SentimentalCel
Non-barbariancel
★★
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Posts
- 171
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!! " 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 ). 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.
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!! " 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 ). 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.