, "they did their best", to save the human race from potentially becoming so degenerate as to lose its ability to pursue higher meaning or even go extinct through absurd amounts of warfare and violence) undertaking called "ancient traditionalism"- build massive walls, establish comically cruel gods to punish women for having sex outside of marriage, being disobedient, being immodest, not marrying young, not making lots of babies, etc., obsess over strength and competence and tie it all up with gender ("masculinity"), obsess over wisdom of the ancients and massive architectural feats (to intimidate bolgad factions and keep the system from reverting back to hell), punish and stigmatize homosexuality and noncompliance in general, and establish strict and borderline evil hierarchies-all to keep out the counter-intuitively far greater evil of a world ruled by bolgads.

Since then, women have been under constant traditionalist pressure- however, this has not made their nature go away. In fact, there is no evidence that their nature has even weakened substantially- the selection has not been that strong, especially since the more women throw their pussies at bolgads while rejecting non-bolgads, the more of a turn-on she is to nearly all men, in all societies- not just because of bolgads and them spreading their genes around so that we probably nearly all have a bit of bolgad in us, but also because non-bolgad men benefit from being turned on intensely by basic facts of female nature, because they are there are they will thus more enthusiastically breed women if they like their evilness rather than hating it. Polygamy and the existence of whores throughout may have also weakened selection. While men have undergone significant genetic progress in terms of selection, women were mostly just bred for caring about "social acceptability/status" more at the end of the day, which hasn't helped things much. Their nature remains the same, and now that they are breeding freely and not breeding good guys' genes, it is only getting worse again.

Today, we are seeing those systems put in place questioned and fall apart, and the result is exactly what the traditionalists would have predicted. Bolgads and bolgad-loving genes in women are exploding in the gene pool, to the point where it could be called "The Second Bolgad Event" in history. I only wish there was a "fourth way"- my ideology is dedicated to finding out whether a "fourth way"- one that is anti-bolgad, one that keeps bolgads out and keeps women from enabling/breeding them as is their nature like feminism/modernity fails to do while not being as oppressive, stifling, religious, and, let's face it, retarded, as traditionalism. Traditionalists be reeing, but it is, I know to be true, a worthwhile endeavor.

With this view of history, it is quite clear that "lookism" is retarded. Women aren't attracted purely to looks. Women are bolgad-detection machines, and since bolgads are always the victor (historically), they are always the minority (about 20%). They are attracted to the characteristics that made a male more likely to be a bolgad in a neolithic environment. Height tends to signal warrior strength, as does frame, jawline and big dick tends to signal high T, youth, health, and a willingness to expand her regardless of how she feels about it, but "thugmaxxed" behaviors fundamentally do far more to help a male's chances of getting womb-access and anything worthwhile (sex, love, romance, etc.). Aggression, violence, tyranny, cruelty. These are the characteristics that make a female feel dominated, because they were the characteristics most common in successful conquerors in an ancient environment. That's what determines who is at the top of the 80/20 hierarchy.

And I think I speak for any human being who isn't a joke when I say- THIS IS A BAD THING, and WOMEN DO NOT SELECT FOR THE BEST GENES, THEY SELECT FOR THE WORST GENES. So stop referring to the genes that women prefer as "good genes" and yours as "bad genes" (I can assure you in the areas that really matter for civilization, this forum has above-average genes), and STOP BEING LOOKISTS.

That, my friends, is why I am not blackpilled. :dab::dab::dab:
That’s a lot of text, but I agree — I appreciate the bulleted list.

You’re definitely right that’s a systematic issue and most of our equality laws disproportionately benefit women (often at the expense of men).

I also appreciate that you pointed out all of the retarded “le reddit” come backs — “touch grass” is honestly one of the most retarded expressions I’ve ever heard.

It’s not even an attempt to argue, and what makes it so awful is the people using it seem to genuinely believe it’s a good argument. Honestly it takes an incredible level of stupidity to believe that.

Person A: Lays out a genuine argument, makes their points
Person B: tOUcH grASs (dabs) — 10 billion upvotes from retards
Person C (mod): Censors Person A then bans them (kek).

Redditors truly represent the lowest scum of human intelligence. If they can’t win an argument they immediately go to fallacies (usually Ad Hom or Strawman — the amount of misrepresenting what another person said and gaslighting on there is just baffling) or just censor their opponent outright.

For most people it’s just about winning and not who’s actually right.

But yeah, I got off track (fuck Reddit and all of these woke censor heavy California faggot companies) — I sometimes think the older systems were unintuitively more equitable for men and women because woman’s innate advantages being offset by men being able to vote/own property that sort of thing. In the past conditions were such that women were dependent on men whereas today they’re still dependent on men, the men just get nothing in return.

I’m not religious anymore personally, but I also think at least old school Christianity/Islam seem to be pretty damn based when it comes men and women. Whether they’re true or not belief in those ideals can definitely affect behavior (sometimes for the better). Side note, but religion today in the west is cucked as fuck — everyone just picks and chooses whatever parts they want and retcons happen all the time due to social pressure (the Old Testament calls homosexuality an abomination for example yet churches everywhere have dropped this entirely due to social pressure). That sort of thing is retarded it’s either true or it isn’t. Or was god(s) wrong? Nothing worse than a solipsistic religious person who just believes when it’s convenient.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought part of the whole point of these religions was selflessness in community and that things aren’t always the way you personally want. Religion today is totally selfish and revolves around sucking people off. How it seems to me at least.
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 41220

Deleted member 41220

Coping is an automated process
-
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Posts
468
Online
5d 11h 49m
Can someone make a TL;DR version of this please im way too retarded to read all that :feelshaha:
 
Loner94

Loner94

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
5,818
Online
82d 4h 33m
Jesus Christ learn to condense I mean damn i don't want intend to read a book.
 
Deleted member 41061

Deleted member 41061

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
-
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Posts
1,333
Online
8d 2h 1m
Well written. Fuck those lazy slobs fuckin having problem with the length. He is writing quality posts unlike you postmaxxers thinking you better 'cause you got different color of kreml star you fuckin idiots
 
latin_elioth

latin_elioth

Hope is the worst of all evils
★★★★
Joined
May 4, 2020
Posts
820
Online
26d 13h 9m
Nice post I'll comment it later
 
IncelWithHate

IncelWithHate

Frustrated, highinhib wizardcel
★★
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Posts
1,183
Online
17d 22h 33m
Read it all. Dangerously based. :bigbrain: The only quibble I have is your disagreement of blackpill but that may be chalked up to how I define the blackpill.

To me, blackpill is simply observations of reality relating to the incel condition supported by strong statistical evidence and consistent patterns. I would also say that this definition of blackpill is not at odds with your view on systematic issues - I would assert blackpill evidence proves the opposite (that these behaviors and trends apply across large/majority sections of the [female] population thus coinciding with your statements).

In the end I am more pessimistic than you. Past posts I have argued that there is no solution to the issues that arise from the inequality derived from females possessing wombs and vaginas.....that is, outside of ceasing to be a heterosexual dimorphic species that requires women to gestate young and function as carrots-on-sticks to compel male productivity. As long as that paradigm remains we will never escape the cycle of being enslaved to women. Women must be removed entirely from the reproductive process and men's reliance on them physically and psychologically must be left to the wayside entirely. I go as so far as to say women are the sole reason for the majority of strife and suffering in the world. Even the fermi paradox is the ultimate result of this - women are evolutionary cripples that are the only thing keeping men from their full potential. They literally are what stands between us and reaching the stars.

I assert homo sapiens are unable to rise above their biological urges to mate and placate to women as we are. We either must ascend with transhumanism or perhaps evolve into another distinct species entirely. My suspicion is that you will find my views too reductionist or even extreme however.
 
Deleted member 41572

Deleted member 41572

Banned
-
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Posts
256
Online
10h 40m
First of all, let me clarify something- THE FUCKING "INCEL" PROBLEM, IF IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST, HAS NEVER, IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS. Let me say that again- THE "INCEL" PROBLEM IS SYSTEMIC, NOT INDIVIDUAL, and therefore, NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ASCENSION WILL FIX THIS. In fact, thinking that it can is the DEFINITION of bluepill/redpill.

When presenting the issue of hypergamy and female denial of anything worthwhile to males to normies or redpillers, their response will often be, "just work harder on x, inkwell/bro." In the case of bluepillers and normies, they will tell us to take showers, engage in physical contact with lawns, and stop being misogynistic. In the case of redpillers and PUAs, they will tell us to be more "alpha" and work on our "game". In both cases, they are ignoring the critical issue- the injustice. The problem that is the effort differential, the problem of the female monopoly over the womb in the absence of cultural pressure for them to be anything other than independent work-units. But more importantly, what they are ignoring is that the system of sexual capitalism, in the absence of external incentives other than "people are equal!! :soy::soy:" fundamentally requires an underclass that includes both "incels" AND "normies". ~80% of males, to be exact. This is because of the reasons that I state here:

In the absence of any gender or sex-based legal discrimination, in an environment where males and females are on equal legal standing in every way, females are by definition privileged in an unjust way. This is because:

1. Any laws that protect people against physical violence disproportionately benefit females because they are smaller and weaker than males

2. A welfare state (at least, in their usual, current implementations) provides the money (resources) that mothers are short on but does not provide the sex or children access that fathers are short on, thus giving mothers a greater deal of independence (read: to hurt fathers) by taking from fathers while giving the fathers nothing in return on the other end, and fathers must support who they impregnate through child support on top of that

3. Females have a natural monopoly over how many kids are produced, which females produce them, which males produce them, who takes care of them, and whether they live or die inside or outside the womb (basically, everything about our future), whiles males get absolutely no say in the future other than the "choice" of impregnating a female in the off chance that she requests it with the full knowledge that if he doesn't, he has missed what may have been his only chance, deprived the world of a child, she can just choose anyone else on the planet if he says "no" thus giving him no bargaining power, and if he DOES choose to impregnate her, all the power is now in her hands, including whether or not to take money from him for potentially the rest of his life, all because it is "her body"

4. Males (as a species, not necessarily individually) are evolutionarily predetermined to do everything for and live their entire lives in service of females in pursuit of the womb, whereas the reverse is not true (females are not evolutionarily predetermined to provide money or sex in return for money to males, only to make babies occasionally or out of necessity to secure resources from males when males demand babies in return), thus meaning that any female who isn't horrifically deformed has an easy way to have an entire race of slaves at her disposal who exist only to care for and coddle her to to whatever extent she desires but the same cannot be said in reverse for men

Let me ask you: How is this fair? How is it just? How is it RIGHTEOUS? That females have the privilege to determine who makes babies (both male and female) and how many are made, thus meaning males must bargain with them and constantly give and give and give to them to bribe them to not let the human race go extinct, but males have none of these privileges and only must shoulder the responsibility?

As a result of all of this, and the fact that males pursue and females are pursued inevitably (in the absence of such draconian measures as to be impractical and terrible) females are naturally predetermined to deprive males of sex while voluntarily and willingly reaping the vast majority of the benefits provided from males' labor (as well as 110% of the benefits from their own labor).

You see, the fact remains that IF THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE IS TRUE, THEN TELLING GUYS TO ASCEND OR EVEN POINTING OUT WAYS THAT THEY COULD ASCEND IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CORE ISSUE. This is because if our goal is to maximize social good to create a world where no one ever has to be an incel ever again (or at least steps are actively and systemically taken to reduce its likelihood), then NO MATTER HOW MANY LE LEDDITORS YOU TEACH TO TOUCH GRASS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH "MUH FREE MARKETS" INCREASE YOUR COUNTRY'S WEALTH, NO MATTER HOW MANY MEN YOU GET TO ASCEND WITH PUA BOOT CAMPS, YOU ARE NOT, AND CAN NOT, HELP MEN AS A WHOLE THROUGH ASCENSION WITHIN THE SYSTEM. This is because women will always pursue the top, not in absolute terms, but by percentage. This means that when you ascend, you are effectively displacing someone else, or are at least likely to. It may not seem this way, but assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, this is the case.

I think a reason why this is such a hard thing for blackpillers and incels to understand is because many people here have origins in the 2014-2017 "Anti-SJW" wave of YouTube content that built the "manosphere" and led them to MGTOW and eventually here, and a lot of those movements have origins in right-wing thought. "Right-wing" philosophy, especially the boomer conservatism variety, tends to emphasize individual solutions to all social issues and de-emphasize systemic solutions to social issues. Part of the reason for this is because they are wary of the extreme overuse of "muh socioeconomics" to explain literally everything by the general leftist zeitgeist. But in order to be truly "blackpilled" philosophically, one must learn to do more than just instinctually reject all systemic explanations, and by extension all systemic solutions, as "libtard Obammunism". One must understand that systemic explanations are not inherently good or bad, but can be good or bad and should be examined and weighed on their own merits. In other words, actually engage with the fucking ideas instead of rejecting them on a feeling of them being "encouraging laziness" or whatever. This is why we should NOT be conservatives.

THIS is the problem that this community should be focused on. The fact that, at its core, a society that aims to sustain itself and protect its women and does so (which, in the absence of AI taking over the workforce/world) but does not even begin to attempt on any level to redistribute sex (and is proud of it) is a fundamentally unjust one, one not only worth fighting against, but one that us in the 80% are capable of defeating if we would only unite.

This is a clear problem with truly "blackpilled" types, that they think that nothing is possible, and are so determined to do this that they'll "LDAR" and insist it is the only logical option. No, anything is possible, just some things are more likely than others. Is a "beta uprising" unlikely? Absolutely, but it's possible, and there is no better use of our time than maximizing the possibility that a revolution occurs and that, when it does, the winning faction is at least slightly more sympathetic to us than the current ruling elites (which is actually less unlikely than most of you think). For tips on how to do that, I look to Uncle Ted, AKA the Unabomber.

One major problem I've seen on this website is that we have stupid debates like "volcel if you wouldn't" and threads like this, where people try to gatekeep the community on a false, arbitrary category of "incel". But this cannot be emphasized enough- one of the reasons that "blackpill" arguments are so weak and easily refuted by outsiders is because "inceldom" is not a solid category, but a fluid spectrum. In other words, it's not like you're either "incel for life" or "not an incel".

As someone who doesn't believe in free will, the idea of an "involuntary celibate" is silly on its face (all celibacy, all things by extension, are involuntary and predetermined, the idea that "voluntary" even exists is :feelstastyman:). Furthermore, as MGTOW purists like to point out, "escortcelling" is an available option for basically all "incels" basically everywhere in the world, so is it really the involuntary celibacy that is the problem by itself, like the name suggests? No, of course not, and we all know it. What actually exists in reality is a complex interplay of dynamics, but one that in the modern world (especially the West) is fundamentally a ZERO-SUM GAME, a hierarchy where no matter how much men "improve themselves" the bottom 80% are left with scraps. However, this does not change the fact that, technically, EVERYONE COULD, THEORETICALLY, ASCEND (yes, even "reeeeee muh balding, 5'2" "curry" janitors"), and not just with escorts, either.

The problem, as I've already established, is that under our current system, some individuals are, for reasons out of their control, much less likely to ascend than others, that some individuals will mathematically never ascend, that effort spent by men "chasing pussy" is therefore fundamentally socially wasted energy because while it's great fun for and affords great privilege for women, it destroys society, which hurts women's material luxury as well, in the long-term, as so much innovation, creation, and resource generation is stifled or destroyed by the eternal rat race.

SO STOP GATEKEEPING SPACES FRIENDLY TO THESE IDEAS. WE NEED A SPACE TO DISCUSS OUR IDEOLOGY, AND IT IS UNFAIR TO GATEKEEP SEX-HAVERS FROM THAT COMMUNITY.

To be clear, I am a kissless virgin. "But reeeee, we incels (I suppose, the guys who have it the hardest under our current system) need a space because any other space will shame us for being us!" Well, why not just ban shamers, then? Or, why not have a separate website, one for discussing ideology, and the other for incels alone?

WHILE INCELDOM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT INCELS EXIST, AND THAT IT IS A CATEGORY WORTH IDENTIFYING WITH FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS AN INHERENTLY IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM AND ONE THAT MUST BE DEFENDED. "INCEL" IS A TERM USED WITHIN AN IDEOLOGY (THE BLACKPILL), SO TO CALL ONESELF AN INCEL IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO CALL ONESELF BLACKPILLED, AND THEREFORE IDEOLOGICAL. TO DENY THIS IS RETARDED.

The retardation of lookism and the basedness of Bolgad Theory:

For this, we have to look at how women evolved, and no, it wasn't just to like strong jawlines and 6+ foot height. It's entirely possible that before the Agricultural Revolution and the Great Bottleneck, women were mostly attracted to stable providers and would pairbond with nearly any available male in the area, like chimps or other relatives. However, the Agricultural Revolution changed everything, when, for the first time in their history, humans became sitting ducks living almost exclusively on farms, allowing men who had the characteristics of violence, aggression, immorality, sleaziness, cruelty, tyranny, savageness, a lack of empathy, dominant status, a lack of willingness to take care of children, physical dominance, a lack of innate inhibition, and extreme lust (signs of low IQ and high testosterone) were strongly selected for genetically, something utterly unprecedented in history. I call men who are genetically the most strongly inclined towards these traits (say, the top 20% of men) in society "bolgads".

What happened when bolgads invaded a neolithic village was more terrible than one could possibly imagine, and what "traditionalism" as a philosophy worldwide was ultimately an overreaction to. Obviously, the men who were in the village (who were more likely to be produce because productive villages were more invaded because they had better harvests) and who generally had fewer bolgad characteristics all around were slaughtered and their sons often as well, (subconsciously) to keep them out of the gene pool. And the women were raped, blah blah, and the ones who didn't enjoy the rape didn't breed and the ones who didn't submit immediately to the irrational bolgads were often killed (wiping them out of the gene pool). But women faced a problem, here- how would they maximize their survival, and their sons' survival, in an environment where bolgads were raping their way across the Old World, destroying everything good in their path? A rational deduction wouldn't work- in the heat of an invasion, there just wasn't enough time. So, evolution came up with a solution- the man who was best at making her feel dominated. Instead of males competing with one another for access to females and then the female having sex with whoever gets access to her (or the female being attracted to who wins the male dominance competition) like is common in other animal species and probably pre-Bottleneck humans, women were now constantly trying to find ways to deny attraction to men who didn't make them feel dominated enough.

Rather than side with the neurotic, high-IQ providers in your village inventing tools and taking care of her, if a female knew of the existence of any group of bolgads outside the village who sought domination, (in an environment where an invading army is more likely to win than lose purely on virtue of invading), she would be best served GENETICALLY by pledging loyalty to the outside group to the MAXIMUM extent that wouldn't get her or her children killed, or her mutilated, by her own village members. Since bolgad genes are most likely to win in this environment, it makes sense that she would develop an innate "sense" that bolgads are dominant and non-bolgad genes are not, and thus she would do everything she could to deny her womb to non-bolgads, as once the bolgad army came in and won, her having been their ally "all along" assured her a higher status among concubines and guaranteed her that perverted bolgads would want to breed her to spread her blood especially so that many daughters would be their "submissive sluts". Furthermore, her denying reproductive access to non-bolgads would have helped her children reproduce, as bolgad sons would spread their genes far and wide and her daughters would be desirable either way. The selection was so rapid and so powerful that women don't just pursue bolgads, they are addicted to them, they crave them, they like them.

What happened in the aftermath is history (but through this lens it reads a bit different): Non-bolgad men almost went extinct. The few that were left got tired of bolgad shit and united together to form a collective, rational, productive plan to stop the bolgads, keep their harvests, and keep their women in check. Their answer was a massive (but perhaps necessary at the time, or, "they did their best", to save the human race from potentially becoming so degenerate as to lose its ability to pursue higher meaning or even go extinct through absurd amounts of warfare and violence) undertaking called "ancient traditionalism"- build massive walls, establish comically cruel gods to punish women for having sex outside of marriage, being disobedient, being immodest, not marrying young, not making lots of babies, etc., obsess over strength and competence and tie it all up with gender ("masculinity"), obsess over wisdom of the ancients and massive architectural feats (to intimidate bolgad factions and keep the system from reverting back to hell), punish and stigmatize homosexuality and noncompliance in general, and establish strict and borderline evil hierarchies-all to keep out the counter-intuitively far greater evil of a world ruled by bolgads.

Since then, women have been under constant traditionalist pressure- however, this has not made their nature go away. In fact, there is no evidence that their nature has even weakened substantially- the selection has not been that strong, especially since the more women throw their pussies at bolgads while rejecting non-bolgads, the more of a turn-on she is to nearly all men, in all societies- not just because of bolgads and them spreading their genes around so that we probably nearly all have a bit of bolgad in us, but also because non-bolgad men benefit from being turned on intensely by basic facts of female nature, because they are there are they will thus more enthusiastically breed women if they like their evilness rather than hating it. Polygamy and the existence of whores throughout may have also weakened selection. While men have undergone significant genetic progress in terms of selection, women were mostly just bred for caring about "social acceptability/status" more at the end of the day, which hasn't helped things much. Their nature remains the same, and now that they are breeding freely and not breeding good guys' genes, it is only getting worse again.

Today, we are seeing those systems put in place questioned and fall apart, and the result is exactly what the traditionalists would have predicted. Bolgads and bolgad-loving genes in women are exploding in the gene pool, to the point where it could be called "The Second Bolgad Event" in history. I only wish there was a "fourth way"- my ideology is dedicated to finding out whether a "fourth way"- one that is anti-bolgad, one that keeps bolgads out and keeps women from enabling/breeding them as is their nature like feminism/modernity fails to do while not being as oppressive, stifling, religious, and, let's face it, retarded, as traditionalism. Traditionalists be reeing, but it is, I know to be true, a worthwhile endeavor.

With this view of history, it is quite clear that "lookism" is retarded. Women aren't attracted purely to looks. Women are bolgad-detection machines, and since bolgads are always the victor (historically), they are always the minority (about 20%). They are attracted to the characteristics that made a male more likely to be a bolgad in a neolithic environment. Height tends to signal warrior strength, as does frame, jawline and big dick tends to signal high T, youth, health, and a willingness to expand her regardless of how she feels about it, but "thugmaxxed" behaviors fundamentally do far more to help a male's chances of getting womb-access and anything worthwhile (sex, love, romance, etc.). Aggression, violence, tyranny, cruelty. These are the characteristics that make a female feel dominated, because they were the characteristics most common in successful conquerors in an ancient environment. That's what determines who is at the top of the 80/20 hierarchy.

And I think I speak for any human being who isn't a joke when I say- THIS IS A BAD THING, and WOMEN DO NOT SELECT FOR THE BEST GENES, THEY SELECT FOR THE WORST GENES. So stop referring to the genes that women prefer as "good genes" and yours as "bad genes" (I can assure you in the areas that really matter for civilization, this forum has above-average genes), and STOP BEING LOOKISTS.

That, my friends, is why I am not blackpilled. :dab::dab::dab:
Don’t expect me to read all this
 
Deleted member 41572

Deleted member 41572

Banned
-
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Posts
256
Online
10h 40m
Well written. Fuck those lazy slobs fuckin having problem with the length. He is writing quality posts unlike you postmaxxers thinking you better 'cause you got different color of kreml star you fuckin idiots
Seethe
 
C&UNIX

C&UNIX

Send Out the Clowns
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Posts
954
Online
39d 11h 6m
OP is saying that Bolgad Fuxx, Beta Buxx where a Bolgad is ThugMaxxing.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top