The story of your incel – an inconvenient truth

What else is all history, but the praise of Rome?– Petrarch

 Badboys are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid. 

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around. 

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on, in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him. – Bonecrker

Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female. – Elliot Rodger

The country that starts off with the smallest government ends up with the biggest government. – Stefan Molyneux




PROLOGUE: I get a lot of messages from women, most of them curious or positive. After reading hundreds of their messages I can think I can safely say I am able to see that I got a message from a young British woman before even knowing anything about her location. Messages which  are completely bereft of any capitalization, grammar, sense and sentence structure, messages so atrociously written that a 10 year-old could do better and completely contradictory to the point of contradicting your own claim and then going back to your initial claim, immediately reveal a  British girl. This is a consequence of a generation of British girls who grew up without fathers. Sure, they have biological fathers, else they wouldn’t exist, but their fathers are the kind of monsters I will be talking about here  and so are their mothers.  But this post isn’t just about such issues . It doesn’t just talk about Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle guests. It talks about all kinds of monsters, even extremely well-educated and eloquent ones.

This is the story of your incel. It will describe what made you incel and how you can finally end it.  But, much more importantly, it is a story on the future of the human race currently threatened with extermination. This isn’t some potential extermination which has not yet begun – it is an extermination which is already almost over. While it would be too much to say that most people on the planet have already been exterminated this is certainly true in Western countries.

This is the most important post I will ever write. It is so important that i will change my nickname in a few weeks after enough people see it. This is my magnum opus. If you read just this text from my blog it is enough for a lifetime.

It is a great misconception that being an involuntary celibate means you are somehow defective. In fact, it is the completely opposite – in modern society you pretty much have to be degenerate scum to succeed with women. That notion PUAs and Red Pillers have about alphas is ridiculous – what they’re describing as alphas are not alphas at all but omegas, the worst kind of men, and what they see as omegas are simply betas.

Men who get women in today’s society are the actual losers. 

Elliot Rodger was right about many of these things but unfortunately never managed to understand the problem the way I did – had he been given a chance to do so he might still be alive.

What caused this? What happened?

This is a modest proposal  me and men of CoAlphaBrotherhood site have – Liberalism and feminism turned women’s preferences from providers to seducers, thus genetically eliminating all decent men through involuntary celibacy.

But before I can get to the crux of our argument let us establish some basic truths that will allow readers to understand our position better.


1) All civilized societies were patriarchies.

2) Women are agnostic about male behavior. This means they’re not naturally attracted to any type of man but that their preferences change depending on which kind of men is the most successful with women.

3) In connection to nr.2, women’s preference for a type of male changes simply based on a degree of success a type has with most women. 

4) Seduction is worthless, even harmful for most species, as it does not promote any valuable traits that make the species better. It is a form of deceit males make do spread their genes and it creates worthless offspring. This is explained by a phenomenon called

5) I believe voting is a privilege that should only be given to intelligent men and shouldn’t be given to women.


There are basically four types of males or male mating strategies in the world.


General description: These are dominant, strong men who are usually the leaders. Their intelligence and morality are less important but must have at least average intelligence and are often quite intelligent. Alphas are men like a Fortune 500 CEO, mafia leader like Tony Soprano or statesmen like Vladimir Putin.

Mating strategy: The way these males reproduce is by dominance/high status/strength.

Examples: a strong king, warrior etc (in the past), strong mafia leader, statesman, CEO of a Fortune 500 company


General description: Weaker than alphas. Not suited for leadership positions. Providers. Their intelligence and morality are less important and while they’re almost always of average to good morality they don’t think about morality much. Their role as a provider requires them to usually have at least average intelligence.

Mating strategy: These men offer their resources for female emotional and sexual fidelity.

Examples: A good foot-soldier, worker, employee


General description: Weakest type. They lack the respect of other men, except the most superficial “respect” from fellow idiots so they’re not fit to lead any organization aspiring for success. They are of low morals and often low intelligence. They don’t necessarily have to be stupid, but they are always immoral.  However, since stupid omegas won’t care about child support they also won’t care about contraception, which means they will have as many children as they can. This means that being a stupid omega is currently the best type in terms of reproduction.

Mating strategy: These men use seduction. Their lack morals and often poor intelligence means they’re not fit for long-term relationships. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they’re despised by all other types and are not in any alliance with them they will not hesitate to seduce other men’s girlfriends and wives.

Examples: Throughout most of history/ in societies that aren’t omega societies – a conniving man with a bad reputation for seducing women.

In omega societies/many current societies (and practically all Western ones) – an immoral, stupid deadbeat who gets women due to being a moron. For example, a PUA but not just them. Most men today are omegas.


General description: Weaker than alphas but stronger than betas and omegas. They possess a high level of intelligence and morality.  But the fact that they’re smarter than betas is even a sort a hindrance to them in a modern society, as these men won’t be foolish enough to support a used up slut in her 30s and her child so no women will want them at all (I will explain why later).

Mating strategy: Mating strategies of these men depend on the kind of society they found themselves into, which will be explained very soon. In alpha societies these men are usually in position very similar to betas but if the alpha society hold values like intelligence and morality in relatively high regard they might be more attractive to women due to these qualities. But, their best mating strategy is to form a coalpha group, which assimilates both alphas and betas into a monogamous society where each man has a single wife and excludes omegas.

Examples: leading class in the golden periods of Athens, Roman Republic, England 1500-1800 AD, early USA, members of CoAlpha forums, any man with high intelligence and morals who wants increased co-operation between men.


I now have to describe the evolutionary impact of seduction.

I first have to start by addressing what seduction is NOT.

Seduction must not be equated with sympathy or the feeling of what is called falling in love.

Perils of Fisherian runaway, process described by Ronald Fisher, closely resemble the perils of seduction in humans

The main hypothesis of Fisherian runaway is described like this:

The evolution of male ornamentation, an example being the colourful and elaborate male peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued femalepeahen plumage, represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists in the period following Darwin and leading up to the modern evolutionary synthesis; the selection for costly ornaments appearing incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway is an attempt to resolve this paradox using an assumed genetic basis for both the preference and the ornament, and through the less obvious but powerful forces of sexual selection (a sub component of natural selection). Fisherian runaway hypothesizes that females choose “attractive” males with the most exaggerated ornaments based solely upon the males’ possession of that ornament. According to Fisher, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate selection could be enough to undermine natural selection if the ornament under sexual selection is otherwise non-adaptive (naturally selected against). Fisher hypothesized this counteraction would result in the next generation’s male offspring being more likely to possess the ornament (and female offspring more likely to possess the preference for the ornament) than the previous generation. Over subsequent generations this would lead to the runaway selection (via a positive feedback mechanism) for males who possess the most exaggerated ornaments.

However, this becomes disadvantageous to for the birds, as….

The plumage dimorphism of male peacocks and female peahen of the species within the Pavo genus are the de facto example of the ornamentation paradox that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists. The peacock’s colorful and elaborate tail requires a great deal of energy to grow and maintain. It also reduces the bird’s agility, and may even increase the animal’s visibility to predators. It would appear that the expression of an elaborate and colourful tail would serve to lower the overall fitness of the individuals who possess it. Yet, it has evolved. Within the context of evolution this would indicate that peacocks with longer and more colorfully elaborate tails have some advantage over peacocks who don’t, that is to say the expression of the costly tail serves to increase overall fitness. Fisherian runaway posits that the evolution of the peacock tail is made possible if peahens have a preference to mate with peacocks that possess a longer and more colourful tail. Peahens that select males with these tails in turn have male offspring that are more likely to have long and colourful tails and thus are more likely to be sexually successful themselves because of the preference for them by peahens. Furthermore the peahens that select males with longer and more colourful tails are more likely to produce peahen offspring that have a preference for peacocks with longer and more colourful tails. Given this, having a preference for longer and more colorful tails bestows an advantage to peahens just as having a longer and more colorful tail does bestows an advantage upon peacocks.

I am not trying to judge the amount of validity this hypothesis has in its original context. For one, I am not not educated in that field. Also, not even all of the scientists agree.

My point is that this resembles what I will be talking about here in a way that it describes the horrendous impacts of seduction on human species.

Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own.

What matters for the betterment of species is why somebody is attractive. If somebody is attractive due to positive traits that is the most important factor for it’s betterment. If one is attractive due to negative traits that is horrible for its betterment.

One of the greatest lies told today is that just by being reproductively successful you’re successful participating in a betterment of the species.

But how is that logical or possible if the main tool for this success today is seduction, which offers nothing but “pretty feathers”? What needs to be accentuated is that things like presentation of strength, material goods or intelligence/morality aren’t seduction. Seduction is “smooth talk”, it is a desire to procreate by giving nothing at all.

In other words, seduction is an evolutionary tool that is, if successful in a large number, disastrous for the species, since it removes the incentive to produce from men unskilled in it (but skilled in vital things) by removing their ability to ever enter relationships, have sex or create a family.

It is the single greatest negative aspect of modern society. Nothing is more disastrous for men, women or children than seduction being a successful evolutionary tool.

Seduction is disastrous for men since it enables the most stupid and immoral men to procreate while destroying the incentive of decent men.

Seduction is disastrous for women since it turns them into sluts who pick any man if he is immoral or stupid enough (which modern Western women believe is “sexy”) and it eventually likely turns them into single mothers

Seduction is horrible for children since it means they will be a product of most immoral and stupid men as well as sluts and that will likely live in a single-parent household and in poverty (since they will understand that wealth is no great reproductive tool).

Seduction is simply an all-round disaster.

But let us go deeper.



General description: In these societies alphas are allowed to mate guard. This means that they are allowed to have entire harems. This carries a great survival risk, though, as many men would like to take out an alpha and take his possessions. So these societies, the most common ones in history, are never extremely successful, as they lack sufficient co-operation between men. Currently very popular TV series Game of Thrones is a good example (minus the supernatural elements) of how such societies would look like in medieval times. Obviously, alphas are the most successful ones in terms of reproduction. In cases of very efficient mate guarding they can have entire harems. In cases of less efficient mate guarding they are still very successful, with their multiple legitimate children and bastards. Betas, omegas and coalphas are moderately successful here, depending on how much access to mating alphas allow them, or, in other words, how many women do alphas mate guard. In essence, success of all other three types depends on the scope of mate guarding done by alphas and by how the particular alpha society sees intelligence and morality. In alphas societies which somewhat value providers (in case of betas), or decency, intelligence, morality (in case of coalphas) such men will get some remaining women while omegas will get less  remaining women. In societies which are of low morals and intelligence omegas will be more successful than betas and coalphas. These societies aren’t feminist societies  – providers are still recognized as necessary and are allowed to breed. I will talk about how feminist societies are different in that aspect later on.

Mating success ranking: 1. alphas 2. betas/coalphas/omegas (depending on other traits of the particular society, as explained in the general description)

Examples: Most societies throughout history.


General description: In these societies  male mating strategy is co-alpha, because men in the alliance effectively form a cooperative, collective alpha-male that dominates and guards the females. Hence the name, as these coalphas are effectively working as a single alpha made out of many men. These men can absorb alphas and betas, but alphas have to accept that they are now limited to a single wife. This alliance can benefit betas, since a number of them are excluded or close to exclusion in alpha societies. Omega males are not a part of this alliance and, since women are attracted to a type that is most successful with women, they are seen as utter losers. Yes, the kind of men erroneously called alphas today by PUAs and Red Pillers, the kind of many every advice tells you to become are actually seen as utterly worthless losers and pieces of shit in such societies ! Only the dumbest and most immoral women, women stupid enough not to observe their poor evolutionary potential and poor genes, women of such low intelligence that not even the kind of societal rejection they will face when choosing such men will dissuade them. So, in such societies omegas will barely be able spread their genes at all.

These societies have four basic traits

1. monogamy

2. female premarital chastity

3. solid moral religion

4. legal and easily available prostitution.

In such societies every decent man is guaranteed a wife, while prostitutes provide valuable sexual experience before marriage, as well as sexual variety during marriage. The lack of competition for women and the fact that their emotional and sexual needs are satisfied at any time due to everyone having a wife and easy access to prostitutes to fabulous level of cooperation.  When it comes to economy competition usually increases the quality and decreases the price. But competition among men for women destroys trust, which makes men stab each other in the back and become scumbags. Also, men are motivated to be good providers and to be successful in all areas since in such societies, because sex is always readily available to them in such society, since they are sure to get married and easily available prostitutes provide sexual variety. There are no frustrated incels distracted from work. Men, who are already selected by women for their intelligence, loyalty and morality, are always sexually satisfied and they don’t waste their time struggling among themselves for women.

Most successful societies in history were almost exclusively coalpha. Notable examples include Athens, Rome, England 1500-1800 AD or early America. Ancient Athens was the most productive society per capita in history because women had almost no rights at all and the state subsidized prostitution, which allowed men to turn their minds to become extremely productive, as they turned their minds to arts, craftsmanship, creation of a navy, economy and statesmanship.

Mating success rating: 1. coalphas/alphas and betas integrated into a coalpha society 4. omegas, who are excluded from this alliance and shunned by women (Btw, a good example of an alpha society turning into a coalpha one was the end of Roman Kingdom and foundation of the Roman Republic around 509 BC, which happened after an alpha Etruscan king raped the wife of a patrician. Roman men took down the kind and established a coalpha Roman Republic)

Examples: Ancient Athens prior to its decline, Roman Republic, England 1500-1800 BC, early United States of America, possibly Florence during its Golden age (?)

(superiority of coalpha societies)

Imagine a pitched battle in which two ancient armies fight each other.

One army is a from an alpha society and is larger in number in comparison to the opposing army. A king rides with a group of other noblemen. They are alphas. Who are the the remaining cavalry and infantrymen? They are betas, coalphas and those omegas they managed to press into service. Sure, almost all of them have wives, lest they wouldn’t be fighting. But how will this army fight, if a common man knows that a king or his nobles can take his wife whenever they want to? That omegas still have some power and might seduce their wives at home? In fact, it could be argued that, unless the potential occupation of their lands will be very brutal, they have a vested interested in alphas (king and the nobles) being killed, so that they might lessen the risk of their wives being stolen by alphas later or seduced by omegas back at home !

Now let us look at an army from a coalpha society, which is smaller in number. In this army every man knows with utmost certainty  that his wife will wait for him at home if he survives, just like any young man knows that he will surely get a wife who nobody will be able to steal. There are no sexually frustrated men in this army, for wives and prostitutes provide all the necessary sexual release. Every man can be virtually certain that his children are really his. Omegas are completely suppressed and shunned by everybody.

Which army will win?

Of course, in 9 out of 10 cases the winning side will be the army from a coalpha society. The deciding factor in most battles aren’t things like armament or terrain but morals. Coalpha men will be ready to fight and die for they know that they’re appreciated by everybody and that their wives are waiting for them at home. This army is very unlikely to break ranks and flee.

The scenario I’m describing was actually very common during the battles between the Roman Republic and their enemies, ever since they started taking the Italian mainland in early fourth century BC. Being coalpha made them able to crush their enemies Take a look at a long list of Roman battles. While Romans did suffer some defeats this list is basically an unparalleled string of victories. Most of these victories were achieved against foes that were at a similar level of development (other Italic tribes) or on an even higher one (Macedonians and Greeks). What they lacked is a coalpha structure, so they were smashed.


Omega societies are always feminist societies. Only in feminist societies can providers be unimportant to the point that they’re now unattractive to women.There are two types of omega societies. Undeveloped omega society and a developed omega society.

I will first describe an undeveloped omega society, as these societies are older.


General description: Such societies are usually previously existing societies which were feminist. Good example of such society was late Roman Empire. These societies belong in a specific category which should be separated from modern feminist societies. The reason for this is basically that they lacked or currently lack the sufficient development and technology to resemble modern feminist societies in all aspects. Yet, in some other areas they were appallingly similar. Late Roman Empire resembled modern America a lot (just like its rise resembled the rise of Rome).

These societies are feminist and game societies in a structure which doesn’t support the kind of feminist policies one can see today. For example, limited forms of democracy never survived by the time such societies came about in the states they appeared in, so they never enacted women’s suffrage. All of them lacked the technology to effectively enforce feminist laws. Also, due to such societies being on a low technological level there were marked differences between cities, especially larger ones, and villages, where some sanity still prevailed.

As Roman Empire declined as Roman Empire declined many of the old customs and legal institutions, especially those regarding women, were abolished. For example, it is very telling that tutela mulierum, an institution of legal guardianship over women, ended around the same year Romans abandoned their province of Britain (410 AD).

The most successful type here are, for the first time, omegas but alphas still retain a lot of power because strength (for example, in battle) is still appreciated, nobility still rules and mate guarding isn’t forbidden. Betas and coalphas have somewhat similar mating success, as the society lacks the technology to make women successfully mooch of men with full legal protection.

Mating success rating: 1. omegas 2. alphas 3./4. betas/coalphas (depending on other factors)

Examples: late Babylonian Empire, certain Greek city states towards their fall, late Roman Empire, (maybe South American Native Americans toward the arrival of Europeans?)


General description: These are modern feminist societies. These are societies which were once successful and are now in decline. Some of the reasons why they’re in decline, paradoxically, have to do with their success. This is because they essentially use their own wealth, that was created prior to feminism, to destroy their own substance, thanks to liberalism.

Unlike undeveloped omega societies these societies, these societies are comparatively rich. In fact, when compared to basically any prior society they are insanely rich. This is what enables them to be a lot different than undeveloped omega societies, as a developed omega society can very effectively enforce alimony or child support, just like it can very effectively deal with any perceived enemy. I once read that you can’t have real feminism without computers and I tend to agree with that.

Such vast technological differences between old omega societies and the society portrayed here are why I decided to make a separate category for each of them.

In such societies there is no longer any real monogamy – things like adultery and no fault divorce are allowed. Just like in omega societies, alphas can no longer mate guard, but this time it is for a different reason – all mate guarding is banned because women have “rights” (which are actually massive privileges).   The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children.  So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this. Betas lose a lot of their value, as women no longer need their resources, unlike in alpha societies (as the state now mostly provides for women) nor they are a member of a coalpha coalition any longer, since it has dissolved (else you wouldn’t get an omega society). This means that betas are quite undesirable in their youth but become somewhat desirable again when used up sluts in their 30s want an additional source of income. These sluts use betas as meal tickets to feed them and worthless kids they had with omegas or alphas (much more likely omegas). Coalphas are in a worst position, since they are too smart to allow themselves to be meal tickets, plus their traits like intelligence and morality are hated by modern society and repel women. So, who dominates in these societies? Omegas, of course. Most immoral and dumbest men are now the ones who are most successful in terms of evolution. Stupid omegas are the most successful ones because they, like I said, don’t care about contraception or child support.

I will explain how these societies come about later. I have just described them for now.

Mating success rating: 1. omegas (with stupid omegas being more successful than those who are not) 2. alphas 3. betas 4. coalphas

Examples: North America, Western Europe, Australia and Scandinavia since around 1970s, now almost all of Europe, huge parts of South America, parts of Asia

4. POST OMEGA/POST GAME SOCIETIES – These societies are a natural consequence of omega societies. Since omega societies are completely unsustainable (for one, they allow no incentive and many disincentives for decent men to work) they eventually collapse.

A book describing one such society is Edward C. Banfield’s 1958 book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society.

His conclusion is that members of this culture act as if they were following this rule: “Maximize the material, short-term benefit of the nuclear family; assume that all others will do likewise”
He calls this “amoral familism”.

These are societies that have collapsed at some previous time in history. They’re, as previously mentioned, almost certainly a collapsed omega society.  After their collapse they continued to exist in a low equilibrium.

Fragments of Franklin’s description of such a society do a far better job of describing them than I ever will – In a promiscuous culture, men either become players or become extinct.  Men literally evolve to become players.  This is why Latin men have natural game.  But this has a cost.  Since the men are natural players, instead of PUAs who fake it, they actually have the characteristics that women are attracted to.  In other words, they are unreliable and focused on women, which makes them unsuitable for supporting modern civilization.  This can be seen clearly after spending some time in a Latin American country.  Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer.  This means that co-alpha characteristics, those traits needed to maintain civilization, have been far more fully bred out of Mexico than out of Argentina.  And this can be seen in the behavior of men in these countries.  America is in early stage decay, Argentina in mid-stage decay, and Mexico in complete decay.  In Mexico, men are exactly as MGTOW/PUA advocate.  They go their own way and seduce women for sex.  They don’t cooperate and they don’t contribute to society.  The government is too incompetent to enforce feminist laws, so men don’t have to worry about child support and other such issues. 

I call Latin America “post-game” because after the widespread use of game has destroyed a society, it becomes poor enough for women to once again value men as providers. This does not solve problem but rather produces some equilibrium at a low level. Most men in these societies cannot be very effective providers because the country is poor. And the men must constantly guard their wives against cheating, which is widespread. American men are seen as super providers and this is why we are attractive to these women in spite of our lack of game. We are super providers because we have not yet fully gone the MGTOW/PUA route, but I assume that we will and we will wind up as just another third world country.

Mating success rating: 1./2. alphas/omegas 3./4. betas/coalphas

Alphas and omegas are, remarkably, leveled here despite provider abilities being valued for one reason only – there simply isn’t enough money for men to  very effective providers.  Alpha men in the West are often good providers but here being an alpha usually means little more than being very aggressive at mate guarding. Since almost everybody in such a society is a backward hick omegas fare well and betas and coalphas are at a quite similar, low level. Betas can’t use the “advantage” of used up sluts in their 30s marrying them since they can’t provide effectively and coalphas at least don’t have the disadvantage of being intelligent and moral since women in such cultures are usually too dense to even recognize that. A good example of this was the friend with benefits I had in 2013, who came from such a culture – she was too dense for any relationship but also too dense to be repulsed by my intelligence and morality.

Examples: Southern Italy, Mexico, Egypt, elements of Argentina

The only type of man that isn’t the most dominant one in any societies are betas. But this isn’t to say that betas are irrelevant or useless. They are essential for any society, because all societies need providers. It’s just that they’re unsuited for creating a culture that would benefit them (unlike alphas and coalphas) and biologically not apt to being the most attractive type in constellation (unlike omegas).



Here I’ll give some examples of transformations from one form of society into the other. I will not give all of them, just the ones I think were most common throughout history.

1. Alpha society to an coalpha society- This could happen once a strong enough coalpha group is formed in an alpha society and decides to overthrow the reign of alphas. An example I already mentioned was when Roman patricians overthrew their Etruscan king around 500 BC.

2. Coalpha society to an alpha society – if morals of a governing coalpha group loosen and there is an alpha (or several alphas) strong enough to take power we may see a reversal of the first example. This used to happen during the decline of Ancient Greece, when in many cases kings would take power over governing bodies that consisted of coalpha men.

Also, it might happen in  or be a part of a transitional period towards an omega society. For example, early Roman Empire first transitioned like this – from a group of men governing during the Republic to emperors and then onward to feminism.

3.  Transition of alpha or coalpha societies to an omega society – this might happen in an alpha society which is so successful that it enables feminism. Also, it could be imposed from the outside by trends like globalization.

A good example of an alpha society transitioning into an omega society was the example I mentioned of early Roman Republic.

Examples of coalpha societies transitioning into feminist ones might be England or America. Quite similarly to what happened during the Roman era, It was their enormous success that enabled feminist policies.

(A bit on history – repetition)

A huge part of transition into an omega society was played by liberalism, which developed from Protestantism.

People have a horribly skewed vision of the Middle Ages, considering it to be an extremely pious and chaste time. This is pretty far from the truth. The rule or ideal of clerical continence was not always observed either in the West or in the East and was widely opposed. Rulers often had bastards or entire harems.

In fact, the end to this chaos happened with the advent of Protestantism, which enabled speedy development of places like England, northern Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland. Protestantism brought on much stricter morality. It is no coincidence that two great coalpha societies after Athens and Rome, England and early America, were protestant. While events like The Renaissance mostly still did  take place in Catholic areas of Europe like Northern Italy or France but didn’t contribute to huge technological and societal advancement the way Protestantism did. Max Weber’s famous work on protestant ethic is a must read if you’re interested in finding out more.

It is a great irony that liberalism developed most rapidly in societies which used be the beacon of morality. In fact, it is safe to say that modern liberalism is, judging my many of its elements,  a mutant form of Protestantism. Purist nonsense many liberal countries are for, like a ban on prostitution, ridiculous ages of consent, ban on drugs etc. are all aberrations of Protestantism.

This is also a good reason to mock all the moronic haters who claim people like Franklin and me want to “return to the Middle Ages”.

4. Transition of an omega society to post-omega/post-game society

Franklin says: Mexico has been promiscuous for a long time, probably hundreds of years.  The Spanish conquerors came from a chaste culture, but the Spanish influence was superficial and concentrated in the elite.  The masses continued with their promiscuous behavior under a chaste veneer of Spanish style.

I want to clarify what it means for feminism “to run its ugly course”.  What it means is the destruction of civilization, usually permanently.  This has happened many times before.  When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered. Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice.  Every other successful society became a basket case permanently.  Visit Egypt today and look at the museum.  They had a great civilization 4000 years ago.  Today they are pathetic as a culture.  In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture.  My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out.  There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture.  What was different about Rome?  It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas.  But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak.  It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment.  We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture.  If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization.  The time to address this really is now.  In 100 years, I think it will be too late. 

Basically, what happens in this case is that the unsustainable omega culture collapses and you get a post-omega society. This has happened in southern Italy when Roman Empire collapsed. In movie Godfather II his wife Kay tells Michael Corleone something about a mentality that hasn’t been changed for 2,000 years. She is not that far from truth. Unlike Northern Italy, Southern Italy never benefited from numerous invasions which introduced other cultures. Rome itself was feminist during its decline, so most of Italy, except the north, is post-feminist. Rome itself was feminist during its decline, so most of Italy, except the north, is post-feminist.


We are obviously in latter stages of a omega society. The decline has been steep, painful and disastrous


1. A bit of old history

These societies always appear when liberalism appears. Liberalism is not some new concept in history. It was present in most declining societies. For example, in the Hellenistic Empire, you had philosophical developments like the Stoics whose founder Zeno said unisex clothing should be worn as a way to obliterate unnecessary distinctions between women and men, and the Cynics among whom women and men alike were free to follow their sexual inclinations. It was developments like these that put an end to Greek culture. Liberalism was evident in decline in Roman Empire as well, as the breakdown of its society had to be contained as early as in reign of Augustus.  I already mentioned that as Roman Empire declined many of the old customs and legal institutions, especially those regarding women, were abolished. But liberal decline happens over a very long time and is usually exacerbated by wealth.

2. A bit of new history

Unlike what modern fables tell you Middle Ages weren’t as chaste as they are believed to be. Much of its squalor and staleness (I am talking about the West) came from untidy sexual morality and the fact that the Church, which held almost all of the knowledge was somewhat like modern liberalism is – closed- minded and believing it should compete with God.

What really created a significant change was the advent of Protestantism, which advocated for stronger moral values and work ethic.  The moral strength of Protestantism is well documented in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and is apparent from studying history.  During this time, Protestants were the most biblical and most moral people in history.  They more closely conformed to the spirit of the Torah than anyone else ever did, including Jews. But what caused this to happen and what caused it to stop?   One possible interpretation can be found here.

In any case, amazingly, modern liberalism was born as an aberration of Protestantism.

First decline liberalism causes is that in minds of people. This is what causes them to even think about things like making all men the electorate, let alone making women a part of it. When that happens the rest is soon to follow.

A good example of liberalism initially working alongside Protestantism was an influential proto-liberal William Jennings Bryan, who was a devout Christian, opposed the gold standard, supported prohibition, was a big advocate of women’s suffrage, and he hated evolution and atheism and used ridicule against both, much the same kind ridicule used by liberals today.

In 1920 USA  ratified the Nineteenth Amendment of its Constitution. This was the moment it was already gone, for no society which institutes women’s suffrage can be saved but during the next 40 years observable decay did not start.

World War II was a defeat of forces which instituted many reactionary values in what were Axis countries during the war. An alliance of Western democracies and a communist juggernaut won a devastating victory, the first kind of such victory in world’s history – for at no prior time could such a victory been achieved due to a lack of sufficient technology.

But what did enable the Western democracies (alongside with Germany, but I am talking about the victorious side here) to develop such technology?

It, of course, dates back to beginning of Protestantism. What created such progress and wealth was extreme morality of it. Before Protestantism some of the places where it took hold were among the least developed, true backwaters of Europe !  However, Protestantism seems to have carried a seed of its own destruction.

Allied soldiers in WW2 didn’t fight for feminism or liberalism. In fact, most of them would be considered extremely misogynistic and racist by today’s standards. But they saved a system which had already carried a fatal germ.

Then in 1960s there were LBJ’s Great Society programs and sexual revolution. During that time the world got its first generation of sluts. No-fault divorce started during that time as well. Not all of the things that happened during this time were harmful. Homophobia and racism were issues that affected the society in a negative way and a fight against them was a noble one. It is a common fact that most things in the world aren’t black and white. However, some positive developments couldn’t change the fact that irreversible decline began.

During the 1970s second wave of feminism swept accross North America and Western Europe, making stunning “progress”  by  successfully sweeping  men away  from their belongings, families and perception as human beings. Third wave feminism that followed introduced a totalitarian nightmare designed to turn all men into fear ridden obedient servants.

After the fall of Berlin Wall and communism in Southeastern and Eastern Europe this started spreading to those countries as well, helped by the rising standard of the population and abolishment of artificial barriers. This was helped by many laws already made by communists, which were much more anti-family than those in non-communist countries, and by monopolizing of their judicial position and social services by women.

Once women in West and in the East no longer needed husbands, as the government became their husband, their mating preferences, like several previous times in history, turned to men who use seduction – omegas.

They also obtained the protection of the state from all men they deemed unworthy, which, in this society, are decent, intelligent and moral men.

This is well explained here

Women wearing revealing clothing, make up, jewelry, perfume and all the rest is nothing more than hyper-sexualizing yourself to demonstrate you’re in heat. There is absolutely no other reason for something like high heels which are totally detrimental to your legs, however it give a woman’s legs and butt a sexual look of readiness. Make up is more of the same, no other reason than a look of the sexual excitement of being in heat. A short skirt that swishes just right when a woman walks and a low cut top are all signifiers of being in heat and ready for sex.

In this age of so called enlightenment we deny reality. All these things that women do demonstrates a lack of self control, if men were to simply take any woman they felt like having sex with, that would be men acting like animals in heat and lacking self control. Humans are after all sexually dimorphic. Sexual frustration for men is unhealthy to say the least, and being surrounded by women in heat will always be sexually frustrating. Sexual fear for women is unhealthy to say the least which is why men are punished for acting like uncivilized animals in heat.

The traditionalist of old knew the obviousness of human sexuality so they developed a code of public conduct that allowed civilization to flourish. Women didn’t show overt displays of sexuality which is respectful to men, and men didn’t show overt signs of sexuality to women which is respectful to them. An example would be if a woman was acting like an animal in heat in public and a man came up and groped her they would both be acting like animals in heat, they would both be charged with indecent displays in public. Conversely if a woman was acting respectful in public and a man groped her only the man would be punished. There was respect both ways in public and what anyone did in the privacy of their own homes was their own business.

Fast forward to today and the don’t slut shame movement is nothing more than women demanding to act like uncivilized animals in heat in public while demanding men act civilized in public at all times and also demanding men protect women from men acting like animals in heat.

The argument, provided here as well as every feminist site is that men as a whole will get lots more sex if only they endorsed this slut movement. This assumption is the exact opposite of reality from even a cursory glance at the western world. What happens in reality is 80% of women will go after the top 20% of men, the top 20% consists of very good looking, wealthy, talented and so forth. The 80% of women are basically sharing the top 20% of men, going from one to another. 20% of women and 20% of men stay together for life and 60% of men are left sexless and loveless, particularly their young lives.

Women don’t desire sex as much as men, testosterone is the biological composition that determines sex drive and men have much more, totally un-pc but reality none the less. This is why the 80% of women will be sexually satisfied with the 20% of men, and certainly those men are satisfied as well. The more promiscuous and slutty women become the less sex men as a whole will get as most women, particularly in their younger years will become a harem for the lucky few. Eventually the top 20% of men either get married or move on to greener pastures and those women not married to them or dumped so often become bitter since the top 20% no longer want them. And of course the 60% of losers who these women wouldn’t touch for 15 years aren’t exactly thrilled at shacking up with a bitter woman.

The entire cultural system of the western world will inevitably collapse due to the current social situation. The more promiscuous and slutty women become means the further herding of women to the lucky few. The women acting like animals in heat will demand protection from the men acting like animals in heat. The top 20% of men might pay lip service that they care about women but they have a harem and don’t really care. The 20% of men who are in life long relationships do actually care because they are essentially living the traditionalist code of conduct. The 60% who are loveless and sexless increasingly don’t give a crap.

So the premise of this article is that men as a whole will get more sex and less dry spells if they stop discouraging women from having sex is completely false. The more promiscuous women in a society are the more women will herd to the lucky few and the less men as a whole will have sex.

nwoslave is mostly right but he I am not sure if he understannds a very point point, probably the most important one – what he calls top men are (in terms of reproductive success, not in terms of power and wealth) more like omegas than alphas. Men they choose are more like Roosh than Tony Soprano or Putin. Of course, this doesn’t mean that powerful men who are the actual alphas will ever be incel. That is not the issue here. The issue is that their numbers are small. They must be most successful in terms of the almost non-existent rejection rate, that much is evident. But the kind of men that are picked in greatest numbers and can attract even more women (as they have less obligations) are not alphas – they are omegas. 

Let us define evolution as something like this ““Evolution is the heritable change in a population over successive generations”.

Now compare some powerful man like a CEO of Fortune 500 corporation with a PUA or just an immoral, stupid deadbeat from a poor neighbourhood. Who do you think has more time to chase women? So, which is the better evolutionary model in terms of producing more children? Obviously, being a deadbeat.


One of the silliest myths, parroted by fools, is that feminism and liberalism  were somehow the cause of societal progress. Of course, that is utter nonsense, as it was only the progress made by formerly religious (Protestant) areas of the world that made this happen. Sure, there were feminist societies in the past, but there are strong reasons I made modern feminist/omega societies into a specific category. Only the wealth produced by strict sexual morality could have created feminism.

But let’s examine liberal “progress”. Franklin accurately states that

Freedom itself is a tricky concept.  One issue is the distinction between rights and regulations which Liberals regularly blur for their own benefit.  A right is something that you are free to do, that the government will not punish you for, while a regulation is something that the government compels you to do.  So the “rights” for equality are actually all regulations compelling people to treat each other equally.  Liberalism places high value on certain types of equality, and that’s fine.  The problem is that Liberalism lies when it describes its regulations that compel people to abide by its values as “rights”.  The purpose of this lie is to portray Liberals as being pro-freedom and then condemn everyone else for legislating morality.  This is hypocrisy and Liberalism is really no different from any other religion in that it has its own values which it seeks to impose through regulation.  And of course we all know that in economics, Liberals generally don’t support freedom at all. 

Even accepting the proper distinction between rights and regulations, the idea of freedom is still not so clear.  As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.”  When almost any moral issue is discussed in terms of freedom, you can be sure that this is being done to avoid the real issue.  As an example, I will discuss adultery.  This is defined in the Old Testament as sex with another man’s wife.  Liberalswill claim that adultery is a private issue between consenting adults and the government has no business being involved.  This is a lie on many levels.  First of all, Liberals dictate the terms of marriage and divorce and do not give couples the freedom to marry under a private contract of their own choosing.  Such a contract could well punish adultery.  Second, virtually all civilized rising cultures allowed the harmed husband to take revenge.  Usually the husband was permitted to kill the guilty man and to throw the wife out with nothing.  This was the case in early America and in Ancient Athens.  The Liberals prevent this through government regulation, not allowing the husband to take revenge.  This is anti-freedom.  The Liberals will say that the freedom to murder isn’t a legitimate freedom.  Most would agree that to murder in self defense is fine.  Who is to say when murder is legitimate?  That is a value judgement.  The fact is that Liberalism supports adultery and does everything in its power to promote adultery.  The Old Testament takes a different approach.  Since the Old Testament bans the murder of one member of society by another without exception, it must provide the punishment through the government, and this is why adultery is punished under the Old Testament.  But again, the point here is that Liberalism claims to be for freedom when this is clearly not the case.  Liberalsocieties tend to be very highly regulated and not free at all.  The Liberals themselves can’t see this because those things that Liberals want to do are generally permitted, it is what everyone else wants to do that is banned. 

The issues I brought up, equality laws and adultery, were to make specific points.  But looking at the big picture, we see that Liberal societies tend to be over-regulated which makes the claim that Liberals support liberty obviously false.  A good video on the over-regulation of America is Illegal Everything.  Two of the issues mentioned in this video are drug laws and anti-prostitution laws.  These are usually not seen as Liberal laws, but in fact they are.  When America was primarily a Christian nation, neither of these were illegal.  They became illegal when America became more Liberal.  Today’s “conservatives” in America are really nothing more than another sect of Liberalism.  These “conservatives” do not stand for the values found in the Bible.  They do not worry about the Ten Commandments.  Instead they worry about issues like drugs and prostitution, neither of which are condemned in the Old Testament. 

Another Liberal lie is that Liberals support equality and are more caring.  This lie can be seen in dating.  The most egalitarian dating system is monogamy because then everyone gets a mate.  Liberals hate monogamy and support promiscuity which is the most unequal mating system.  With promiscuity, some men get many women and many men get no women.  It is extreme reproductive and sexual inequality.  Liberals support this system because it is immoral and selfish.  But this also explains why Liberals are so concerned about women and children, or at least say they are.  Liberal men are concerned that women and children are cared for because they are promiscuous and so have no idea who their children are, so they want children generally cared for.  It’s true that contraception changes this practically, but it doesn’t change the instinct.  The promiscuous male instinct is to care about women and children, but not care about other men.  The monogamous male instinct is to be part of a loyal male group and care for that group where each man has his wife.  Of course the Liberal caring for children is also a kind of lie.  Liberals only care that children are provided for, they don’t really care what is in the child’s best interest because that would be having both parents there to raise the child.  Liberal men care about economic equality because they do not want to compete for women on the basis of how good a provider they are, but only based on their seduction skills.  Economic freedom allows men to attract women as wives based on their ability to provide and this removes these women from the shared harem enjoyed by Liberal men.  Of course Liberal women support economic equality because they want to be provided for. 



It is a common lie that Sexual revolution made it easier for men to obtain sex. This might had even been the truth for a very short period in the wild 60s but decades and decades have passed since this stopped being the case.

A modern slut will not sleep with a men who has not proven his stupidity and immorality – TONS OF IT ! In the process, they will also destroy society.

Franklin talks about this, along with  other negative aspects of a slut culture, in the following post (I would like to thank cretins from FSTDT for saving it when it otherwise disappeared  from where it was originally posted on)
[An answer to the question, “what exactly is wrong with being a slut?”] 

Well, sluts are bad for men, women, and children. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, sluts destroy civilization. 

Sluts are bad for men because they only have sex with the “top” men. Most men have much less sex in a slut culture than in a monogamous culture where every man gets a woman. 

In a slut culture, men are trained to behave in whatever way attracts women. Sluts are attracted to jerks, so men are trained to be jerks. So the quality of men declines in a slut culture. 

In a slut culture, men constantly hit on women. This causes women to become hostile, rude, and obnoxious. Because men are desperate and will take anything, women lose any motivation to care about their appearance. So sluts become ugly hostile creatures. 

As sluts age, they lose their ability to attract the “top” men, but still reject all other men. So they become spinsters. So now, not only are they ugly and hostile, but they are also miserable. 

In a slut culture, illegitimacy rates go way up. Children are raised without fathers. This usually makes for a less happy childhood. So children are less happy in a slut culture. 

In the book “Sex and Culture”, Unwin showed that civilization depends on female chastity and that a civilized culture cannot survive more than three generations of sluts without collapsing. We can see this process before our eyes. 

What caught my eye while copy/pasting this post was the first comment of some moron there. Crocz says : This man posts on a site for desperate virgins, and decries women that he claims have indiscriminate sex. Fuck, people are dumb.

Truly hilarious. Indiscriminate sex ! Haha. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, sluts are extremely picky about who to have sex with – any man who hasn’t passed the immorality/stupidity test (a test in which sluts check if your level of at least one of these traits is high enough) will never be given a chance by them.

It is a hard fact that, even if we just take sex into consideration, more men are able to have sex in a monogamous society, even in a monogamous society without prostitution ! 

After the Elliot Rodger incident a woman under the nickname chibbity came to this blog to ask me why I oppose feminism if it means that “love-shy men like me” (she had obviously been unaware that I am not one since 2011, which indicates something about her but I won’t go into that now) would be approached by women.

Truly hilarious !

Of course no woman is going to approach a love-shy male. It has never happened to me or any incel I met. This also has to do with the types I describe here. Do you really believe that an omega male could be love-shy? These morons are not only chased by young girls since their early teenage years but are also extremely “assertive”, which almost always means they’re actually ignorant, obnoxious, loudmouths.

Sure, I did have some experiences with women but never were they initiated by women approaching me (chibbity also reveals her ignorance and a lack of understanding regarding the level of desperation me and many incels feel when she tries to make a point about my change from 2012, when I said I’d date a moderate feminist but completely misses the facts… yes, my attitude about this has changed since 2012. I’d now date the most radical feminist in the world as long as she would not became a threat to me. I said I’d only date a moderate feminist in 2012 because I wasn’t that desperate).


A context of feminism is that it a part of liberalism and a symptom of dying societies. It is in its essence a slut power movement. Every single feminist policy is there to benefit sluts who act like decent, loyal sluts and ban women who don’t, including sluts who sleep with men who have not yet had the chance to prove their immorality and stupidity (teenage boys). Being a slut movement, it completely supports seduction.

But the way feminism is criticized and hated is completely useless for incels. We need to hate it much more. It has taken our ability to ever have a loving girlfriend and a wife, family, everything.


Another lie, by this point in my essay debunkable just if you followed it by now.

It were strictly moral, protestant societies which gave humanity all of this. The kind of morality which didn’t exist in the Middle Ages created this.

Feminism is just a monster that grew out of progress.

It didn’t cause progress. In fact, progress is declining and will continue to decline. It could be successfully argued that Enlightenment ended around 2000.

This is well described here

The fundamental idea of the Enlightenment was to use reason to arrive at objective truth.  In my opinion, the Enlightenment both depended on religion, particularly the Reformation, and undermined religion.  In other words, the Enlightenment undermined the very thing that it depended on, and so it was doomed from the start.  The demise of the Enlightenment took time and finally ended around the year 2000, so the Enlightenment lasted about 300 years. 

In order to objectively search for truth, one must place external facts above one’s own opinion.  Such an approach requires humility.  Without humility, one will always rationalize away facts to protect one’s cherished opinions.  The scientific method is itself an extreme expression of humility, requiring that all scientific theories provide an experimental procedure to falsify the theory, and that the theory be experimentally tested independently by several people before even being considered possibly valid.  (See The Logic of Scientific Discovery.) 

The problem with this is that humility is not natural for people, particularly for people in power.  And without humility, there can be no advancement in objective knowledge.  So we should ask what is the source of humility?  There is only one answer that I know of, and that is religion.  Religion teaches us to respect something greater than ourselves.  In modern Western religions, that something is God.  But whatever it is, the important thing is to recognize something sacred and above humanity.  As long as God (or the gods) is recognized as above humanity, people learn humility.  But when people place themselves on the level of God, humility is lost.  So religion only works when religion restricts what is sacred to non-human things like God or nature.  When human institutions become sacred, and people thereby compete with God, humility is lost, and so scientific advancement becomes impossible. 

Now we can understand the Enlightenment.  Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church (and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) was sacred and competed with God.  This caused the Pope and those at the top of the Church to lose humility.  And so they rejected objective truth in favor of their preferred views, and called all those who disagreed with their views heretics.  Galileo is a well known example of someone who suffered the consequences of this.  The Reformation changed all this by rejecting the Catholic Church and rejecting the idea that a human institution can be sacred.  By insisting that humanity should be humble before God, the Reformation made possible the Enlightenment which insisted that humanity should be humble before objective truth. 

But unfortunately Christianity’s dependence on faith came into conflict with the Enlightenment‘s demand for reason.  And so the Enlightenment undermined Christian faith.  As religion faded, humility faded.  Culture became arrogant.  And this arrogance has produced our modern culture which places personal opinion over objective facts.  Our current modern culture, which is basically a Leftist culture, teaches people to be selfish and to ridicule all those who don’t hold popular views.  Such a culture is easily manipulated by those in power to suppress views that threaten those power.  The result is a situation remarkably similar to the Catholic Church before the Reformation.  Today, anyone who holds politically incorrect views is treated by the establishment the way the Catholic Church treated heretics in the Middle Ages.  Today there is no tolerance for differing views because tolerance requires humility, and humility requires religion, and we have no serious religion anymore.  And this is why the Enlightenment is over 

A good example of the end of progress due to feminism is a poll I once made on Two thirds of the members were in STEM fields ! 

If you told any sane culture that two thirds of a group of several hundred men with who work in STEM (or a field that could be considered analogous in its importance prior to Industrial revolutions) are incel nobody would ever believe you. It would be akin to saying that one who is the wisest in society is treated like the worst scum in society. It would almost be like saying that two thirds of strong, healthy babies must be killed while all defective babies must be protected to the utmost of society’s ability. In other words, it would have been completely unthinkable.

In previous times engineers and scientists and people like that knew that they will find a decent woman. What can they expect now?


Myth 1 dealt with issues revolving around policies and laws. Myth 2 was about largely about technological progress. This third myth concerns the ideological and dogmatic aspects of what are liberalism and modernity. So, in a way,  I will attack its intellectual component.

I believe we are currently living in a twisted version of 1014 AD. Am I exaggerating?
Well, it might seem so at first but think about it.

1. Prayer = self improvement and “working to improve yourself” 2. Therapy = leeches 3. Therapists = priests 4. Religious dogma= liberal dogma 5. People who don’t follow the liberal dogma=heretics.

Is there a difference? Yes, there is, a very important one. It’s not really permissible to kill heretics so what’s being done to them is akin to economic and social ostracization.


Obviously, we are in currently living in a society where women mostly date complete losers. Men with no brains, integrity and morality are the most successful type of men today.

Where man once had to prove his strength, skills at being a provider or morality/intelligence to be attractive to women he now has to prove his cretinism.

The most attractive type of man is currently an omega, simply because that type is the most successful one. So, the quality of men declined even more thoroughly that quality of women. These men and women produce horrible offspring and create a horrible world.


Women have a naturally cruel streak. They tend to despise groups of men they don’t find attractive.

They enjoy torturing men who know they can’t have them by dressing like sluts while enjoying the protection of the state. The culmination of women’s contribution to civilization after 5,000 years of recorded history? Acting like animals in heat in public due to the lack of self control.

Also, women are much more inclined to follow a dominant culture. If dominant culture were that women should be led around on leashes like dogs they’d be the first to hand their husband a leash. Who do you think were the first ones to slut shame in a sane culture, who do you think did it much more vigorously then men? Women, of course. So of course they accepted feminism on a massive scale when it became dominant.

These facts don’t paint a very nice picture of women.



While it is easy to spit on women due to common superficiality of today’s world this is a completely wrong approach.

You have to understand what a woman is. A woman is a relatively simple biological robot whose goal is to produce offspring that will be most optimal from an evolutionary standpoint.  Let me repeat the definition of evolution I found and which seems reasonable – “Evolution is the heritable change in a population over successive generations”.

The word heritable is the key here. Women want to produce offspring that will have the best chance of producing more offspring. This is the key idea of a Sexy son hypothesis.

But women have no natural inclination to a single type of man. They simply go for the type of male that is most successful in terms of producing offspring. If the most successful type of men were 50 year-old bald guys with Cheeto crusts all over their face named Kirk they’d go for them.

I spoke about female cruelty. Well, that same cruelty is applied to “players” by women in a coalpha society. They are seen as complete losers and hated and ridiculed by most women.

So, why blame women? They just follow their instincts.

Would you blame a child for trying to act the way all the cool kids do? Would you blame a dog for being aggressive over food if you rarely feed it?  Would you blame an ecosystem for collapsing if you decided to pollute it? Would you blame the sky for more rain if you engaged in cloud seeding?

Why then do you blame women? They are simply blindly following their instincts that tell them to mate with a man who will give them sons who will be most likely to mate with other women.

But let us once again examine the definition of evolution – nowhere does it say that that the change in inherited traits is necessarily towards good.  So, of course women pick bad men but that is not their fault.

The fault has always been and will be with men. 

Franklin explains all of this well in the following quotes.

This one accurately describes the crux of it

Once again, I must thank FSTDT for preserving this quote, which explains why women choose the men they do in a current society 

Our modern culture is a declining culture much like the Late Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, but with one difference. We have very effective birth control. This adds one other evolutionary factor to the mix. Since our society financially punishes successful men who have children with many women by imposing child support on them, such men who have intelligence and are responsible will tend to use birth control. Women who are intelligent and want to control the number of children they have will also use birth control. It will tend to be the stupid and irresponsible who don’t use birth control. The evolutionary benefit of this should be obvious. So not only is our society evolving towards immorality like former declining empires, we are also evolving towards stupidity and irresponsibility. The more feminist a culture is, the faster this evolutionary process is occurring since feminism promotes all aspects that contribute to evolutionary decay including promiscuity, alimony and child support laws, and birth control. This is why one sees that women in feminist societies find moral men to be boring and intelligent and responsible men to be nerds. Women in feminist societies find immoral, stupid, irresponsible men to be the most sexually exciting. And in a sense they are correct because in such a society this is the type of man who is the most evolutionarily successful. 

And another one, which deals with what should be done about it

Women are not men with a different shape. Women are different from men. They don’t think like us at all. We men have more in common with male chimpanzees than we do with women. Women cannot conceive original ideas, aren’t capable of independent thought, are not self-aware, and have no sense of fairness. This isn’t to say that women can’t be good. Women can be good, but in a different way from men. Women are good when they are guided to form the right emotional connections. And this happens when men form a society that causes this to happen. Of course this can’t happen in societies where women vote. If you feel a strong compulsion for equality, I suggest you redirect it to other male primates. I would much rather have male chimps vote than women.

Stefan Molyneux got a lot of flak, as was to be expected, by femifascists due to saying this in his show (courtesy of David Lietelle) but I hope he will one day get flak from conscious men as well. Women don’t have a say in choosing assholes. They just blindly follow their own instincts and nobody can blame them for this.

We men can make a good portion  women decent tomorrow. They have ZERO actual power over us. Hell, we created rules in the first place. In a true state of nature with no rules, men have all the advantages because they are physically stronger. We can  have sex with almost any woman we want, kill almost any woman we want. In general it is women who really want rules to protect themselves against physically stronger men. All that’s needed is for a psychological barrier to be broken for them to be completely powerless simply because they are physically weaker.

Of course, I am not advocating some kind of a “sack of women”, just reminding men what our power is. The idea that women have any actual power is a lie. Any power they have is merely psychological due to bad men.




Does this mean that all intelligent men are incel? Of course not. Omegas require both immorality and stupidity so it possible in some of them the trait of immorality can compensate for a lack of stupidity. But such omegas will never be as  successful in terms of procreating as stupid omegas since most will still think about contraception.

Does this mean that all incels are intelligent? Once again, of course not. Most incels today are also scum who just haven’t gained the sufficient level of immorality and stupidity.

But you will almost certainly be if you’re both intelligent and moral.




Of course not ! In a way.

I mean, everything is about money all the time. Women who don’t choose providers often do so because they get money from the government. Money is money. It has to be distributed somehow. The problem is that it is currently taken away from decent men who are rewarded for this by being mocked, hated and lonely while it is given to cover the expense of sluts fucking thugs.

But this doesn’t mean that money is the deciding factor in a way some people might imagine. I specifically mention the ability to provide only in a beta type. This is their main advantage. Other three types have other main advantages.

The thing is, being a provider doesn’t mean being a fat oily 60 year-old sugar daddy. In fact, this perception was only created because government takes away so much money from men that normal means of providing for young women in their 20s have become useless thanks to feminism. Yes, many women will settle once they spend their youth fucking omega scum, but they will settle simply for financial reasons.

Being a provider in sane societies has always meant that a young man in his 20s is able to sufficiently provide for a woman and marry her. 

Any young worker in most countries could have done so even 40 years ago. They no longer can.

This doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t work. But this is once again an area where feminism and liberalism come into play. In a truly free society, without AA or fictional cushy jobs given to women women would earn much less than they artificially do now. Women do well in the modern economy mostly because of government support. In a truly free market economy, women would make less than men and this problem would go away. Men are better at most jobs than women, and men generally prefer working with other men, so women would have much fewer opportunities in a free market economy.



Christianity is a failed religion. I can’t even tell if Catholics or Protestants are worse.

Catholicism – a fun for the masses. Should in a circus, and not followed by billion idiots. Basically amounts to a  mass celebration of an unlikely entity. Their desire for action is zero, their knowledge of history and science likewise. Somewhat not completely insane on some societal issues but also insane on many of them (abortion, homosexuality).

Protestantism – mostly Christian liberalism. Mormons might be the only Protestant sect worth anything.

Islam – like Christianity, also too focused on belief and not that focused on action. Has a problem with fundamentalism. Abandoned most of the four tenants of successful societies.



There are basically two types of virginal women in today’s society. Both of them are insane and worthless. Women shouldn’t be virgins for long. Likely not after the age of 20.  This is obvious if we take a look of what virginal women are today.

First type – these women are Christian nutters who are clinging to a horrible, failed religion, are completely focused on faith in a non-existent being and believe in purist nonsense about both men and women abstaining from from sex until marriage. I’ve gone out with one of them and I’d rather go out with a dumbest slut than this 22 year-old virgin.  Two hours out of a two and a half hour date we had were spent on her ramblings about God. In terms of morality I wouldn’t rely on her much more than any typical atheist skank. Completely oblivious to biology, history or differences between genders. Wants a boyfriend who will live in purity alongside her before they get married.

Second type – there is this person on Reddit whose nickname is ozabin. Possibly a troll, but a good example nonetheless, since there are women like that. I call this imbecile a troll because she has about 10 posts, 8 of which are long attacks on me. This woman claims to be incel due to social anxiety. In one particularly insane post she claimed that it is men like me who make her phobic or something, comparing me to some guy who followed her when she was going to buy candy (lol). Of course, this is extremely sickening and, once again, a good indicator that she might be a troll but let us examine this lunacy. Who is she really blaming? Somebody who had only peripheral experiences with women, spending exactly a month and a half of his life in a sexual relationship.
I am not attacking truly love-shy women. But such women are usually gradually able to accept male advances. ozabin is just a crazy retarded whore who is crazy enough not to be exposed to a thug who will take her by force, which is what she actually wants.


There is a good rule for having decent and sane attitudes – in almost everything you should just believe the opposite of what liberal modernist fools do.

Good examples of that are their attitudes towards rape or female on male rape. CoAlpha poster Cornfed describes the actual truth very well in this post (though I disagree with his ideas on Jews and a ruling class of men being the most desirable one – obviously, I believe that omegas are the most desirable ones).

Since the perception of the whole rape issue by feminized Western men is complete bullshit, I thought I would point out the obvious.

1. Feminist females define “rape” as being any sex they later regret. It is not so much that they will lie and say you raped them when they know you didn’t. If you have sex and then they regret it for some reason, such as that you are of lower perceived status than they thought, then as far as they are concerned you “raped” them. Conversely, if you threw a female to the ground, ripped her clothes off and f***ed her without so much as a by your leave and she felt positive about what happened later on, it would probably not even occur to her to think she was raped. Increasingly the ZOG pigs and shysters are following this feminist definition of rape. Thus the very same physical actions on the man’s part could see him categorized either as a great lover or rapist depending on the later claimed emotional response of the female. Since it is not possible to objectively examine an emotional response, it follows that most “rape” cases are now prosecuted on spectral evidence, similar to the Salem witch trials. 

2. If we define “rape” as being forced sex, females do not think this is particularly bad or a big deal. Only self-hating manginas think rape is a big deal. Females like manly men who take charge of them and do what they want to them, not sniveling manginas begging them for sex and asking their permission nanosecond by nanosecond. Hence most erotic fiction aimed at females contains rape or quasi-rape scenes and females getting off on being raped is well known in criminology circles. In contexts where it is desirable and socially acceptable for them to have sex, females generally like being raped

3. If females are not really opposed to rape, why then do they want men to be jailed whenever they claim rape? It is simply because feminist females are criminally insane psychopaths who think that non-elite men should be jailed, robbed, killed or whatever whenever they feel like it. Sure they will come up with something bad you have supposedly done as an excuse to have the pigs attack you, but they regard this as a quaint formality. 

4. Rape is not considered to be a big deal by evil Western regimes because of supposed physiological damage to the female (which is to say, because the female’s feelings may be hurt). I mean, how f***ing ridiculous would that be – to imprison someone for years at enormous expense for hurting some skank’s feelings. It is incredible that anyone takes this aspect of the rape nonsense seriously. Traditionally rape was a property crime against the female’s owner, and so it remains. Today the ruling class assert that they own females, along with everything else. This is what feminism is all about. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, any sexual contact with females by non-elite men is a property crime against them. This policy is slowly being phased in and made more apparent. Eventually they will drop the silly hurt feelings bogosity and tell it like it is. 

5. Sane societies do not revolve around the idiot “consent” or other mindless whims of females. In sane societies females are placed under the control of men such as their husbands, fathers, pimps or whoever, and those men decide when they will have sex or not within the rules of that society. Often it would be considered the obligation females to have sex. After all, we all have unchosen obligations, and there is no reason why sex should be any different. The crime ofrape consists of forced sex outside the rules of society, such as a burglar forcing a married woman to have sex while robbing her house. As stated, it is really the same today, except it s the ruling class laying claim to all females. The consent thing is a red herring.

Modern society decries rape as some awful crime that is practically worse than murder when in fact most women are extremely happy to be raped by a man they deem desirable enough. In fact, I’ll even go a step further and say that most women are turned on by being raped by anybody, even incel males, and that the reason why rape is so decried (to the point of a “rape culture” nonsense) is that those men who can already attract women by being immoral and stupid enough and women attracted to them don’t want anyone else to have their chances of being attractive raised.

It’s similar with female on male rape travesty. Franklin describes the actual issue perfectly on Eivind Berge’s blog (a Norwegian MRA who showed me what nonsense this idea is)

Feminism is definitely not a hate-movement against all sexuality. Feminism is a slut-power movement. The goal of sluts is to have sex with the most immoral men they can find. So sex between all women and immoral men is strongly supported by feminism. There are two reasons for the concept of female sex offenses. One is to give lip service to the idea of equality. The other is that sex between a woman and a man who isn’t immoral is considered a crime by feminists. So sex with an underage male is a sex offense to feminists because this male hasn’t yet had the chance to prove his immorality. Still, there is no question that female sex offenses get much lighter punishments than male sex offenses.

This makes perfect sense. I’ll dissect both reasons he mentions here. 1. Lip service to equality–  You see, the problem with modern society is that it is compromised of various groups of idiots who often fight each other to protect their lies. If we removed the female on male rape nonsense almost all of the MRA’s would shriek about “inequality” and portray men as victims, when they’re actually victims of an idiotic female on male rape idea. This idea is as hilarious as me believing having thousand bucks stolen from me is the same as somebody forcefully pushing thousand bucks in my pocket ! As for feminists, they understand that they can’t just legally make things “unequal” to abolish this nonsense. It’s basically a strategy of two moronic movements clinging to a lie.

2. “Sin” of sleeping with a male who failed to prove his immorality and stupidity – Teenage boys are no beacons of intelligence and morality, of course. However, the issue is that feminism is a slut power movement and sluts only choose to sleep with most immoral and stupid women a woman sleeping with a boy who still has to really prove his immorality and stupidity angers feminists to no end.



So, who what kind of atrocities have been created by this?

When I look around me I see thousands of degenerates every day. It usually gets worse the younger a person is (most people born after 1990 are completely intellectually and morally bankrupt, true degenerates in every sense) but many older people are quite bad as well.

Let us take the reactions to my blog. Back when I had the GGGF idea, despite all the programs being clearly laid out, over 80 percent of people still believed that I want government enforced prostitution of women snatched off the streets.

After approximately year and a half doing this I’ve talked to maybe a dozen people who could actually make an argument that wasn’t completely insane and follow their or mine arguments for long.

If we could gather everything I’ve heard about myself, mostly fabrications about things I’ve written about and explained thoroughly I’d now be a virtual god, omnipresent and with every thought and experience to ever occur in history. But the idea that I use a translator remains the pinnacle.

While it is true that I was disgusted by my compatriots even a decade ago I now see them as rocket scientists compared to people from the Anglosphere. Yes, I did mildly participate on some Anglosphere sites since 2008, but this blog is what it took to show me just what almost all Westerners are. They are… The first comparison that comes to mind is a slimy monster in an immaculately clean bathroom. This is not because I think they are polite- no, they are mostly disrespectful and thuggish. It is about their way of thinking and their way of expressing their horrible thoughts, about something in their demeanor I can’t really pinpoint or define, some air of smugness they carry around themselves while saying mostly simple minded and quite often outrageous things.
I am not just talking about liberals here. Almost all people from North America and Western Europe are like that.

It was mentioned that the Enlightenment period ended around 2000. I’d say any hopes of further enlightement in America and later UK ended on September 11. This is obvious if you look at their populations. I’ve never, ever seen such disregard for basic human rights and law. What is more disturbing is that these are expressed by people 1. living in cradles of these concepts 2. who claim to be liberal.

These monsters actually believe that one should be imprisoned for nothing but their views. Their definitions of words like “harassment””rape” or “threat” are so crazy and downright incorrect that these words lost all meaning by now to anybody but their (unfortunately enormous) circle jerk.

Take a look at kids on places like Tumblr. No brain, no comprehension, just pure dogma.

Another problem with monsters that are hatched now is that they lack absolutely any empathy. It’s not just a lack of empathy for incel, the lack of most important single factor for happiness in life. It is the lack of empathy for everybody.

Do you really believe somebody who lacks empathy for those lacking the single most important factor for happiness ( a happy relationship) can feel empathy towards anybody else?

Franklin (on a hidden forum said)

Modern people are incapable of guilt. The gay movement didn’t gain power because of empathy. The gay movement gained power because it was consistent with fundamental premise of liberalism which is “do whatever you feel like and the hell with everyone else”. Incel is nothing but an embarrassment to modern people. The only choices are that modern people hate incels or ignore incels, and I prefer that they hate incels because that at least allows for enough publicity so that incels can find the resources (like this forum) that they need. Both sympathy and guilt are very real and exist in a healthy culture. Modern culture is not healthy and lacks both. The reason people give donations is to elevate their status. Historically America was a moral country with both guilt and sympathy, and in that culture donations became valued. This value remains for historical reasons but now is associated with status and a feeling of moral superiority and has nothing to do with guilt or sympathy. That “feel-good moment” you mention has nothing to do with thinking about helping others. It is a result of thinking “what a morally superior person I am for donating to some liberal approved cause”


There is nothing too insane for modern society.

In this society in general it’s bad for a guy to care deeply about relationship issues. It automatically makes him a pvssy emo-wimp, drama queen, etc who needs to “man up”. But men are unemotional morons and that is bad. Being basically denied your basic needs and feelings as a human being is ok. Calling a woman cunt online is not.  A manb is “encouraged” to be a player (and then is subsequently chastised for it, ie “all men are pigs”).

Therapy is a panacea for every problem any human ever had but unless you work on it yourself it is useless. Therapists are great experts but every cretin feels called upon to diagnose people he’s never seen IRL online.



An extremely accurate description of how therapy is seen in modern Western crapholes


The greatest insult to any incel isn’t being called creep, genetic scum or a loser. It is being told to seek therapy.

Anybody saying this believes that being in pain due to incel is abnormal, which is one the sickest lies I have ever heard. Relationships and sex are the number one factor for happiness of most humans. Would you tell a thirsty man to seek therapy rather than drink water? Anybody hearing somebody say that in any sane society would consider the person who said it a malignant lunatic. The fact that something this crazy can pass in modern culture IS THE SINGLE GREATEST INDICATOR OR WHY IT IS BEYOND SALVATION.

This theoretically wouldn’t apply to those who completely acknowledge the pain of incel but believe that therapy would make the incel situation stop. Those saying that aren’t completely insane, they’re just extremely misguided and wrong. However, don’t be naive – people who believe that and not the first thing I described are rare. In a society where therapy is a religion and empathy non-existent 99.9 of those recommending therapy belong in the first group.

It is amazing what these pigs expect… And I’m not gonna even say men but people, because I have known some incel women, to go through. The idea that a “reaction” of being a drugged up moron on a wide variety of prescription drugs jerking off and playing his PS3 is somehow healthier than snapping and shooting somebody due to a lack of most important single aspect of life, THE ONE TAKEN AWAY BY YOU IDIOTS, is insane. But that’s exactly what the monsters expect. In fact, this shouldn’t be of any surprise. Anglosphere is a few 200+ year old documents away from liberals, omegas and sluts launching an open armed attack on all who are not complete cretins.


Sorry, but I doubt it. Many have claimed so only to reveal themselves to be even worse than those who are obviously like that from the moment you lay eyes on them.

And even if you are, I actually don’t care. I don’t care about 20 outliers out of a million people, I don’t care about your marriage, I don’t care about your noncel friend and I frankly don’t care about you either. I AM TALKING ABOUT BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Whatever your perceived experience is it is utterly irrelevant and always will be. Oh, and you almost certainly are like that.

Just because people say that they are decent doesn’t make it so. Even thinking that this is in fact the case doesn’t make it so. Pretty much every reprehensible group in the history of the world considered itself moral and decent. People that are considered awful even my a majority of population, like Tumblr radfems, all consider themselves a beacon of morality. A matter of perspective plays a hand in this. Most people reading this blog see me as evil incarnate but my friends see as a good man and a loyal friend. But perspective is just one thing. What matters is the objective truth.

Sure, I doI think there are only some isolated groups of decent men who might enter relationships in the West

a) rich people
b) members of good religions, like Amish or Hasidic Jews
c) very lucky people
d) some other rare reasons

But for a huge majority of them there is simply no way to ever find a woman. If you’re a decent man in the West you’re expected to be a slave who will pay taxes to sluts while living a loveless, sexless life. 


“The second fastest way to lose a woman is to treat her like a sex object. The first fastest is not to.” – Fred Reed

I now actually feel really, really silly for ever believing I made some great mistakes in my life that made me unable to get women. Hahahaahhahahaha. For one, any society which works that way is already dead. If getting a girlfriend/wife is like playing the lottery you’re living in an insane asylum, not a society.

The infamous Darkness article attracted a lot of attention. I’ve even had some of the monsters expressing “regret” for what happened to me but still calling me a monster. This is one such example. I initially saved the picture with his nickname blurred but I will publish it now, since he stands for mass murder of feminist policies.


Of course, what this pig is completely oblivious to is that it is exactly the kind of mass murder he stands for that caused all these disasters to happen to me. Yes, of course, he is content in this society because he is omega scum so it wasn’t hard for him to find his stupid slut fiancee.

So, the Darkness story- hilarious that I didn’t see it before. I can accept that some of problems were caused by my LS phobia which I had until 2011. But would I had really been successful even at the age of the 15-16? Maybe. A striking fact is that my two most successful dates were with girls aged 16 and 17 (I was 19 and 21 myself). So a plausible explanation is that these girls were too young to completely develop an instinct that rejects decent men.

Of course, it didn’t take them long to develop these instincts. Modernist pigs, always unable to show any basic reading comprehension, often claim that TFO left me. What nonsense ! First of all, I always claim we weren’t even in a relationship. However, if we were I was technically the one who left her. I used to consider this my biggest mistake in life. I now think that the real mistake happened some days/weeks later, when I realized what I had done and showed her I care. Everything after that was a fool’s errand. And what was this great mistake I thought I had made? Telling her I am afraid of committing since she will be going away for 2 months and I won’t see her. I was a complete fool to believe that could have been the reason. But my desire to show I am sorry and care after that was.

Darkness basically describes the experiences of a decent man who tried to have relationships with vermin. The pattern is always the same – I meet a girl, she turns out to be insane scum incapable of a relationship and inflicts horrible emotional damage, years of extreme suffering, rinse, repeat. This would have never happened to me or anybody else in a normal society.

As for my unsuccessful dates, there were some people who, in what I presume is good faith, wanted to see me on YT to judge how I look, act and talk. What nonsense ! As if any of this is important to anybody in any sane society ! I initially wanted to make a video for this purpose but now realize that it would only be feeding their insane delusions.

No, the real reason for my failures is my type (I am a coalpha) and intelligence and morality I have. Also, Cornfed gives a good explanation of the bygone “dating scene” here 

There seems to be a lot of talk here about not having much luck dating and forming relationships with females in the West. Well duh. Western females are just public urinals being used by different dirtbags. The idea that it is possible to form a relationship with them is ridiculous. Similarly, dating is a thing of the past. This is because Western females are all sluts trying to increase their slut status among other sluts. Therefore they want to be f***ed by high status men. It follows that perceived high status men will have sluts constantly throwing themselves at them, so they won’t have to date to get sex – they can just take their chosen slut home or to a convenient location to f**k right away. Hence it follows that if you are asking for a date with a female then you are not of high status, so as far as the female is concerned you are a loser she wouldn’t want to date. The slutification of females has rendered dating obsolete as a cultural construct. The only way to score Western sluts is if you get across the message that your only interest in them is to perform the most degrading sex acts you can think of on them before severing all contact and that you don’t really care if they don’t want to because you can easily find some other slut who will.

I now realize what my biggest mistake on dates was – it was arranging them and showing up in the first place ! Dates are nonsense and if you go on dates you’re either incel or, if successful at them, a moron. The problem with my dates is that I, as a coalpha, went on dates. It’s like expecting a fish to thrive in a desert. I WOULD HAVE HAD  MUCH MORE SUCCESS IF I JUST WALKED AROUND AND SLAPPED RANDOM WOMEN I’D ENCOUNTER ON THE STREET IN THE FACE. 

But let’s leave TFO aside. I’ll say something about the two girlfriends I had. First of them left me, the other created such problems and hell for me that we consensually decided it was best for us to separate. These women did that because they recognized I am not immoral or stupid enough to be their evolutionary choice. THEY TREATED ME THAT WAY BECAUSE I WAS A GOOD, CARING, LOVING BOYFRIEND AND THEREBY UNABLE TO PROVE MY IMMORALITY AND STUPIDITY. This is the reason. In any sane society a woman would be delighted  to be treated the way I treated my girlfriends and would never, ever leave such a boyfriend. The reason why I was treated by them that was was because I wasn’t abusive, uncaring or a thug.

Imagine what it is like to spend a beautiful Saturday with your girlfriend, to spend a night with her unable to really sleep because you’re not used to sleeping with somebody else in a bed and because you can’t stop thinking about how lovely she is, only to be awoken on Sunday, when you have seen her off home and you’re trying to get some sleep, just to be told that there is a problem with you because you  sought therapy, and to be sleepless and miserable all over again. And that was just a slight fragment of what I’ve gone through with my second girlfriend.

Vox Day explains some of this extremely well 

I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

I would go so far to argue that if you are being introduced to a woman you find attractive, she will be more attracted to you if you slap her in the face without warning and walk away without explanation than if you smile and tell her that you are very pleased to meet her. Now this, being a mere hypothesis, can be argued. And tested, if you’re feeling especially scientific this weekend.

Now, please note that I am not saying that women dislike men behaving like gentlemen, it’s only that they don’t find it attractive. It’s irrelevant. It’s analogous to the male perspective on a woman having a good job or an impressive Fdegree. Men don’t dislike these things, they just don’t have anything to do with whether a man is attracted to the woman possessing them or not.

Face it – women are disgusting scum who would rather “date” a trucker who will break their skull, teeth, spine and legs then a decent man. They want to be completely smashed by them, they want them to take them whenever and however the want to, they want to be impregnated by their defective genes to create even more feces.  Next time you meet a woman you like try spitting in her face. It will do you more good than any nonsense you tried before.


Of course, I am not a misogynist at all. I despise almost all modern people because they’re scum. This essay has about 10-1 ratio of harsh words against men when compared to harsh words against women. Also, me being a misogynist would mean I hate all women everywhere, which is simply not the truth ( I mentioned examples of decent women in religious communities or that few remaining decent women are also in mortal danger in the West).

Silly. Of course none of the women I tried dating knew what I think. In fact, I was pretty much a liberal who mildly disliked feminism but considered himself an egalitarian. What I didn’t understand then is that egalitarian is the same as feminist. I supported all the key feminist ideas. And guess what? I was a virgin until 2012.

Do you understand? Until 2012, some 7-8 years after my fate was already sealed, I was a liberal feminist. During the time I suffered most of my tragedies and traumas I WAS A LIBERAL FEMINIST.

Of course, my change of ideology didn’t have anything to do with the fact that I had some successes in 2012-2013. It was just luck.

Women are nasty creatures who  like shiny things and popularity. Women don’t care what you think, say or do if you’re attractive to them or famous enough. Since starting this blog I received many supportive messages from women and were I to live somewhere in the Anglosphere half of what I’ve written in this admittedly rarely updated blog would mean I’d have sex with several women by now. I had 30 unsuccessful dates 2013-2014 because coalphas can’t seduce and to these girls I was a nobody, some anonymous guy. Exposing my identity, if I lived in the Anglosphere, would actually increase my chances with women, not decrease them. 





1. MRA movement- playing the unwinnable game

Of those I will mention this is the least wrong idea. There are many admirable people in the MRA community who are doing actual work to help men. Unfortunately, they are trying to apply an Elastoplast stop to flood of a Biblical proportions and simply don’t understand that they can’t win.

Take a lot at the Elliot Rodger thing.

Elliot Rodger was a lottery winning ticket for feminists, since it enabled them to launch a huge offensive against a completely unrelated MRA movement and PUA movements hours later, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger was never a part of the first (in fact, he wasn’t subscribed to a single MRA) or the fact that he was A MEMBER OF A FORUM THAT BASHED PICK UP ARTISTS.  Sane societies would find this broken logic silly and compare it to somebody attacking Nevada ranchers for US bombing some country.  However,  what they would not find silly is the motivation behind it. what such cynical and utterly ruthless action, a literal march over dead bodies to destroy your political enemies, would be punishable in the harshest possible way. Of course, in our current sick society this was allowed to go through.

Do you think that a movement that can be attacked under such ridiculous pretenses will ever change anything? Franklin has this to say about this

This is one of the many reasons that I am not an MRA, because MRAs need to avoid what is publicly embarrassing to remain politically viable, even though they can never actually win politically.  What a waste.  I embrace what is embarrassing to modern culture because I reject modern culture.  I am sympathetic to Elliot Rodger and I never hesitate to say so.  Elliot Rodger was influenced by some parts of the men’s movement, but not by MRAs.

Seriously, did anybody notice ANY difference between the reaction towards moderate MRAs or biggest reactionary “extremists”? Cause I sure as hell didn’t. So why play this game you can’t win? Just look at the reactions their first ever convention got.

It’s great that some MRAs help men in court cases and do other kind of work but it will ultimately not solve the problem.

2. MGTOW- monks of Monte Fappino

MGTOW concept is as silly as saying that there are is a lot of garbage on the streets so you should no longer leave your house. It is an ultimate surrender.

I’ve heard of some men who claimed to be MGTOW’s but had girlfriends but in almost all cases these MGTOW’s hardly even use prostitutes, let alone strive for anything else. It is a male equivalent of radical feminist separatism and most MGTOW’s are seriously fucked in the head, scaring me more than feminists do.

The sole idea that a man should learn to live without relationships and sex is just preposterous. I can somewhat understand modernists expecting that as they don’t have any empathy and are simply too stupid to realize just how quickly most of them would be shattered if they were actually incel (not what they consider it to be).

Also, let us see what MGTOW really stands for…

Feminist MGTOW Traditionalist (including CoAlphas)
Traditional Marriage against against for
Adultery (sex with another man’s wife) legal legal illegal
Gender Roles supports equality supports equality genders have different roles (even if equal under the law)
Female Premarital Sex for for (at least if it’s with them) against

I hope you now have a clearer picture of why I am against it.

3. PUA- an evil empire

This thread has some good quotes on PUA (I won’t mention every author, the post is already long enough)

– Being a PUA means being an asshole in training.  After all, what sluts are attracted to is assholes, so the “art” of attracting sluts is the “art” of learning to act like an asshole.  And what this means above all is learning to treat other men like garbage and put them down.  This kind of behavior is what sluts love most. 

-Even if a PUA has a perfect understanding of how the world works and even if he agrees with us on virtually every point, this doesn’t change the fact that a successful PUA must necessarily be a scumbag.  Any behavior that one practices regularly simply gets absorbed into one’s character.  This is why all PUA sites put down men and ban men who disagree with them.  As far as I am concerned, PUAs are worse than feminists.  If decent men ever conquer a feminist society, the sluts and feminists can be allowed live and serve as prostitutes, but the PUAs must all be executed without exception. 

-PUAs are awful. Game is basically the art of exploitation, to get what you want from others with or without their real consent and with whatever (often unethical) means available. 

I grew up in a ghetto of sorts and saw a lot of criminals and psychopaths, including people who kidnapped and tortured cats to death (two guys spent an entire summer doing only this), and PUAs are practically indistinguishable from those people. PUAs may not torture cats or steal cars, but they share the same mindset and viciousness, the status whoring and lust for dominance, the desire and attempts to deceive and exploit, the utter amorality. To threaten someone with a knife to get them to do what you want or to use a huge power differential and frame control techniques etc to pressure someone into doing something you know they don’t want to do (eg making a virgin agree to rough public sex — which if successful is guaranteed to elicit high-fives and grins in a PUAcommunity), aren’t really that different in terms of psychology and ethics even if one is illegal and the other is not. 

I don’t remember his real name, but the PUA who went by the nick Tayler Durden, one of the most influential PUAs in the early days (he was a key player in Strauss’ The Game), once said that when he visited a ghetto he was surprised and impressed to learn that all the men there already knew game intuitively. They were “alphas”, and so according to pua heirarchy we should place them at the top even if they’re despicable worthless low iq thugs. 

That’s what game is: systematized sociopathy that emerges in, or reduces societies to, ghettos. It’s prisoner’s dilemma with consistent defecting taking advantage of other’s cooperation until all trust is destroyed and only ruins remain. Anyone who is in favor of this is obviously an enemy of the true and the good.

And roissy among others knows this perfectly well and occasionally says as much. 

Lovely folks. Should society take a turn for the better I can only hope they will be remembered and that we don’t run out of trees.

If there ever is a tangible CoAlpha community, we will have to defend against these creeps. Most of them will remain in the West, fortunately, but a few of the scum travel abroad. But even the more well-known ones that do (like Roosh) rarely go to some out of the way place. Which also goes to show how hollow they are. Game ceases working at home, so just go abroad. But they usually end up fucking sluts abroad anyway or pros or semi-pros. 

Problem is if they go after someone’s wife or girlfriend. At that point, they need to be resisted with lethal force if needed. And when some PUA scum goes missing and doesn’t report back, they’ll get the message.

In short, PUAs are nothing but either natural or trained scumbags who want to attract other natural scumbags or train previously decent men to become scumbags. Of course that being a PUA is an extremely effective tactic if you want to have sex, but it promotes seduction and almost certainly incapacitates a man for a serious relationship.


Decent people in the West are being massacred through abuse by various thugs and incel since their childhood

When thugs and their whores (aka 90 percent of population) claim that incels are a waste and vermin that  is actually the evil of the species, with its defective genes talking. Every living organism, no matter how dangerous and destructive, wants to keep on living. Manure of this world would be absolutely content with killing off everybody of any worth if it could mean it can get rid of those who get on their nerves. Death, hatred and mess are all they know.


Franklin once again describes this brilliantly in this post

Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy. 
There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.

Franklin’s parents have survived the Holocaust because they escaped the Germans but many decent people can’t do that by jumping from a train or hiding. Franklin escaped his own personal Holocaust by leaving the most disgusting culture in the history or the world – modern American culture.

But where will you go if you don’t have the money? Wherever you go you will be surrounded by evil. Unless you can escape feminist countries you are done for.

This applies to both men and women. In fact, it is even harder in some aspects for remaining decent women, as they are unlikely to find a husband abroad. Decent people of both genders are being slaughtered by liberalism.

Wasn’t Nazism more merciful in that regard? Isn’t being gassed better than living in excruciating pain of incel for decades?

You complain about Elliot Rodger killing a total amount of six people.  What about hundreds of millions of decent people exterminated by liberalism and modernism by now? 

Tell me, did Nazis ever wanted to kill people based on nothing but their intelligence and morality and by torturing them for decades? Knowing the answer, it is not a hard choice to make when a question about what is worse-  Nazism or liberalism. Because this is exactly what is being done and had already wiped out most decent people.

Am I exaggerating again? Well, think about this situation. Suddenly, some x culture enforced norms that suddenly made it impossible for any Chilean anywhere in the world to find a partner and have sex, just like it made it impossible for anybody to become a Chilean citizen. Will that exterminate basically all the Chileans in less than 100 years, even if all of them will have no problem with being incel? Of course it will. But the thing is, many Chileans will die before that, even in the first few years, simply due to being unable to stand incel.

The same is currently being done to decent people.


War… Let’s start by concluding a simple fact about warfare. As described in the story about two armies (one being coalpha and other not) no human being will fight and die for nothing.

I don’t think that even Nazis in 1945 would have given me a weapon. I simply have nothing to fight for, nobody to wait for me at home so why would I ever die for somebody else? But the rebellion of men like me isn’t just about that. The real aspect of warfare men that are unable to leave this hell must accept is economic warfare.  Why would you work and pay your taxes for sluts? Of course, monsters will say that simply paying taxes shouldn’t guarantee you a wife and be technically right about it, but this is simply because they are missing the actual point. Providing did guarantee you a wife, and this wife was somebody who was attracted to you. There was no legal guarantee because none was needed nor will it ever be. There is no legal guarantee that enough immorality and stupidity will make you attract a woman yet it always happens.

What are other ways of fighting a war against those who wish to exterminate decent people? Well, I don’t advocate violence. If you try violence on and grander scale your life will finish and monsters will be reinforced in their beliefs. Remember what I said about feminists and how they used the Elliot Rodger incident to go after MRA.

People like Sodini or Rodger didn’t do what they did because they believed that their actions are political. They were in a position of a hopeless Jew about to be killed in a Nazi death camp who found a gun somewhere and fired at his captors, just to face an imminent dilemma of committing suicide or being killed himself. Tryign explicit  violence in this society will get you killed extremely soon. Of course, in the meantime it is completely acceptable for feminists and liberals to conduct a mass massacre.

When I was at an interview with a German journalist I told him about this war (to which he looked at me in dismay). What I forgot to tell him is that I didn’t start this war nor do I really intend the fight in it. The war was started on me because I am a decent person and I know I have no chance of winning it. It’s actually more of a manhunt than a war.

The best way out is to escape the insanity by moving abroad or joining a good religion.



A foregone conclusion of this extremely long analysis that due to the unfortunate fact that resources don’t grow on trees that often and that eternal fountains of wealth are a thing of fiction this society, just like all omega societies in the past, cannot survive.

Who will pay for this?

Alphas, who are in quite a small number now and often working high class jobs, those same men who still benefit from this system? They will pay some, but not much. These people are more about creating and manipulating money and an entire system than really working.

Coalphas, who are the most endangered group are are massively fleeing the West, if they’re not killing themselves or others due to years/decades of unimaginable frustration?

Omegas, many of whom can’t even hold down a job and live on welfare?

The only ones who are still paying are betas, due to their naivety.

During my interview a journalist told me that he doesn’t believe a coalpha society to be possible. I agreed with him, but said that it is so because basically all the coalphas have already been exterminated.

Which is unfortunate, for the alternatives after the collapse are much worse.

People like Chinese, Muslims or Russians have a much cruder way of dealing with things than coalphas ever would. No matter how hateful you think I am the system I am proposing is in its essence a human, civilized system where the best strive. What these cultures would bring is the actual brute force.

Of course, an alternative to this outcome is even worse – not even myself can imagine, let alone describe what will happen to you once the society collapses. I don’t think anybody really can. Let’s just say that death will be the least concerning thing that might happen to you.



I will not briefly look at some arguments that could be presented against all this

1. “ENSLAVEMENT” ARGUMENT – this is the most comment argument and, unfortunately, also the most retarded one. There either isn’t any enslavement here or enslavement existed everywhere an every point in history, including today. Women are at the same time never “enslaved” or “free”. They have always been enslaved by their instinct the pick men who are most successful with women and they have always been free to reject a man. The reason why they didn’t reject them was their instinct that told them these men men they’re given to are the currently most successful type of man in evolutionary terms.

This isn’t to say that marriage wasn’t something different in the past. Of course it was. It was more of a business deal, but it was commonly accepted as such and enforced on both men and women, who accepted it. This was how the world looked like in those days. Can you imagine living in a world without any machines?

However, men and women formed much happier marriages at that time. And so were they even after the end of the old system. I remember my grandmother, who had been born in a poor, rural area during the 20s. I don’t believe her marriage had been arranged but it certainly wasn’t based on seduction and she lived with my grandfather for 40 years. It is amazing how much happier and peaceful she was when compared to almost any woman I see today.

Also, my grandmother, just like almost every woman before her, those women who lived in older cultures, was never abused. Previous societies also had effective means of stopping abuse in their community.

And who are the real slaves in today’s society? Incel men paying taxes, like I explained. Even a good number of slaves in Rome lived in a Contuberniums. Today’s men have nothing at all. Light beer and TV are a sufficient replacement for a wife only in feces filled heads of scum I attack in this essay.

2. TECHNOLOGY ARGUMENT –  It is evident that there can no longer be a return to an agricultural preindustrial society nor is such a return necessary. Besides, some successful societies functioned in an industrial age, like 19th century USA.

I believe that sane societies might function even in this day and age but explaining this is very complex and is something I am also unable to predict much about. I am not against technology, I am not against women working or going to colleges. I  So I will just leave it at this.

3. MGTOW anti-traditionalist argument

This one is a bit more evolved than what most MGTOW’s claim and the hardest to disprove. It was mainly brought to my attention by a very intelligent vlogger ThinkingApe-TV (former Stardusk). It basically states that patriarchy is just as harmful to men as feminism is that and that due to an irreparably merciless nature of women no system in history benefited men in any way. Basically, in his view a woman will abandon this soldier from a coalpha army no matter what if she feels it will benefit her at least slightly.

I don’t know what to think of that. At times it seems to be the bitter truth and at other times too dark and cynical but I can’t really make an argument for or against it since I haven’t seen enough of his videos and honestly have better things to do.


The way that omegas and their sluts apply the word evolution is wrong.  If evolution is defined as “the heritable change in a population over successive generations” this says absolutely nothing about the traits of those reproducing in terms of their qualities like decency, intelligence and morality or the way they are able to run their own lives or society.

Due to the processes I described, which aren’t anything new in history, seduction has become the primary skill in terms of reproduction. But seduction is inherently worthless and is the worst way to procreate.

Intelligence and decency are useful in societies where a sufficient number of people has these traits and where they are appreciated. Today’s these traits are hated and people who have them mocked. This means that all those hateful words about strong men with good genes not being incel are utter lunacy and people saying them should be rightfully considered the feces they are.

ALL THAT VAPID TALK ABOUT “LOOKING INTO YOURSELF” AND “IMPROVING YOURSELF” ACTUALLY MEANS “BECOME A BETTER SEDUCER, “BECOME MORE IMMORAL AND STUPID”, “BECOME MORE OF A THUG”. And in a sense that is a somewhat valid advice since you must become evil to get women. However, in the long term it is a death sentence for any society.

During most of history sane men assured that getting a wife is a trivial problem, which is should be. People had more important things to worry about. The extension of such patriarchies were the most successful societies in history, coalpha societies, which swept everything in front of them as long as they were moral.

But often during the history things change, morality collapses and so do the societies. When senseless things like seduction replace the essential things like the intelligence, morality and the ability to provide the society eventually dies off, either by being conquered by a society with better morals or by disintegrating into chaos like post feminist/post omega societies.

Omegas and their sluts see men like me as losers because immoral/stupid men are the most successful ones with women. Omegas think this due to their immorality and stupidity while women have an inborn cruelty which makes the despise men they don’t find attractive.  In sane cultures immoral/stupid men are the ones seen as losers by women and despised by them. Women are agnostic about male behavior, all they care about is success the men have.

All of this is absolutely not the fault of women. Women act like decent human beings and choose decent males when men create a culture where this is happening. They have zero responsibility if men fail to do this and one shouldn’t blame them for their nature – it’s just how they operate to produce offspring.

Immorality and stupidity  are the most important evolutionary traits currently.  In the long run they will destroy society. I don’t think this process is any longer reversible in Western societies. And this is why you have incel.

A short message to incels – your entire struggle to find a partner is something that shouldn’t be happening in any sane society. These things were settled with great ease in successful cultures, usually in few days/months, and I’m not just talking about arranged marriages. I didn’t and won’t call you beacons of morality because most of you, as I have already seen, are also scum who simply lacks the sufficient amounts of immorality, stupidity and seduction skills  to be successful. What I will tell you is that those getting women are worse than you. Their cretinism and evil has tainted the gene pool so much that they have basically exterminated almost all the decent people. If you’re a modernist moron I am glad you’re incel and hope you will never stop being one. But if you’re sane join the CoAlpha forums and help us form a real community. There is no longer much time.

Because all these attempts of seduction, advice on how to “pick up women” etc are simply chasing the cheese. If you could get women that way you’d have gotten them by now. There is a carrot in front of you and you are falling for it but guess what – you’ll never match up.

Become a CoAlpha.

Moderation notes

NOTE 1: This text doesn’t claim to talk about issues and concept recognized by most of science. Some of the concepts mentioned here, like coalpha males, are completely unrelated to current scientific ideas and present an ideal type. That’s ok, since there is no real science on these issues anyway. This is why debating the scientific value of this article is pointless – it has no scientific aspirations, since it wasn’t written by a scientist, at least not in the field of anthropology, biology or psychology. In light of the facts mentioned, while I will allow discussion of concepts mentioned in the text I will not allow straight out denial of these concepts based on how much science has discussed them. This is a different kind of ban than the one on denial of incel/love-shyness. Denial of incel and love-shyness is a denial of some obviously existent issues whose own definition describes existent and easily imaginable issues. Ban on denials of incel or LS is merely an attempt to weed out imbeciles and lunatics. A ban on denial of concepts I’m talking about here has quite a different goal – it is designed to stop pointless discussions about things that can’t be either confirmed or disproved by hard science.

NOTE 2: I will also not allow pointless discussions on what it means to be immoral, stupid, scum or any of these terms. I am applying their dictionary definitions. What matters are actions that constitute such behavior and these can be discussed.

NOTE 3: Understanding this text requires two things – some knowledge of history and, much more importantly, an ability to think outside of the box and have an open mind. If you approach what is written here from a position of ignorance and  a blind belief in what I’ll call nowism ( a belief that things always were the way you perceive them to be now) you will probably make stupid posts which will get deleted/edited even if you have the best intentions. Take off these purple modernist glasses and put them next to your keyboard before you start replying. It will make you see things more clearly and write better comments.

NOTE 4: I will absolutely not allow a single comment mentioning “nerds”, “nice guys”, “entitlement”, “creeps”, or any of that crap. Nowhere in this article (or, for that matter, on this blog) have I used these terms outside of a context that spoke about how barbaric their usage is. If you mention them here you are gone. This is not an article where you are allowed to comment by spitting  out your dumb memes and phrases. It is a bit too serious for that, with too much time and work invested in it for me to hear nonsense from pigs.

NOTE 5: If you’re offended by my completely justified comparisons to Holocaust, slaughter of children or feces enough that it makes you extremely angry, angry enough not to be civil, go be angry somewhere else.

NOTE 7: I don’t want to hear anybody using the term “conspiracy theorist”. It will tell me you’re a moron who needs to be banned. I am not talking about any conspiracies here but complex multidimensional  events most of which span for centuries and some for thousands of years.

NOTE 8: Any mention of “hate speech”, authorities and other nonsense will be immediately banned WITH YOUR IP AND ANY INFO I CAN FIND PUBLISHED. In this essay I explicitly say I don’t endorse violence. The authorities and info part stands for those outside the forum as well. And believe me, at least three people whose info I know will find themselves on this blog very soon for other horrors(having to do with Wikipedia) and even if it gets shut down everything is already backed up on Blogspot and on my computer. Think about if you want to find yourself on THIS blog.

A more general advice: I can’t really predict what kind of reactions this post will cause. It seems too abstract, complex and long to go viral among those I repeatedly called low IQ vermin. However, it is absolutely essential and  I will be linking to it a lot. In fact, this is the first time that I will visit some sites and link to it myself. Still, many modernists pigs will consider this post absolutely insane so I must be ready for a backslash. You might want to become acquainted with my Comments policy as well. There are several transgressions usually made by modernist pigs I ban for without warning. Aside from that, everybody is free to comment.

P.S. This is an ENORMOUS post so it is very likely that it is, despite my best intentions to avoid it, riddled with all kinds of spelling errors, incorrect grammar and things like that. Please, point these out to me so I might fix them.