Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

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.

Discussion Male Separatism: The Final Conclusion of the Blackpill

Would you move to a male only society that was filled with blackpilled men?

  • Yes

    Votes: 66 75.9%
  • No

    Votes: 21 24.1%

  • Total voters
    87
NoCopeNoHope

NoCopeNoHope

Just Replace Them Already
★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Posts
4,134
I would like to begin this thread by prefacing that this post will be light on heavy academic concepts, as it is meant to begin a general discussion related to an idea which I believe is fundamentally important to the blackpill. Male separatism is the idea that males must form their own societies and separate from females. While this sounds like MGTOW (and its largely irrelevant to this discussion whether it is or isn't), it is the actual final conclusion of the blackpill in my opinion. To understand this post in its entirety, one must be sufficiently blackpilled, as I will not explain commonly understood blackpill/redpill concepts like SMV or hypergamy. I will also try to stay away from discussing tech as much as possible, as I feel that is not the point of this thread. Also going to @your personality

Background
Females are our evolutionary counterparts. They have existed with us since the beginning of our species, and arguably since the early beginnings of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. Without digressing into why or how sexual reproduction came into being, the fundamental problem we are facing is actually not new but very, very old. Since the rise of complex multicellular life, females and males have had two very different biological imperatives. Both want to reproduce, and both need each other to reproduce. But one must bear the brunt of egg and child production, which of course fell on our female counterparts, at least in our taxonomic class Mammalia. In essence, they have different evolutionary purposes, which means they have different evolutionary goals then we do. While ours (males) is, broadly, to produce as many offspring as possible, theirs is to ensure the offspring is the best organism possible. This means they must choose which males reproduce and which ones don't. This is of course a gross generalization of the concepts of both evolution and sexual selection, but it works for our purposes. We can begin to see females as an evolutionary filter of some sorts, keeping genetically disadvantageous traits from reproducing, and males as more of the experimental side of the evolutionary game, trying new traits and strategies to see which ones survive. Understanding this, we can move to the next area of discussion, a brief history of sexual relations in our species and monogamy and why it came into being.

Many anthropologists study extant hunter gatherer groups, in an attempt to understand early human sexual behavior. In many of the hunter gatherer groups alive today, their is far less division of labor between the sexes like more technologically advanced groups. Females have far more control of social dynamics in these tribes as a result, and may be viewed as more "equitable" than modern societies. Feminists of course would say this arrangement is more equitable and should be used a model to follow. However, as a result of this "equality", male sexual success isn't nearly as assured as it is in societies that are more advanced because their worth is based off of things other than their ability to provide, since females share labor tasks. As a result, fewer males reproduce, and female sexual selection is more influential. My personal belief is that these hunter gatherer groups weren't able to compete with more patriarchal groups that came to dominate the world several thousand years ago precisely because females did not place emphasis on mate selection via economic means. A male's economic worth, which was amplified when the agricultural revolution began several thousand years ago, was the greatest determiner of sexual success in our societies in the past. Agriculture, along with many other technologies, were developed precisely because females were dependent on male resources, and males were forced to think of new ways to acquire resources if they wanted to reproduce. So here we see the origin of betabuxxing, or obtaining sex and reproduction through exchange of goods. This idea slowly lead to monogamy, as males didn't want to risk using their increasingly difficult and sophisticated labor to raise another man's children, and more advanced societies took shape. Males are afraid of getting cucked. It is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. The first cities and towns were based off of agriculture and iron tool making, both of which likely wouldn't have occurred if males were to sexually compete on non economic methods alone. Monogamy is and was the basis of all advanced societies. This was the arrangement for many centuries until the arrival of a new technological concept, industry.

Much like how the agricultural revolution shaped society before it, the industrial revolution and the closely related scientific revolution that preceded it by 100-150 years or so, began to impact our evolutionary development. We began to rely less and less on male labor as machines began to assist us in basic tasks. Things like firearms, which weren't new but could now be easily produced, began to even the playing field between smaller, more technologically advanced groups and those who didn't possess said tech. Said firearms would allow small groups of Europeans to colonize virtually the entire world, just to give an example of the evolutionary advantage technology bestows upon those who develop and wield it. On other fronts, machines were starting to automate production of important complex items. Things that would take blacksmiths several months to compete in 1200 could be done in hours in a factory in 1800. This speed up in human behavior would soon spread to other areas, and we began to replace the horse as our primary method of transit in the early 1900s. Where as the agricultural revolution took several thousand years, the industrial revolution took 350 or so from start to finish. This was faster than human social structures, which were built around agriculture nearly 5000 years ago, could cope and react to. This lead to many of the dysfunctions we see today, including the current dysfunction between the sexes. But it gets far worse.

The digital revolution, which occurred in the 70s, is the latest iteration of the industrial revolution, and brought with it instant communication. With instant communication was soon followed by instant gratification and instant stimulation. Social media can be likened to a massive decentralized consciousness, and its participants increasingly being forced to behave in accordance with its views. Humans are still sexually stuck in 20,000 BC. Our sexual behaviors are largely left over from that era. This is especially true of females, who didn't face the mass culling of males we saw during the agricultural revolution. Their wants and needs in a partner hasn't really changed all that much. Where as men gradually began to prefer loyalty and fidelity in the post agricultural era (less chance of getting cucked), females simply wanted the best genes possible. As long as she and her offspring are fed and sheltered, she doesn't really care. She'll gladly be part of a large harem of one powerful male if it means she is taken care of, or she'll gladly use her own labor for the job. Enter the welfare state, which is essentially a collection of taxpayers paying into a pot for others to take money from. Most taxpayers historically have been males, and most men in society today are net taxpayers, which means they give more than they take from that pot. The biggest takers of the money in that pot are women, particularly single mothers and their children. Women are net tax takers, and they are responsible both politically and socially for the massive welfare state we see today. In addition, females have taken advantage of the various technologies released over the past 80 years to slowly liberate themselves from needing male derived capital to survive. This increase of females in the labor pool hits males twice; once via the immediate effect of not needing to marry for financial reasons, and two by halving the value of his labor, thus making him even less able to provide for a family on his own. Two income families are now standard fare in the US, with the majority of child socialization occurring in the (publicly funded) school system and via social and traditional media.

A combination of the welfare state and female employment has effectively removed the beta provider role as a pathway for males to have offspring via marriage. Females as a result began to choose the fathers of their children based on different criteria, most importantly looks. This is a massive change from the prevailing sexual order that began 5000+ years ago, and has lead to the phenomena known as incels, who are essentially surplus males that aren't needed in the new evolutionary and sexual paradigm. We have regressed back to pre-agricultural sexual relations and behavior.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Need for Male Separatism
We can start by examining our situation. We are surplus males. What does this actually mean? This means that we are evolutionary byproducts. Our existence is to serve as fodder and padding for society's tax and war needs. We will, most likely, not reproduce and will instead have our labor harvested to contribute to those that do (females and high SMV males). We have no genetic future on the current evolutionary path. What are we to do about this?

The first solution, the traditionalist solution, is to return back to the period prior to the current sexual paradigm. That is, we bring back patriarchy and bring back male betabuxxing as a valid strategy. This is commonly expressed by religion copers or men who are redpilled, but not truly blackpilled. They fail to understand why feminism even exists as a concept and how technology has shaped our sexual relations over time. The blackpilled definition of feminism is one where gynocracy is allowed to rule totally unchallenged by males. Gynocracy is the observation that society has and, will almost always cater to, females due to their evolutionary position of producing children. Essentially, feminism is the political arm of female evolutionary goals. Feminists weren't fighting for women's rights, they were fighting for women's ability to use male resources and protection while sexually depriving many males of sexual, reproductive and romantic favors. Look at a common demand that women have for free universal daycare. What really is this? If we understand that the pubic school system is nothing more than a daycare for working parents to keep their kids at, universal daycare and kindergarten could be understood as a way for women to further use male tax resources to pay for their sexual behavior and choices. Chad has a kid with a foid, but said foid can't support the child on her own. What does she do? She votes for somebody that will give her free child care via the welfare state. This is why many feminists are such virulent economic leftists. In order to satisfy their evolutionary goals, they need male resources. So they force the state apparatus to take them from surplus males.

Technology, particularly the development of sophisticated and highly complex communications devices, means that females will always have access to a chad if they want to fuck. He is just a 30 minute drive away if she lives in a major city. She doesn't need to date anymore unless she just prefers that arrangement. Many here have read stories of foids being glued to their phones on dates. That is exactly what I'm talking about. She dates because she wants a free dinner or a new purse. She has no other use for a lower tier male. Marriage and LTRs are similar. She doesn't need you so she has no reason to remain faithful. She understands that she has the sexual and social power now, so she will open your relationship and cheat. Because she can and she knows she is really your only choice. You don't think women know how hard it is to be a male trying to date in 2020? They laugh about it! She will capitalize on male loneliness via Onlyfans, so she'll get her simpbux there and use it for whatever she wants. So no, as long as we have the internet and cars, she will fuck chad, and make you, in one way or another, pay for it.

The second solution is more radical. We must separate from foids and gynocentric society. Their evolutionary goals will always be in conflict with ours. In our new society, the only women there will be there purely for business needs like prostitution and surrogacy. There will be no foid parasitism off of our taxes and labor because there are no foids there. There will be no feminism because there are no females! No females means we won't have to deal with their opinions when developing copes or structuring our institutions. We will leverage technology as best we can to liberate ourselves from evolutionary stagnation and regression. Child birth will be provided by surrogates, removing harmful maternal influences (which I personally believe are the root of gynocentrism) and the sons will be raised by either single fathers or a community of men. Sexual access will be supplied via registered prostitutes, which will gradually help demystify sex and provide an outlet for the males who live there.

As technology improves, artificial wombs and eggs will be phased in, and sexbots/AI gfs will take the romantic and sexual roles that women currently fill. In this new evolutionary model, males born in that environment will not experience the sexual competition that we did while we were growing up in our old societies under the old sexual framework. Rather, they would be free to pursue other tasks and do these things with a sense of purpose that many of us don't possess due to the understanding of our situation. It is an overall improvement for male quality of life.


tl;dr
Female evolutionary goals are against ours.
Hypergamy and other negative female characteristics have been problems since before we were humans.
Modern technology has rendered social and sexual relationships designed during the agricultural revolution obsolete.
Traditionalism fails to account for said technological progress and still foolishly sees betabuxxing as the solution.
Females do not care about male suffering nor our sexual and romantic needs, and our needs aren't cared about by society.
Gynocentric society has institutionalized cuckoldry via taxes and the welfare state.
We are evolutionary dead ends in this system, so if we wish to reproduce and have something resembling a family, we need to create a new system.
By separating ourselves from society, we are free to develop copes and eventually replace the outdated human female with something better. Males born under this system will never have to experience inceldom ever again.
 
Last edited:
Yes or North Korea
I prefer to make Europe Communist
 
A for effort, but you are coping hard.

Majority of Men Will cope until the last second of their life that they are able to have a faithful wife with a "trad family".

It's easier for people to hunt us down than "male separatism" happening, it's OVER bro.
 
Majority of Men Will cope until the last second of their life that they are able to have a faithful wife with a "trad family".
Rise of both inceldom and MGTOW say otherwise. Also a lot of guys are getting blackpilled. I think its worth a shot. What else can we do but rot at this point?
 
we can pretty much say that 99% of all conflicts, violence and problems among men are caused by women. I'd love to live in such a place, imagine how far we'd be by know? Probably exploring galaxies. We would be able to create artificial wombs and edit the genetic code, every man would have his android gf or even multiples as long as he is a functioning member of society.

A for effort, but you are coping hard.

Majority of Men Will cope until the last second of their life that they are able to have a faithful wife with a "trad family".

It's easier for people to hunt us down than "male separatism" happening, it's OVER bro.
true
 
Rise of both inceldom and MGTOW say otherwise. Also a lot of guys are getting blackpilled. I think its worth a shot. What else can we do but rot at this point?
Don't get me wrong, If the chance appeared i would give It a chance.

But knowing How the elites work, they would brainwash the population into thinking we are some villains or Just straight send some hit men to end us, i rlly don't see it happening now bro, it's still to early.

IMO, this is the kind of thing that incels from 2030-40s will bring to fruition, don't forget we are the first generation of "I.N.C.E.L.S", there are a lot of bad things to happen till a handful amount of men ACTUALLY realize How over it is for them, MGTOW isn't even 1% of the population, plus the media is already vilifying them.

Maybe i'm coping, but we are the ones building and acquiring the knowledge for the subhumans of the future make the change.

I will just keep a low profile and keep escortcelling, If the government start to dox incels personal lives and information and i end up homeless and/or jobless, i'm going to some frat party to bring down as many as i can( in subhuman simulator).
 
Last edited:
A based male society would have android waifu to be submissive and loyal. and any female eventually allowed would have to be obedient completely to the patriarchal system. and there would be enacted punishment for any roastie trying to subdue any male.
 
IMO, this is the kind of thing that incels from 2030-40s will bring to fruition, don't forget we are the first generation of "I.N.C.E.L.S", there are a lot of bad things to happen till a handful amount of men ACTUALLY realize How over it is for them, MGTOW isn't even 1% of the population, plus the media is already vilifying them.
The thing that worries me about waiting is that if we wait too long, the blackpill and its concepts might be criminalized. We already see that they want us to be either slaves or dead. I don't think its a good idea to wait until 2030 to start working on this. We've already seen rumblings of the elites trying to roll out Chinese style social credit systems, which will make moneymaxxing impossible if you are blackpilled. They could also try make an international treaty or something to ban both commercial surrogacy and sexbots, which is very possible if we have a female president or more females in government agencies. I could even see them setting up bachelor taxes and forced hormone therapy to stop the rise in incels. Artificial wombs would have been built and commercially available by now if it was a major priority.

If we have even 1% of the global male population, that is enough to start making deals and looking for a place to build our new home. 10,000 men with $10k each is all we need to get started.
 
Would be a pretty shitty society because it is mostly made by normie cucks who have to wageslave to keep a woman and raise Chad's kid.
Don't get me wrong, If the chance appeared i would give It a chance.

But knowing How the elites work, they would brainwash the population into thinking we are some villains or Just straight send some hit men to end us, i rlly don't see it happening now bro, it's still to early.

IMO, this is the kind of thing that incels from 2030-40s will bring to fruition, don't forget we are the first generation of "I.N.C.E.L.S", there are a lot of bad things to happen till a handful amount of men ACTUALLY realize How over it is for them, MGTOW isn't even 1% of the population, plus the media is already vilifying them.

Maybe i'm coping, but we are the ones building and acquiring the knowledge for the subhumans of the future make the change.

I will just keep a low profile and keep escortcelling, If the government start to dox incels personal lives and information and i end up homeless and/or jobless, i'm going to some frat party to bring down as many as i can( in subhuman simulator).
Everyone is getting blackpilled or MGTOW'd by personal experience, media can't stop that.
 
we can pretty much say that 99% of all conflicts, violence and problems among men are caused by women. I'd love to live in such a place, imagine how far we'd be by know? Probably exploring galaxies. We would be able to create artificial wombs and edit the genetic code, every man would have his android gf or even multiples as long as he is a functioning member of society.


true
 
Once (or if) reproductive robot wives become mass produced, it is best if we "remove" women all together, so to speak.
 
The thing that worries me about waiting is that if we wait too long, the blackpill and its concepts might be criminalized. We already see that they want us to be either slaves or dead. I don't think its a good idea to wait until 2030 to start working on this. We've already seen rumblings of the elites trying to roll out Chinese style social credit systems, which will make moneymaxxing impossible if you are blackpilled. They could also try make an international treaty or something to ban both commercial surrogacy and sexbots, which is very possible if we have a female president or more females in government agencies. I could even see them setting up bachelor taxes and forced hormone therapy to stop the rise in incels. Artificial wombs would have been built and commercially available by now if it was a major priority.

If we have even 1% of the global male population, that is enough to start making deals and looking for a place to build our new home. 10,000 men with $10k each is all we need to get started.
That's a good point of view, i don't know, lets wait for what happens next year.

I'm trying to moneymax and escape the rat race asap, plus i'm not good with dealing with normies at all, even in that society you propose i would still get ostracized lol.

I just want to see the world burn and make the responsibles pay , i have way too many anger and hatred in my heart, i just need an opportunity...
 
I would like to begin this thread by prefacing that this post will be light on heavy academic concepts, as it is meant to begin a general discussion related to an idea which I believe is fundamentally important to the blackpill. Male separatism is the idea that males must form their own societies and separate from females. While this sounds like MGTOW (and its largely irrelevant to this discussion whether it is or isn't), it is the actual final conclusion of the blackpill in my opinion. To understand this post in its entirety, one must be sufficiently blackpilled, as I will not explain commonly understood blackpill/redpill concepts like SMV or hypergamy. I will also try to stay away from discussing tech as much as possible, as I feel that is not the point of this thread. Also going to @your personality

Background
Females are our evolutionary counterparts. They have existed with us since the beginning of our species, and arguably since the early beginnings of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. Without digressing into why or how sexual reproduction came into being, the fundamental problem we are facing is actually not new but very, very old. Since the rise of complex multicellular life, females and males have had two very different biological imperatives. Both want to reproduce, and both need each other to reproduce. But one must bear the brunt of egg and child production, which of course fell on our female counterparts, at least in our taxonomic class Mammalia. In essence, they have different evolutionary purposes, which means they have different evolutionary goals then we do. While ours (males) is, broadly, to produce as many offspring as possible, theirs is to ensure the offspring is the best organism possible. This means they must choose which males reproduce and which ones don't. This is of course a gross generalization of the concepts of both evolution and sexual selection, but it works for our purposes. We can begin to see females as an evolutionary filter of some sorts, keeping genetically disadvantageous traits from reproducing, and males as more of the experimental side of the evolutionary game, trying new traits and strategies to see which ones survive. Understanding this, we can move to the next area of discussion, a brief history of sexual relations in our species and monogamy and why it came into being.

Many anthropologists study extant hunter gatherer groups, in an attempt to understand early human sexual behavior. In many of the hunter gatherer groups alive today, their is far less division of labor between the sexes like more technologically advanced groups. Females have far more control of social dynamics in these tribes as a result, and may be viewed as more "equitable" than modern societies. Feminists of course would say this arrangement is more equitable and should be used a model to follow. However, as a result of this "equality", male sexual success isn't nearly as assured as it is in societies that are more advanced because their worth is based off of things other than their ability to provide, since females share labor tasks. As a result, fewer males reproduce, and female sexual selection is more influential. My personal belief is that these hunter gatherer groups weren't able to compete with more patriarchal groups that came to dominate the world several thousand years ago precisely because females did not place emphasis on mate selection via economic means. A male's economic worth, which was amplified when the agricultural revolution began several thousand years ago, was the greatest determiner of sexual success in our societies in the past. Agriculture, along with many other technologies, were developed precisely because females were dependent on male resources, and males were forced to think of new ways to acquire resources if they wanted to reproduce. So here we see the origin of betabuxxing, or obtaining sex and reproduction through exchange of goods. This idea slowly lead to monogamy, as males didn't want to risk using their increasingly difficult and sophisticated labor to raise another man's children, and more advanced societies took shape. Males are afraid of getting cucked. It is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. The first cities and towns were based off of agriculture and iron tool making, both of which likely wouldn't have occurred if males were to sexually compete on non economic methods alone. Monogamy is and was the basis of all advanced societies. This was the arrangement for many centuries until the arrival of a new technological concept, industry.

Much like how the agricultural revolution shaped society before it, the industrial revolution and the closely related scientific revolution that preceded it by 100-150 years or so, began to impact our evolutionary development. We began to rely less and less on male labor as machines began to assist us in basic tasks. Things like firearms, which weren't new but could now be easily produced, began to even the playing field between smaller, more technologically advanced groups and those who didn't possess said tech. Said firearms would allow small groups of Europeans to colonize virtually the entire world, just to give an example of the evolutionary advantage technology bestows upon those who develop and wield it. On other fronts, machines were starting to automate production of important complex items. Things that would take blacksmiths several months to compete in 1200 could be done in hours in a factory in 1800. This speed up in human behavior would soon spread to other areas, and we began to replace the horse as our primary method of transit in the early 1900s. Where as the agricultural revolution took several thousand years, the industrial revolution took 350 or so from start to finish. This was faster than human social structures, which were built around agriculture nearly 5000 years ago, could cope and react to. This lead to many of the dysfunctions we see today, including the current dysfunction between the sexes. But it gets far worse.

The digital revolution, which occurred in the 70s, is the latest iteration of the industrial revolution, and brought with it instant communication. With instant communication was soon followed by instant gratification and instant stimulation. Social media can be likened to a massive decentralized consciousness, and its participants increasingly being forced to behave in accordance with its views. Humans are still sexually stuck in 20,000 BC. Our sexual behaviors are largely left over from that era. This is especially true of females, who didn't face the mass culling of males we saw during the agricultural revolution. Their wants and needs in a partner hasn't really changed all that much. Where as men gradually began to prefer loyalty and fidelity in the post agricultural era (less chance of getting cucked), females simply wanted the best genes possible. As long as she and her offspring are fed and sheltered, she doesn't really care. She'll gladly be part of a large harem of one powerful male if it means she is taken care of, or she'll gladly use her own labor for the job. Enter the welfare state, which is essentially a collection of taxpayers paying into a pot for others to take money from. Most taxpayers historically have been males, and most men in society today are net taxpayers, which means they give more than they take from that pot. The biggest takers of the money in that pot are women, particularly single mothers and their children. Women are net tax takers, and they are responsible both politically and socially for the massive welfare state we see today. In addition, females have taken advantage of the various technologies released over the past 80 years to slowly liberate themselves from needing male derived capital to survive. This increase of females in the labor pool hits males twice; once via the immediate effect of not needing to marry for financial reasons, and two by halving the value of his labor, thus making him even less able to provide for a family on his own. Two income families are now standard fare in the US, with the majority of child socialization occurring in the (publicly funded) school system and via social and traditional media.

A combination of the welfare state and female employment has effectively removed the beta provider role as a pathway for males to have offspring via marriage. Females as a result began to choose the fathers of their children based on different criteria, most importantly looks. This is a massive change from the prevailing sexual order that began 5000+ years ago, and has lead to the phenomena known as incels, who are essentially surplus males that aren't needed in the new evolutionary and sexual paradigm. We have regressed back to pre-agricultural sexual relations and behavior.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Need for Male Separatism
We can start by examining our situation. We are surplus males. What does this actually mean? This means that we are evolutionary byproducts. Our existence is to serve as fodder and padding for society's tax and war needs. We will, most likely, not reproduce and will instead have our labor harvested to contribute to those that do (females and high SMV males). We have no genetic future on the current evolutionary path. What are we to do about this?

The first solution, the traditionalist solution, is to return back to the period prior to the current sexual paradigm. That is, we bring back patriarchy and bring back male betabuxxing as a valid strategy. This is commonly expressed by religion copers or men who are redpilled, but not truly blackpilled. They fail to understand why feminism even exists as a concept and how technology has shaped our sexual relations over time. The blackpilled definition of feminism is one where gynocracy is allowed to rule totally unchallenged by males. Gynocracy is the observation that society has and, will almost always cater to, females due to their evolutionary position of producing children. Essentially, feminism is the political arm of female evolutionary goals. Feminists weren't fighting for women's rights, they were fighting for women's ability to use male resources and protection while sexually depriving many males of sexual, reproductive and romantic favors. Look at a common demand that women have for free universal daycare. What really is this? If we understand that the pubic school system is nothing more than a daycare for working parents to keep their kids at, universal daycare and kindergarten could be understood as a way for women to further use male tax resources to pay for their sexual behavior and choices. Chad has a kid with a foid, but said foid can't support the child on her own. What does she do? She votes for somebody that will give her free child care via the welfare state. This is why many feminists are such virulent economic leftists. In order to satisfy their evolutionary goals, they need male resources. So they force the state apparatus to take them from surplus males.

Technology, particularly the development of sophisticated and highly complex communications devices, means that females will always have access to a chad if they want to fuck. He is just a 30 minute drive away if she lives in a major city. She doesn't need to date anymore unless she just prefers that arrangement. Many here have read stories of foids being glued to their phones on dates. That is exactly what I'm talking about. She dates because she wants a free dinner or a new purse. She has no other use for a lower tier male. Marriage and LTRs are similar. She doesn't need you so she has no reason to remain faithful. She understands that she has the sexual and social power now, so she will open your relationship and cheat. Because she can and she knows she is really your only choice. You don't think women know how hard it is to be a male trying to date in 2020? They laugh about it! She will capitalize on male loneliness via Onlyfans, so she'll get her simpbux there and use it for whatever she wants. So no, as long as we have the internet and cars, she will fuck chad, and make you, in one way or another, pay for it.

The second solution is more radical. We must separate from foids and gynocentric society. Their evolutionary goals will always be in conflict with ours. In our new society, the only women there will be there purely for business needs like prostitution and surrogacy. There will be no foid parasitism off of our taxes and labor because there are no foids there. There will be no feminism because there are no females! No females means we won't have to deal with their opinions when developing copes or structuring our institutions. We will leverage technology as best we can to liberate ourselves from evolutionary stagnation and regression. Child birth will be provided by surrogates, removing harmful maternal influences (which I personally believe are the root of gynocentrism) and the sons will be raised by either single fathers or a community of men. Sexual access will be supplied via registered prostitutes, which will gradually help demystify sex and provide an outlet for the males who live there.

As technology improves, artificial wombs and eggs will be phased in, and sexbots/AI gfs will take the romantic and sexual roles that women currently fill. In this new evolutionary model, males born in that environment will not experience the sexual competition that we did while we were growing up in our old societies under the old sexual framework. Rather, they would be free to pursue other tasks and do these things with a sense of purpose that many of us don't possess due to the understanding of our situation. It is an overall improvement for male quality of life.


tl;dr
Female evolutionary goals are against ours.
Hypergamy and other negative female characteristics have been problems since before we were humans.
Modern technology has rendered social and sexual relationships designed during the agricultural revolution obsolete.
Traditionalism fails to account for said technological progress and still foolishly sees betabuxxing as the solution.
Females do not care about male suffering nor our sexual and romantic needs, and our needs aren't cared about by society.
Gynocentric society has institutionalized cuckoldry via taxes and the welfare state.
We are evolutionary dead ends in this system, so if we wish to reproduce and have something resembling a family, we need to create a new system.
By separating ourselves from society, we are free to develop copes and eventually replace the outdated human female with something better. Males born under this system will never have to experience inceldom ever again.
Very well explained background.

There is one thing I disagree with, and that is that I think circumstances can make a woman more or less spoilt/hypergamous. I.e if she has had sex with many chads or if there is a culture that worships her that makes her overestimate herself she will be more spoiled and have higher standards. And with the first solution you can obviously arrange these circumstances to be as favourable as possible to dampen her hypergamy and increase loyalty. As cucked as it sounds I also value her affection and wouldn't really enjoy a male only society with prostitution so I would go with the first option.
 
The second solution is more radical. We must separate from foids and gynocentric society. Their evolutionary goals will always be in conflict with ours. In our new society, the only women there will be there purely for business needs like prostitution and surrogacy. There will be no foid parasitism off of our taxes and labor because there are no foids there. There will be no feminism because there are no females! No females means we won't have to deal with their opinions when developing copes or structuring our institutions. We will leverage technology as best we can to liberate ourselves from evolutionary stagnation and regression. Child birth will be provided by surrogates, removing harmful maternal influences (which I personally believe are the root of gynocentrism) and the sons will be raised by either single fathers or a community of men. Sexual access will be supplied via registered prostitutes, which will gradually help demystify sex and provide an outlet for the males who live there.
I'd like to live even for a day in such world
As technology improves, artificial wombs and eggs will be phased in, and sexbots/AI gfs will take the romantic and sexual roles that women currently fill
Can any innovationcel tell me how long we should wait for this?
I just want to see the world burn and make the responsibles pay
 
And as for me, it would be ideal just to create a pill to disable sex drive. Imagine that your libido just disappears and everything else is fine. And you are free.
But this is half science fiction.
:blackpill: :blackpill: :blackpill:
 
Last edited:
There is one thing I disagree with, and that is that I think circumstances can make a woman more or less spoilt/hypergamous. I.e if she has had sex with many chads or if there is a culture that worships her that makes her overestimate herself she will be more spoiled and have higher standards. And with the first solution you can obviously arrange these circumstances to be as favourable as possible to dampen her hypergamy and increase loyalty. As cucked as it sounds I also value her affection and wouldn't really enjoy a male only society with prostitution so I would go with the first option.
I personally think we have passed the point of no return. We can't go back to the pre-feminist days because foids know what its like to be able to choose their own partners now without regard for economic status and they have the technology to arrange for said relationships in a quick and efficient way. The horse left the barn a long time ago. The real issue with traditionalism is that it can't cope with new technologies effectively. Look at how Christianity and Islam are being demolished right now. Traditionalist societies set themselves up for failure by not futureproofing their methods.

As for the male only society, affection would come from AI, who you can be confident actually loves you and isn't just using you for money. An AI's affection for an incel is more real than a human woman's, as sad as that sounds.

Can any innovationcel tell me how long we should wait for this?
Depends on the money thrown at it. I've always said 20 years if we start throwing money and resources at it. She won't be a perfect replica, but she'll be close enough to fool your heart.

And as for me, it would be ideal just to create a pill to disable sex drive. Imagine that your libido just disappears and everything else is fine. And you are free.
It wouldn't solve the underlying problem of male disposablity. That's like taking pain meds to deal with an infection or cancer versus trying to cure it with medicine or chemo.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't solve the underlying problem of male disposablity. That's like taking pain meds to deal with an infection or cancer versus trying to cure it with medicine or chemo.
I agree. But won't this solve the problem of each individual incel in particular? And thus the problem of all incels will be solved.
 
But won't this solve the problem of each individual incel in particular?
No, because the problem isn't our sex drive. Its the society and evolutionary framework we live under. Why should we change our brain chemistry to match society's wishes? Why not make foids change theirs so they stop being chadsexual? If you need 30% of men to take anti-libido pills in order for your society to function, then your society is garbage and will fail. You are essentially saying slavery is okay as long as the slave is kept pacified. So you'd be perfectly fine being fodder for a society that hates you and wants you dead?
 
Why not make foids change theirs so they stop being chadsexual?
Yes, it would probably be better that way.
Unfortunately, foids cannot be made polygamous (I mean, make them love different men).
That is, we can only force them to have sex with someone they do not want.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it would probably be better that way.
Unfortunately, foids cannot be made polygamous.
That is, we can only force them to have sex with someone they do not want.
If we can't "fix" foids (we can't), then we must replace them.
 
If we can't "fix" foids (we can't), then we must replace them.
By the way, what if all men suddenly become hypergamous? Do you think it would be better for us than now?
 
By the way, what if all men suddenly become hypergamous?
What do you mean? Females can be hypergamous because they control child production. Are you talking about Chad marrying up?
 
Good idea. I hope it works one day.
 
Such a country/region would be a fantastic utopia to live in. We would have absolute freedom and won’t have to suffer anymore. As for the population, incels are free to come if they are blackpilled. I doubt anyone would be born in this place until we make artificial wombs. Everyone can also get a free sexbot as well. This would be a great idea but I am not sure how this can happen. Maybe we could buy land from a country with a bad economy or go to the wild and build a village from scratch.
 
If we can't "fix" foids (we can't), then we must replace them.
JFL, on flesh and blood cucks on this board. They still simp for women, we don't need them. Technology CAN and WILL replace them eventually.

I think a male only utopia could work, with some money thrown at it. The professions to build and run a city are all male dominated anyway, construction, design, engineering, logistics. There would be an uproar of cucks though and infiltrators. Men could technically build the city of tomorrow without all the redtape and safety shit for retards.

1547954855244
 
I would like to begin this thread by prefacing that this post will be light on heavy academic concepts, as it is meant to begin a general discussion related to an idea which I believe is fundamentally important to the blackpill. Male separatism is the idea that males must form their own societies and separate from females. While this sounds like MGTOW (and its largely irrelevant to this discussion whether it is or isn't), it is the actual final conclusion of the blackpill in my opinion. To understand this post in its entirety, one must be sufficiently blackpilled, as I will not explain commonly understood blackpill/redpill concepts like SMV or hypergamy. I will also try to stay away from discussing tech as much as possible, as I feel that is not the point of this thread. Also going to @your personality
Imo whatever it sounds like labels are less important than the general idea and concept. This is becoming an increasing need in male oriented communities. Not only the need to avoid rigorously sticking to labels but also the openeness to interaction with other groups of males that have been vetted to be sufficiently against society's exploitation of low SMV males.

Background
Females are our evolutionary counterparts. They have existed with us since the beginning of our species, and arguably since the early beginnings of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. Without digressing into why or how sexual reproduction came into being, the fundamental problem we are facing is actually not new but very, very old. Since the rise of complex multicellular life, females and males have had two very different biological imperatives. Both want to reproduce, and both need each other to reproduce. But one must bear the brunt of egg and child production, which of course fell on our female counterparts, at least in our taxonomic class Mammalia. In essence, they have different evolutionary purposes, which means they have different evolutionary goals then we do. While ours (males) is, broadly, to produce as many offspring as possible, theirs is to ensure the offspring is the best organism possible. This means they must choose which males reproduce and which ones don't. This is of course a gross generalization of the concepts of both evolution and sexual selection, but it works for our purposes. We can begin to see females as an evolutionary filter of some sorts, keeping genetically disadvantageous traits from reproducing, and males as more of the experimental side of the evolutionary game, trying new traits and strategies to see which ones survive. Understanding this, we can move to the next area of discussion, a brief history of sexual relations in our species and monogamy and why it came into being.
I agree. While not as consciously advanced there is probably antagonism naturally arising between males and females in every sexually reproductive species.
I think you also touched on the r/K selection theory.

Many anthropologists study extant hunter gatherer groups, in an attempt to understand early human sexual behavior. In many of the hunter gatherer groups alive today, their is far less division of labor between the sexes like more technologically advanced groups. Females have far more control of social dynamics in these tribes as a result, and may be viewed as more "equitable" than modern societies. Feminists of course would say this arrangement is more equitable and should be used a model to follow. However, as a result of this "equality", male sexual success isn't nearly as assured as it is in societies that are more advanced because their worth is based off of things other than their ability to provide, since females share labor tasks. As a result, fewer males reproduce, and female sexual selection is more influential. My personal belief is that these hunter gatherer groups weren't able to compete with more patriarchal groups that came to dominate the world several thousand years ago precisely because females did not place emphasis on mate selection via economic means. A male's economic worth, which was amplified when the agricultural revolution began several thousand years ago, was the greatest determiner of sexual success in our societies in the past. Agriculture, along with many other technologies, were developed precisely because females were dependent on male resources, and males were forced to think of new ways to acquire resources if they wanted to reproduce. So here we see the origin of betabuxxing, or obtaining sex and reproduction through exchange of goods. This idea slowly lead to monogamy, as males didn't want to risk using their increasingly difficult and sophisticated labor to raise another man's children, and more advanced societies took shape. Males are afraid of getting cucked. It is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. The first cities and towns were based off of agriculture and iron tool making, both of which likely wouldn't have occurred if males were to sexually compete on non economic methods alone. Monogamy is and was the basis of all advanced societies. This was the arrangement for many centuries until the arrival of a new technological concept, industry.
Also such amplified dual mating strategy behavior might have evolved due to environmental changes a few millions years ago in early humans.

Much like how the agricultural revolution shaped society before it, the industrial revolution and the closely related scientific revolution that preceded it by 100-150 years or so, began to impact our evolutionary development. We began to rely less and less on male labor as machines began to assist us in basic tasks. Things like firearms, which weren't new but could now be easily produced, began to even the playing field between smaller, more technologically advanced groups and those who didn't possess said tech. Said firearms would allow small groups of Europeans to colonize virtually the entire world, just to give an example of the evolutionary advantage technology bestows upon those who develop and wield it. On other fronts, machines were starting to automate production of important complex items. Things that would take blacksmiths several months to compete in 1200 could be done in hours in a factory in 1800. This speed up in human behavior would soon spread to other areas, and we began to replace the horse as our primary method of transit in the early 1900s. Where as the agricultural revolution took several thousand years, the industrial revolution took 350 or so from start to finish. This was faster than human social structures, which were built around agriculture nearly 5000 years ago, could cope and react to. This lead to many of the dysfunctions we see today, including the current dysfunction between the sexes. But it gets far worse.
There is definitely technological innovation increasing faster than human society can keep up imo. But only in the last few decades become really apparent with the increasing pace of communication advances that allow women to contact any attractive man they want to get their fix of attention.

The digital revolution, which occurred in the 70s, is the latest iteration of the industrial revolution, and brought with it instant communication. With instant communication was soon followed by instant gratification and instant stimulation. Social media can be likened to a massive decentralized consciousness, and its participants increasingly being forced to behave in accordance with its views. Humans are still sexually stuck in 20,000 BC. Our sexual behaviors are largely left over from that era. This is especially true of females, who didn't face the mass culling of males we saw during the agricultural revolution. Their wants and needs in a partner hasn't really changed all that much. Where as men gradually began to prefer loyalty and fidelity in the post agricultural era (less chance of getting cucked), females simply wanted the best genes possible. As long as she and her offspring are fed and sheltered, she doesn't really care. She'll gladly be part of a large harem of one powerful male if it means she is taken care of, or she'll gladly use her own labor for the job. Enter the welfare state, which is essentially a collection of taxpayers paying into a pot for others to take money from. Most taxpayers historically have been males, and most men in society today are net taxpayers, which means they give more than they take from that pot. The biggest takers of the money in that pot are women, particularly single mothers and their children. Women are net tax takers, and they are responsible both politically and socially for the massive welfare state we see today. In addition, females have taken advantage of the various technologies released over the past 80 years to slowly liberate themselves from needing male derived capital to survive. This increase of females in the labor pool hits males twice; once via the immediate effect of not needing to marry for financial reasons, and two by halving the value of his labor, thus making him even less able to provide for a family on his own. Two income families are now standard fare in the US, with the majority of child socialization occurring in the (publicly funded) school system and via social and traditional media.
Agreed. This is a major reason why many women are for economic equality but not sexual equality.

Also as said in so many circles: feminism freed women but kept men in their roles.
Currently the world is in a state of transition where men are no longer needed but society insists on keeping men in the provider and protector role even though men only benefited in the past from this role when unlike today they were able to more easily attract women to have relationships and children with.


A combination of the welfare state and female employment has effectively removed the beta provider role as a pathway for males to have offspring via marriage. Females as a result began to choose the fathers of their children based on different criteria, most importantly looks. This is a massive change from the prevailing sexual order that began 5000+ years ago, and has lead to the phenomena known as incels, who are essentially surplus males that aren't needed in the new evolutionary and sexual paradigm. We have regressed back to pre-agricultural sexual relations and behavior.
I agree but just like with technology increasing the means to keep the status quo in place implementations of social media and media checks on behavior are providing a means by which to try and squash any kind of change to the status quo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Need for Male Separatism
We can start by examining our situation. We are surplus males. What does this actually mean? This means that we are evolutionary byproducts. Our existence is to serve as fodder and padding for society's tax and war needs. We will, most likely, not reproduce and will instead have our labor harvested to contribute to those that do (females and high SMV males). We have no genetic future on the current evolutionary path. What are we to do about this?

The first solution, the traditionalist solution, is to return back to the period prior to the current sexual paradigm. That is, we bring back patriarchy and bring back male betabuxxing as a valid strategy. This is commonly expressed by religion copers or men who are redpilled, but not truly blackpilled. They fail to understand why feminism even exists as a concept and how technology has shaped our sexual relations over time. The blackpilled definition of feminism is one where gynocracy is allowed to rule totally unchallenged by males. Gynocracy is the observation that society has and, will almost always cater to, females due to their evolutionary position of producing children. Essentially, feminism is the political arm of female evolutionary goals. Feminists weren't fighting for women's rights, they were fighting for women's ability to use male resources and protection while sexually depriving many males of sexual, reproductive and romantic favors. Look at a common demand that women have for free universal daycare. What really is this? If we understand that the pubic school system is nothing more than a daycare for working parents to keep their kids at, universal daycare and kindergarten could be understood as a way for women to further use male tax resources to pay for their sexual behavior and choices. Chad has a kid with a foid, but said foid can't support the child on her own. What does she do? She votes for somebody that will give her free child care via the welfare state. This is why many feminists are such virulent economic leftists. In order to satisfy their evolutionary goals, they need male resources. So they force the state apparatus to take them from surplus males.
Yeah. Feminism is female solipsistic nature personified and is only concerned with how to use men to women's benefit.
With chads this involves finding a way to gain increased sexual access to them.
With nonchad males it involves finding a way to gain greater access to any potential resources from these nonchad males without having to have any romantic or social relationship to those males.


Who knows how many times this cycle of women fully making use of the dual mating strategy and siphoning of unattractive males' resources have happened in the past? It leads to dysfunction for every unattractive male and lessens their status, making them easy prey for bullies that look for easy targets and groups that aren't protected. It doesn't matter how much religious, moral restrictions you make. Women find a way around them and society follows in bullying the males that are left behind.
As long as men continue to associate with women feminism in some form or the other will arise at some point.


Technology, particularly the development of sophisticated and highly complex communications devices, means that females will always have access to a chad if they want to fuck. He is just a 30 minute drive away if she lives in a major city. She doesn't need to date anymore unless she just prefers that arrangement. Many here have read stories of foids being glued to their phones on dates. That is exactly what I'm talking about. She dates because she wants a free dinner or a new purse. She has no other use for a lower tier male. Marriage and LTRs are similar. She doesn't need you so she has no reason to remain faithful. She understands that she has the sexual and social power now, so she will open your relationship and cheat. Because she can and she knows she is really your only choice. You don't think women know how hard it is to be a male trying to date in 2020? They laugh about it! She will capitalize on male loneliness via Onlyfans, so she'll get her simpbux there and use it for whatever she wants. So no, as long as we have the internet and cars, she will fuck chad, and make you, in one way or another, pay for it.
One good thing about this is that marriage and LTR rates are declining and so the incidences of men being financially and emotionally destroyed in divorce aren't as frequent.

The second solution is more radical. We must separate from foids and gynocentric society. Their evolutionary goals will always be in conflict with ours. In our new society, the only women there will be there purely for business needs like prostitution and surrogacy. There will be no foid parasitism off of our taxes and labor because there are no foids there. There will be no feminism because there are no females! No females means we won't have to deal with their opinions when developing copes or structuring our institutions. We will leverage technology as best we can to liberate ourselves from evolutionary stagnation and regression. Child birth will be provided by surrogates, removing harmful maternal influences (which I personally believe are the root of gynocentrism) and the sons will be raised by either single fathers or a community of men. Sexual access will be supplied via registered prostitutes, which will gradually help demystify sex and provide an outlet for the males who live there.

As technology improves, artificial wombs and eggs will be phased in, and sexbots/AI gfs will take the romantic and sexual roles that women currently fill. In this new evolutionary model, males born in that environment will not experience the sexual competition that we did while we were growing up in our old societies under the old sexual framework. Rather, they would be free to pursue other tasks and do these things with a sense of purpose that many of us don't possess due to the understanding of our situation. It is an overall improvement for male quality of life.
The timeline for the latter (artificial wombs and eggs, sexbots/AI gfs) keeps getting pushed back. When barbarossaaaa first brought up the possibility of such a future scenario in his videos in the early 2010s, some optimists thought it would be 2030 by the time this technology would be ready, what with the trials around male birth control like Vasagel showing promising breakthroughs.
But now with technological stagnation the timeline for that kind of technology to be ready for mass use has been pushed back.

The possibility of sex robots only being viable by 2050 and artifical womb technology in the late 21st century is the consensus I have read about people's developing expectations about these technologies in the face of current technological stagnation.

The thing that worries me about waiting is that if we wait too long, the blackpill and its concepts might be criminalized. We already see that they want us to be either slaves or dead. I don't think its a good idea to wait until 2030 to start working on this. We've already seen rumblings of the elites trying to roll out Chinese style social credit systems, which will make moneymaxxing impossible if you are blackpilled. They could also try make an international treaty or something to ban both commercial surrogacy and sexbots, which is very possible if we have a female president or more females in government agencies. I could even see them setting up bachelor taxes and forced hormone therapy to stop the rise in incels. Artificial wombs would have been built and commercially available by now if it was a major priority.

If we have even 1% of the global male population, that is enough to start making deals and looking for a place to build our new home. 10,000 men with $10k each is all we need to get started.
tbh when it comes to these developments no one except people on male oriented sites against gynocentrism can be expected not to try and interfere with efforts of unattractive men to fully dissociate themselves from women.

Already many opposition groups (traditionalists, feminists, social engineers that want to figure out ways to keep the status quo in place and prevent any single man from opting out) are trying to better ascertain what the next steps will be to try and figure out how to get ahead of that and neutralize the possibility.

I think this can be slowed down by stopping trying to spread the blackpill to people that aren't unattractive males. Because after some time it will dawn on them that if they aren't unattractive males then a lot of the blackpill has implications in unattractive males freeing themselves from a system that benefits people like them and they will try to at least obfuscate and misrepresent efforts to do this as dysfunctional, dangerous, a conspiracy by outside governments or groups (the joos!), an effort by unattractive males to drive apart sexually successful men and women (which can breed resentment in people that feel they "earned" their successful sexual relationships).

Media will also try to demonize and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about such efforts but the silver lining there is that the media is running out of crediblity because they have for too long stopped focusing on serious policy issues and mainly harp on about identity politics and special interest culture wars issues as a thinly veiled attempt to distract attention from people in power and instead divert focus to the common person's drama (arrests, relationship breakups, videos of them freaking out etc).

But other than that where is the first place to direct R&D efforts? As I already touched upon sex robots seem more likely to be ready for mass use before artificial wombs are. All I have seen of artificial wombs is that same example of a lamb being birthed but no real news since then. Even gene editing and designer babies has had more development than artificial womb technology.
 
Last edited:
Imo whatever it sounds like labels are less important than the general idea and concept. This is becoming an increasing need in male oriented communities. Not only the need to avoid rigorously sticking to labels but also the openeness to interaction with other groups of males that have been vetted to be sufficiently against society's exploitation of low SMV males.
I find the recent developments with Sandman, arguably the biggest MGTOW on youtube, promising in this regard. He is actually starting to discuss the ideas of incels and the blackpill. I see a lot of crossing over from MGTOW to blackpill in the last year or so in many other MGTOW forums. They would probably be the most receptive to male separatism as its literally in their name.
Also such amplified dual mating strategy behavior might have evolved due to environmental changes a few millions years ago in early humans.
Interesting. Further proof that this struggle has been going on for quite some time.
As long as men continue to associate with women feminism in some form or the other will arise at some point.
Absolutely. Males who still believe there is hope for cooperation are delusional. We wouldn't have put foids on a leash originally if we thought they could be honest and work with us.
One good thing about this is that marriage and LTR rates are declining and so the incidences of men being destroyed in divorce aren't as freuquent.
Less chances for women to acquire resources too via the betabux role.
The timeline for the latter (artificial wombs and eggs, sexbots/AI gfs) keeps getting pushed back. When barbarossaaaa first brought up the possibility of such a future scenario some optimists thought it would be 2030 by the time this technology would be ready, what with the trials around male birth control like Vasagel showing promising breakthroughs.
I believe we already have a nearly fully functional artificial womb. Its just that it can't be used due to ethical and political concerns. 14 day embryo trials were successful. Sexbots are a different beast. I think we'll see some interesting models by 2030. As more men lose out on relationships, they turn to other sources of affection. Currently, that main source is Onlyfans. But with commercialization comes automation. ProjektMelody, while not truly 1:1 comparable with the average e-thot, proved that there was a market for virtual girls (I know its really a foid in a mocap suit). The next step is to fully automate a girl like ProjektMelody, which I believe will occur in 1 to 2 years as faster rendering tech becomes available and GPT3 and natural language machine learning improves. As men begin to converse with these virtual girls, the AI that powers these girls begins to learn more and more about male wants and needs.

The next step afterwards is to target the general camgirl market, which will only get bigger and attract more investment in the coming years. So photorealistic rendered virtual girls powered by AI will be here within 3 to 5 years. While this is happening, I predict we'll see the first moving and self heated sex doll, as well as further developments in virtual and augmented reality. We'll have a walking sexbots by 2030-35. It won't be cheap, but neither is betabuxxing. I predict a decent bot will cost $100k or so. From then on things get harder to predict.

I think this can be slowed down by stopping trying to spread the blackpill to people that aren't unattractive males. Because after some time it will dawn on them that if they aren't unattractive males then a lot of the blackpill has implications in unattractive males freeing themselves from a system that benefits people like them and they will try to at least obfuscate and misrepresent efforts to do this as dysfunctional, dangerous, a conspiracy by outside governments or groups (the joos!), an effort by unattractive males to drive apart sexually successful men and women (which can breed resentment in people that feel they "earned" their successful sexual relationships).
Its too late for that, and it probably wouldn't be effective anyways. Lets assume in a few months somebody announces a plan to create a colony in some third world country where male separatists are allowed to go and work under some contract. In exchange, they are provided an opportunity for surrogacy and the ability to buy the most advanced sexbot available and a heavily discounted rate. What, realistically, could normie gynocentric society do about this? How do they stop men with no families and no long term plans from moving there? Demonize us? They already do this? Arrest us? For what? As for /pol/ types, they'll drown in their own delusions.
 
Wouldn't work. As soon as males get a whiff of pussy, CONFLICTS ENSUE.
 
Wouldn't work. As soon as males get a whiff of pussy, CONFLICTS ENSUE.
Have to kill the simps when they show themselves. Hopefully the bots keep the more impulsive and simpish amongst us in check.
 
And as for me, it would be ideal just to create a pill to disable sex drive. Imagine that your libido just disappears and everything else is fine. And you are free.
But this is half science fiction.
:blackpill: :blackpill: :blackpill:
Castration does that.
 
Imagine that you and I, like all other men, would like to have sex only with Stacy.
Well we do in a sense. When I fuck prostitutes, I only fuck the ones that look like models. The key difference is that we will settle for just about anything in a relationship, so long as she is loyal. See various pigwoman experiments on tinder.
If females won't fuck us, we should leave so they can't use us as taxslaves.
 
Last edited:
I find the recent developments with Sandman, arguably the biggest MGTOW on youtube, promising in this regard. He is actually starting to discuss the ideas of incels and the blackpill. I see a lot of crossing over from MGTOW to blackpill in the last year or so in many other MGTOW forums. They would probably be the most receptive to male separatism as its literally in their name.
I have noticed that too but tbh I was referring to not just groups but anyone who has expressed sentiments against gynocentrism and objecting to valuing women's lives over men's lives.

I believe we already have a nearly fully functional artificial womb. Its just that it can't be used due to ethical and political concerns. 14 day embryo trials were successful. Sexbots are a different beast. I think we'll see some interesting models by 2030. As more men lose out on relationships, they turn to other sources of affection. Currently, that main source is Onlyfans. But with commercialization comes automation. ProjektMelody, while not truly 1:1 comparable with the average e-thot, proved that there was a market for virtual girls (I know its really a foid in a mocap suit). The next step is to fully automate a girl like ProjektMelody, which I believe will occur in 1 to 2 years as faster rendering tech becomes available and GPT3 and natural language machine learning improves. As men begin to converse with these virtual girls, the AI that powers these girls begins to learn more and more about male wants and needs.

The next step afterwards is to target the general camgirl market, which will only get bigger and attract more investment in the coming years. So photorealistic rendered virtual girls powered by AI will be here within 3 to 5 years. While this is happening, I predict we'll see the first moving and self heated sex doll, as well as further developments in virtual and augmented reality. We'll have a walking sexbots by 2030-35. It won't be cheap, but neither is betabuxxing. I predict a decent bot will cost $100k or so. From then on things get harder to predict.
I agree with your timeline for when it will be feasible to having walking sexbots but I don't think they will be inexpensive enough for the average male until maybe a decade or so later in the 2050s.

Its too late for that, and it probably wouldn't be effective anyways. Lets assume in a few months somebody announces a plan to create a colony in some third world country where male separatists are allowed to go and work under some contract. In exchange, they are provided an opportunity for surrogacy and the ability to buy the most advanced sexbot available and a heavily discounted rate. What, realistically, could normie gynocentric society do about this? How do they stop men with no families and no long term plans from moving there? Demonize us? They already do this? Arrest us? For what? As for /pol/ types, they'll drown in their own delusions.
Not necessarily tbh you just have to stop giving credence to wannabe edgy youtubers that try to make videos on blackpill and men's rights topics. Outside of incels and people obsessed with stalking incels nobody really cares about those videos too much otherwise. It may seem like a lot reddit might but reddit is full of incels in denial as many people here have already said.

As for what normie gynocentric society could do?
A lot:

freezing the assets of males that express an interest to moving to this new colony (will be branded a terrorist state most likely),
males that have expressed an interest in moving to this new male only colony would be put on a new fly list and not allowed to travel,
demonizing and arresting anyone who attempts to provide resources or efforts to sending resources to the male colony if they are still in a western anglo country

Therefore the best plan is to start the planning and base of operations outside of a non western anglo country like an expat destination in southeast Asia where it would not attract as much attention and even if it did it would blend in with the extremes to which guys go to be away from the extreme gynocentrism of western countries.

See Rookh Kshatriya's writings on this at the anglobitch blog.
 
Without reading the thread: hell yeah!
 
freezing the assets of males that express an interest to moving to this new colony (will be branded a terrorist state most likely),
males that have expressed an interest in moving to this new male only colony would be put on a new fly list and not allowed to travel,
demonizing and arresting anyone who attempts to provide resources or efforts to sending resources to the male colony if they are still in a western anglo country
If they are trying to freeze assets, then we would have to treat them as an immediate threat and leave the country as soon as possible to a neutral country. Many of us who are moneymaxxing and blackpilled should have offshore accounts used for things like this. I maintain a small amount offshore in a non USD account for use in emergencies. Crypto can also be used to protect against this.

As for the no fly list, if things get that bad, all we'll need to do is get a boat and sail away to another country and claim asylum. But it sounds like you are describing a dictatorship more than a Western country. I can't see any Western nation doing this without going through some kind of political transformation which would tip off literally anybody intelligent to GTFO. It would be like Venezuela where smart people left a year or so after Chavez took control. Same with financing the colony. You would need a massive paradigm shift.

Therefore the best plan is to start the planning and base of operations outside of a non western anglo country like an expat destination in southeast Asia where it would not attract as much attention and even if it did it would blend in with the extremes to which guys go to be away from the extreme gynocentrism of western countries.
SEA is too crowded and the majority will be Chinese client states. Given how the Chinese treat their incels and surplus males, I wouldn't want to live anywhere near there. My idea would be to place the colony in far eastern Russia, preferably on the Kamchatka Peninsula somewhere. Russia has been trying to get people to move to Siberia for years, so this would be a good opportunity. Putin also seems broadly more anti-feminist than the Chinese or Western leaders. Russia is also a nuclear armed power, so Western violations of sovereignty will not be tolerated.
 
If they are trying to freeze assets, then we would have to treat them as an immediate threat and leave the country as soon as possible to a neutral country. Many of us who are moneymaxxing and blackpilled should have offshore accounts used for things like this. I maintain a small amount offshore in a non USD account for use in emergencies. Crypto can also be used to protect against this.
I see
non USD accounts sound like a good option tbh

As for the no fly list, if things get that bad, all we'll need to do is get a boat and sail away to another country and claim asylum. But it sounds like you are describing a dictatorship more than a Western country. I can't see any Western nation doing this without going through some kind of political transformation which would tip off literally anybody intelligent to GTFO. It would be like Venezuela where smart people left a year or so after Chavez took control. Same with financing the colony. You would need a massive paradigm shift.
Well people here like @CrackingYs regularly talk about incel concentration camps coming soon in western countries so not everyone shares your opinion there. But I think that if identity politics liberal politicans keep taking power it could happen sooner. They are the most obsessed with prosecuting incels.

SEA is too crowded and the majority will be Chinese client states. Given how the Chinese treat their incels and surplus males, I wouldn't want to live anywhere near there. My idea would be to place the colony in far eastern Russia, preferably on the Kamchatka Peninsula somewhere. Russia has been trying to get people to move to Siberia for years, so this would be a good opportunity. Putin also seems broadly more anti-feminist than the Chinese or Western leaders. Russia is also a nuclear armed power, so Western violations of sovereignty will not be tolerated.
Good point about SEA.
Maybe base of operations can be some place like Japan or the Kamchatka Peninsula?
Putin may be anti-feminist but not in a purely anti gynocentrism sense just like most anti-feminists are tbh
He's probably more anti-feminist in a zero tolerance for weak unattractive males that don't uphold the stereotype of what it means to be a man kind of way.

But good point about Russia being a nuclear armed power.
Although if a male only colony was set up under Russian provision get ready for the inevitable "incels are a Russian conspiracy" fodder in the media and by people obsessed with incels.
 
I would do it if I got a sex bot capable of passing the Turing test
 
Okay. Nice theory. So how are you going to organize a group of social outcasts to put in the effort to build a male seperatist society? You would need thousands of low value men for a chance at pushback from the inevitable media, mainstream society, and government backlash. They would label us domestic terrorists and do COINTELPRO shit like infliltrating and assassination.

One of the reasons blackpill and inceldom is getting mainstream attention is because it's not so much a movement but a large mass of men involuntarily checking out of society due to gynocentrism and lookism. It takes no effort on their part, just LDAR and watch society slowly collapse. Even without any sort of organization, governments are already framing us as domestic terrorists and training "authorities" to spot dogwhistles in language and behavior. It seems they are pre-emptively taking measures to make orginizing impossible.

I don't see it happening.
 
Last edited:
I would like to begin this thread by prefacing that this post will be light on heavy academic concepts, as it is meant to begin a general discussion related to an idea which I believe is fundamentally important to the blackpill. Male separatism is the idea that males must form their own societies and separate from females. While this sounds like MGTOW (and its largely irrelevant to this discussion whether it is or isn't), it is the actual final conclusion of the blackpill in my opinion. To understand this post in its entirety, one must be sufficiently blackpilled, as I will not explain commonly understood blackpill/redpill concepts like SMV or hypergamy. I will also try to stay away from discussing tech as much as possible, as I feel that is not the point of this thread. Also going to @your personality

Background
Females are our evolutionary counterparts. They have existed with us since the beginning of our species, and arguably since the early beginnings of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. Without digressing into why or how sexual reproduction came into being, the fundamental problem we are facing is actually not new but very, very old. Since the rise of complex multicellular life, females and males have had two very different biological imperatives. Both want to reproduce, and both need each other to reproduce. But one must bear the brunt of egg and child production, which of course fell on our female counterparts, at least in our taxonomic class Mammalia. In essence, they have different evolutionary purposes, which means they have different evolutionary goals then we do. While ours (males) is, broadly, to produce as many offspring as possible, theirs is to ensure the offspring is the best organism possible. This means they must choose which males reproduce and which ones don't. This is of course a gross generalization of the concepts of both evolution and sexual selection, but it works for our purposes. We can begin to see females as an evolutionary filter of some sorts, keeping genetically disadvantageous traits from reproducing, and males as more of the experimental side of the evolutionary game, trying new traits and strategies to see which ones survive. Understanding this, we can move to the next area of discussion, a brief history of sexual relations in our species and monogamy and why it came into being.

Many anthropologists study extant hunter gatherer groups, in an attempt to understand early human sexual behavior. In many of the hunter gatherer groups alive today, their is far less division of labor between the sexes like more technologically advanced groups. Females have far more control of social dynamics in these tribes as a result, and may be viewed as more "equitable" than modern societies. Feminists of course would say this arrangement is more equitable and should be used a model to follow. However, as a result of this "equality", male sexual success isn't nearly as assured as it is in societies that are more advanced because their worth is based off of things other than their ability to provide, since females share labor tasks. As a result, fewer males reproduce, and female sexual selection is more influential. My personal belief is that these hunter gatherer groups weren't able to compete with more patriarchal groups that came to dominate the world several thousand years ago precisely because females did not place emphasis on mate selection via economic means. A male's economic worth, which was amplified when the agricultural revolution began several thousand years ago, was the greatest determiner of sexual success in our societies in the past. Agriculture, along with many other technologies, were developed precisely because females were dependent on male resources, and males were forced to think of new ways to acquire resources if they wanted to reproduce. So here we see the origin of betabuxxing, or obtaining sex and reproduction through exchange of goods. This idea slowly lead to monogamy, as males didn't want to risk using their increasingly difficult and sophisticated labor to raise another man's children, and more advanced societies took shape. Males are afraid of getting cucked. It is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. The first cities and towns were based off of agriculture and iron tool making, both of which likely wouldn't have occurred if males were to sexually compete on non economic methods alone. Monogamy is and was the basis of all advanced societies. This was the arrangement for many centuries until the arrival of a new technological concept, industry.

Much like how the agricultural revolution shaped society before it, the industrial revolution and the closely related scientific revolution that preceded it by 100-150 years or so, began to impact our evolutionary development. We began to rely less and less on male labor as machines began to assist us in basic tasks. Things like firearms, which weren't new but could now be easily produced, began to even the playing field between smaller, more technologically advanced groups and those who didn't possess said tech. Said firearms would allow small groups of Europeans to colonize virtually the entire world, just to give an example of the evolutionary advantage technology bestows upon those who develop and wield it. On other fronts, machines were starting to automate production of important complex items. Things that would take blacksmiths several months to compete in 1200 could be done in hours in a factory in 1800. This speed up in human behavior would soon spread to other areas, and we began to replace the horse as our primary method of transit in the early 1900s. Where as the agricultural revolution took several thousand years, the industrial revolution took 350 or so from start to finish. This was faster than human social structures, which were built around agriculture nearly 5000 years ago, could cope and react to. This lead to many of the dysfunctions we see today, including the current dysfunction between the sexes. But it gets far worse.

The digital revolution, which occurred in the 70s, is the latest iteration of the industrial revolution, and brought with it instant communication. With instant communication was soon followed by instant gratification and instant stimulation. Social media can be likened to a massive decentralized consciousness, and its participants increasingly being forced to behave in accordance with its views. Humans are still sexually stuck in 20,000 BC. Our sexual behaviors are largely left over from that era. This is especially true of females, who didn't face the mass culling of males we saw during the agricultural revolution. Their wants and needs in a partner hasn't really changed all that much. Where as men gradually began to prefer loyalty and fidelity in the post agricultural era (less chance of getting cucked), females simply wanted the best genes possible. As long as she and her offspring are fed and sheltered, she doesn't really care. She'll gladly be part of a large harem of one powerful male if it means she is taken care of, or she'll gladly use her own labor for the job. Enter the welfare state, which is essentially a collection of taxpayers paying into a pot for others to take money from. Most taxpayers historically have been males, and most men in society today are net taxpayers, which means they give more than they take from that pot. The biggest takers of the money in that pot are women, particularly single mothers and their children. Women are net tax takers, and they are responsible both politically and socially for the massive welfare state we see today. In addition, females have taken advantage of the various technologies released over the past 80 years to slowly liberate themselves from needing male derived capital to survive. This increase of females in the labor pool hits males twice; once via the immediate effect of not needing to marry for financial reasons, and two by halving the value of his labor, thus making him even less able to provide for a family on his own. Two income families are now standard fare in the US, with the majority of child socialization occurring in the (publicly funded) school system and via social and traditional media.

A combination of the welfare state and female employment has effectively removed the beta provider role as a pathway for males to have offspring via marriage. Females as a result began to choose the fathers of their children based on different criteria, most importantly looks. This is a massive change from the prevailing sexual order that began 5000+ years ago, and has lead to the phenomena known as incels, who are essentially surplus males that aren't needed in the new evolutionary and sexual paradigm. We have regressed back to pre-agricultural sexual relations and behavior.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Need for Male Separatism
We can start by examining our situation. We are surplus males. What does this actually mean? This means that we are evolutionary byproducts. Our existence is to serve as fodder and padding for society's tax and war needs. We will, most likely, not reproduce and will instead have our labor harvested to contribute to those that do (females and high SMV males). We have no genetic future on the current evolutionary path. What are we to do about this?

The first solution, the traditionalist solution, is to return back to the period prior to the current sexual paradigm. That is, we bring back patriarchy and bring back male betabuxxing as a valid strategy. This is commonly expressed by religion copers or men who are redpilled, but not truly blackpilled. They fail to understand why feminism even exists as a concept and how technology has shaped our sexual relations over time. The blackpilled definition of feminism is one where gynocracy is allowed to rule totally unchallenged by males. Gynocracy is the observation that society has and, will almost always cater to, females due to their evolutionary position of producing children. Essentially, feminism is the political arm of female evolutionary goals. Feminists weren't fighting for women's rights, they were fighting for women's ability to use male resources and protection while sexually depriving many males of sexual, reproductive and romantic favors. Look at a common demand that women have for free universal daycare. What really is this? If we understand that the pubic school system is nothing more than a daycare for working parents to keep their kids at, universal daycare and kindergarten could be understood as a way for women to further use male tax resources to pay for their sexual behavior and choices. Chad has a kid with a foid, but said foid can't support the child on her own. What does she do? She votes for somebody that will give her free child care via the welfare state. This is why many feminists are such virulent economic leftists. In order to satisfy their evolutionary goals, they need male resources. So they force the state apparatus to take them from surplus males.

Technology, particularly the development of sophisticated and highly complex communications devices, means that females will always have access to a chad if they want to fuck. He is just a 30 minute drive away if she lives in a major city. She doesn't need to date anymore unless she just prefers that arrangement. Many here have read stories of foids being glued to their phones on dates. That is exactly what I'm talking about. She dates because she wants a free dinner or a new purse. She has no other use for a lower tier male. Marriage and LTRs are similar. She doesn't need you so she has no reason to remain faithful. She understands that she has the sexual and social power now, so she will open your relationship and cheat. Because she can and she knows she is really your only choice. You don't think women know how hard it is to be a male trying to date in 2020? They laugh about it! She will capitalize on male loneliness via Onlyfans, so she'll get her simpbux there and use it for whatever she wants. So no, as long as we have the internet and cars, she will fuck chad, and make you, in one way or another, pay for it.

The second solution is more radical. We must separate from foids and gynocentric society. Their evolutionary goals will always be in conflict with ours. In our new society, the only women there will be there purely for business needs like prostitution and surrogacy. There will be no foid parasitism off of our taxes and labor because there are no foids there. There will be no feminism because there are no females! No females means we won't have to deal with their opinions when developing copes or structuring our institutions. We will leverage technology as best we can to liberate ourselves from evolutionary stagnation and regression. Child birth will be provided by surrogates, removing harmful maternal influences (which I personally believe are the root of gynocentrism) and the sons will be raised by either single fathers or a community of men. Sexual access will be supplied via registered prostitutes, which will gradually help demystify sex and provide an outlet for the males who live there.

As technology improves, artificial wombs and eggs will be phased in, and sexbots/AI gfs will take the romantic and sexual roles that women currently fill. In this new evolutionary model, males born in that environment will not experience the sexual competition that we did while we were growing up in our old societies under the old sexual framework. Rather, they would be free to pursue other tasks and do these things with a sense of purpose that many of us don't possess due to the understanding of our situation. It is an overall improvement for male quality of life.


tl;dr
Female evolutionary goals are against ours.
Hypergamy and other negative female characteristics have been problems since before we were humans.
Modern technology has rendered social and sexual relationships designed during the agricultural revolution obsolete.
Traditionalism fails to account for said technological progress and still foolishly sees betabuxxing as the solution.
Females do not care about male suffering nor our sexual and romantic needs, and our needs aren't cared about by society.
Gynocentric society has institutionalized cuckoldry via taxes and the welfare state.
We are evolutionary dead ends in this system, so if we wish to reproduce and have something resembling a family, we need to create a new system.
By separating ourselves from society, we are free to develop copes and eventually replace the outdated human female with something better. Males born under this system will never have to experience inceldom ever again.
I'll just buy some acres, build a small off-grid home mortgage free, and start a homestead to be totally self-sustainable. I see it more plausible.
 
Okay. Nice theory. So how are you going to organize a group of social outcasts to put in the effort to build a male seperatist society? You would need literal thousands of low value men to have even a semblance of pushback from the inevitable backlash from media, mainstream society, and governments whom would label us as domestic terrorists and most likely do COINTELPRO shit like infliltrating and assassination.
That's what I was saying too tbh it's just too obvious a move that attracts a lot of unwanted attention from the media, society and governments that have an incentive to paint people like that as terrorists.

One of the reasons blackpill and inceldom is getting mainstream attention is because it's not so much a movement but a large mass of men involuntarily checking out of society due to gynocentrism and lookism. It takes no effort on their part, just LDAR and watch society slowly collapse. Even without any sort of organization, governments are already framing us as domestic terrorists and training "authorities" to spot dogwhistles in language and behavior.

I just don't see it happening.

Agreed but they wouldn't be able to do so much of it convincingly if there weren't incels that went ER. They keep pointing to those same incidents as a way to justify them going after all incel and (what they see as) incel adjacent men's issues groups.
For the longest time they couldn't find anything to stick when trying to frame MRAs as terrorists because MRAs specifically denounced violence. Same with the red pill and mgtow.
But with incels there were enough people early on that were encouraging violence (look at the earlier threads on this site from late 2017 and early 2018 regularly talking about going ER and how they can't take men's groups seriously that aren't willing to be violent) and cheering for incidents that followed (AM, Scott Beirle yoga shooting; previous men's groups never did this) for it to make it easy for the government to tie anyone that is a blackpilled incel to terrorists.
 
We can only be free once hyper-realistic AI sex dolls that feel like real woman are a thing. Imagine how much value foids would lose in an instant, it will be the greatest invention of mankind.
 

I think if there was a decentralized way for men to profit off the system (NEETmaxxing, trading, information) while at the same time accelerating its collapse, it could make an impact. Sort of like "cells" that would live in seperate areas but abide by a certain ethic that would increase our quality of life. Pooling together money through crypto, starting businesses that only hire nepotistically fellow incels and pay lipservice to SJWs. If these cells were to prove some sort of sucess, that may give them the confidence to merge later on and build some sort of society.

All of this shit sets off the glowie alarms though and I'm probably already on a list and will be sent to gitmo by the admins in the military here.
 
Last edited:
I think if there was a decentralized way for men to profit off the system (NEETmaxxing, trading, information) while at the same time accelerating its collapse, it could make an impact. Sort of like "cells" that would live in seperate areas but abide by a certain ethic that would increase our quality of life. Pooling together money through crypto, starting businesses that only hire nepotistically fellow incels and pay lipservice to SJW hiring managers. If these cells were to prove some sort of sucess, that may give them the confidence to merge later on and build some sort of society.
I keep saying it can't be a one size fits all solution or putting eggs in one basket.
Part of the reason men's groups have evaded being taken down online all together is that they are decentralized. You can see how pissed people get by this that they keep lying about these men's groups being "movements" as a way to try and centralize them and make them easier targets.

Even if the solution is for a lot of low status males to move to this prospective male only colony is at least a bit successful some would still have to stay behind in their countries of birth so as not to raise the alarm too much and just live a quiet, apolitical life avoiding even visiting sites like this entirely once a male only colony like what OP suggested shows sign of breaking serious ground and getting established with guys moving there.

All of this shit sets off the glowie alarms though and I'm probably already put on a list and will be sent to gitmo by the admins in the military here.
Agreed tbh
It's a pie in the sky scenario especially if other people that were aspiring separatists in the past have mostly been sovereign citizens and white nationalists that have been unsuccessful with getting land to start a place where they don't have to be under the dominion of another country.
 
Last edited:
He's probably more anti-feminist in a zero tolerance for weak unattractive males that don't uphold the stereotype of what it means to be a man kind of way.
Russian culture is pretty blackpilled. Putin is also one of the only world leaders that is a single man. I'm sure he wouldn't care too much and would see it as a way to both develop undeveloped areas and piss off and weaken the west at the same time. Political agreements would have to be in his favor though.
Okay. Nice theory. So how are you going to organize a group of social outcasts to put in the effort to build a male seperatist society? You would need thousands of low value men for a chance at pushback from the inevitable media, mainstream society, and government backlash. They would label us domestic terrorists and do COINTELPRO shit like infliltrating and assassination.
Easy. We offer a combination of decent and cheap surrogacy, unimpeded cope development, and the opportunity to live in a place free of female idiocy. Any pushback would be seen as obvious seething from foids and their enablers and men outside the colony, an increasingly blackpilled group, would politically fight against it.

Even without any sort of organization, governments are already framing us as domestic terrorists and training "authorities" to spot dogwhistles in language and behavior. It seems they are pre-emptively taking measures to make orginizing impossible.
As gynocentric society breaks down and the west descends into Brazilian or Venezuelan tier corruption, LE and military in the west will become increasingly inept. There are already hundreds of unsolved murders in this country due to a combo of both police and political incompetence. The internal security threat from various racial and criminal organizations will outweigh our importance. The press writes about us because there aren't mass executions like in Mexico from criminal groups. Essentially, we are free press to an increasingly useless press.

It's a pie in the sky scenario especially if other people that were aspiring separatists in the past have mostly been sovereign citizens and white nationalists that have been unsuccessful with getting land to start a place where they don't have to be under the dominion of another country
The key difference is that we are a much bigger group than white supremacists. MGTOW alone accounts for close to 3 million men here in the US, extrapolating from forums and youtube vids.
 
Last edited:
Russian culture is pretty blackpilled. Putin is also one of the only world leaders that is a single man. I'm sure he wouldn't care too much and would see it as a way to both develop undeveloped areas and piss off and weaken the west at the same time. Political agreements would have to be in his favor though.
Maybe but that would mean any incels still in western countries that have succumbed to hysteria about Russia would have to gtfo at some point less they be one day be prosecuted as Russian agents or charges are brought against them of colluding with a foreign power to undermine the loosely defined "national security" of the western country they reside in.

The key difference is that we are a much bigger group than white supremacists. MGTOW alone accounts for close to 3 million men here in the US, extrapolating from forums and youtube vids.
Maybe but those are the parallels and associations that will pop up if something like this is attempted.
Numbers do matter but if there is no will among that large of a group of people it ends up just being all talk.
Look at how the MRA didn't have nearly enough people wanting to do IRL activism as they hoped.

Online men's groups have a lot of potential supporters because it doesn't take much effort to post about things that bother you.
But putting in the effort to pitch in and try to set up an all male colony? That takes way more effort than even IRL activism does and people are naturally lazy and find it difficult to be motivated.
Especially guys that are blackpilled imo.
 
We don't need that. What we need is putting foids back in their correct place in society, i.e. fully under the authority of men and completely removed from any position of power whatsoever.
 
The first solution, the traditionalist solution, is to return back to the period prior to the current sexual paradigm. That is, we bring back patriarchy and bring back male betabuxxing as a valid strategy. This is commonly expressed by religion copers or men who are redpilled, but not truly blackpilled. They fail to understand why feminism even exists as a concept and how technology has shaped our sexual relations over time. The blackpilled definition of feminism is one where gynocracy is allowed to rule totally unchallenged by males. Gynocracy is the observation that society has and, will almost always cater to, females due to their evolutionary position of producing children. Essentially, feminism is the political arm of female evolutionary goals. Feminists weren't fighting for women's rights, they were fighting for women's ability to use male resources and protection while sexually depriving many males of sexual, reproductive and romantic favors. Look at a common demand that women have for free universal daycare. What really is this? If we understand that the pubic school system is nothing more than a daycare for working parents to keep their kids at, universal daycare and kindergarten could be understood as a way for women to further use male tax resources to pay for their sexual behavior and choices. Chad has a kid with a foid, but said foid can't support the child on her own. What does she do? She votes for somebody that will give her free child care via the welfare state. This is why many feminists are such virulent economic leftists. In order to satisfy their evolutionary goals, they need male resources. So they force the state apparatus to take them from surplus males.

Technology, particularly the development of sophisticated and highly complex communications devices, means that females will always have access to a chad if they want to fuck. He is just a 30 minute drive away if she lives in a major city. She doesn't need to date anymore unless she just prefers that arrangement. Many here have read stories of foids being glued to their phones on dates. That is exactly what I'm talking about. She dates because she wants a free dinner or a new purse. She has no other use for a lower tier male. Marriage and LTRs are similar. She doesn't need you so she has no reason to remain faithful. She understands that she has the sexual and social power now, so she will open your relationship and cheat. Because she can and she knows she is really your only choice. You don't think women know how hard it is to be a male trying to date in 2020? They laugh about it! She will capitalize on male loneliness via Onlyfans, so she'll get her simpbux there and use it for whatever she wants. So no, as long as we have the internet and cars, she will fuck chad, and make you, in one way or another, pay for it.

These two paragraphs are so high IQ that my brain is left paralyzed from the extreme enlightenment
 
A based male society (for me) will force foids to pleasure men and force foids to not be whoring in the street. Pretty much the opposite they do on a daily basis. Not to mention they will crush and stop for good feminism and all its bulllshit.
 

Similar threads

AshamedVirgin34
Replies
14
Views
572
COPEland
COPEland
Logic55
Replies
18
Views
492
Izayacel
Izayacel
Cybersex is our hope
Replies
39
Views
525
Namtriz912
Namtriz912
Masquerade
Replies
4
Views
254
LeFrenchCel
LeFrenchCel
brazi
Replies
9
Views
321
elliotmaxxer
elliotmaxxer

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top