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.

122 thoughts on “The story of your incel – an inconvenient truth

  1. Reblogged this on Suriviving Involuntary celibacy the way I know how and commented:
    Interesting blog post on culture, sex, and the choices women make. But I must say about the choices of women in various societies, I know of another Asian male student at the University who is weak, skinny, lazy, and whiny, lacking a single shred of masculine/provider quality yet many of the girls from the home country chase after him. If men of his quality gets chosen I fear for the future of my people. The only “player” characteristic that guy has is his irresponsibility, but that alone is not a factor in being a player.

  2. tib- Alberto – I might not know what you claimed here but I at least read the rules of a site I’m visiting. You didn’t and that’s why you have to try again. You’re not banned but you committed an offense that I don’t allow.

    Try again.

    Btw I doubt this will make you question your intelligence but I hope it will make readers do so.

    • I will reformulate:

      Your whole post is full of flaws, distorted facts and simplifications. It would not stand against a 1st year History, Sociology or Economics student.

      Just because you put a lot of effort on it, it doesn’t mean it’s right.

      And the I ask: In what cathegory would you put Afghanistan or Pakistan? women’s rights are non-existant, there.

      • Well, this is better, in that it doesn’t mention a false and degrading definition of incel, which is what got you edited in your first attempt.

        Anyway, I have been a 1st year history student and actually graduated in history so what does that make me… a bad student?

        Economics? What is faulty about economics of this?

        As for Afghanistan and Pakistan, they have a problem with facts that Islam is a really faulty religion and fundamentalism. They’ve never experienced Protestantism and coalpha societies which enabled them to obtain the wealth that feminism is now eating.

        Any more questions?

        • Ok, now you’re just getting annoying


          2. You don’t make a single counter-argument. Your post is basically “you’re wrong and that’s because you’re this and that”. That’s not how you make an argument.

          To believe that a counter-argument to a 22,000 word post can be something like “you’re wrong because you’re frustrated and you can’t succeed” is not only deeply insulting but deeply disturbing.

          Of course, you know very little about data you mention, since merely Googling your name can tell you that you’re in a completely unrelated profession, so what do you think you’re doing here?
          I mean, do you understand that the very question you asked (about those two countries) reveals an immense ignorance?

          Do you think you’re “debating” me here? If I were in elementary school I might think this is a debate but those days are long gone.

          • Yes, you can google my name, even facebook it.
            Nothing wrong with being anonymous, but I like to comment as myself.

            I came here because I like to read about different people, just the same way I read the craziest feminist blogs, the quite disturbing posts of rape survivors or the ultra-religious blogs, from time to time.

            It helps me understand the world a little better.

            And it’s a 22K word post, yes, and I read most of it. And I found it quite disturbing, too. But for the wrong reasons.

            For summing up all my criticism, you are ignoring every economical, military, religious crysis that originated the complex boil of societies we call “modern world”. My examples about Afghanistan or Pakistan (or India, or any african country where they still stone women to death for adultery) tried to point an example of this without giving a 22k reply: The world is much, much more complicated than mating and breeding.

            And as a History Student you must know this, so hence my point of strong personal bias.

            Not that you should even care, and of course you can edit it.
            That’s why my blog is only about my videos.

            • Alberto, this blog is running under certain very archaic concepts. They’re called accountability and intellectual honesty. You have once again failed to make a single argument.

              You mention tons and tons of something but fail to provide a single ounce of it and as for your question I told you why it is dumb.

              You’re also fabricating nonsense like the fact that I think that world is mating and breeding, which is not what this article says.

              Your problem isn’t that you’re a feminist per se. It is that you’re a stupid, bigoted, uneducated moron, just like all feminists.

              Not a single letter of what you’re saying is a counter-argument and you’re being used as a punching bag.

          • Naaah, I’ve read a few incel-related things and your 22k word post was quite enough for me. I think I get the main ideas. Also my personal situation makes me… hmmm ¿Beta? ¿Omega? I don’t really know. Maybe one of the ‘manginas’ or some other term you use for a feminist man. Not the kind of guy you want around, I guess.

            I understand the world a little better now.
            And that was the main point in reading you, guys.

  3. Alright, as promised, I read through this behemoth (How i got through the whole thing I have no idea… it is long as fuck). What I found kind of humorous is that you were so quick to accuse ME of “rambling” in my last post on your other article, as though this gigantic tome of yours doesn’t ramble AT ALL?? Projecting much? Whatever… Anyways, I’ve got some feedback for you, in no particular logical order as it relates to your post.

    First let me just say, again, that I am a male incel and my inclination is to agree with you on many issues. I am 26, and live in the US.

    I am also 100% Jewish and my grandparents survived the Holocaust although their parents (that is to say, my great grandparents, were murdered by Hitler). I am not *angry* at what you have written, but some things need to be said here.

    You are walking DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to saying some things that are just downright wrong, offensive, and reek of naive arrogance. I strongly urge you to reconsider the things you have written comparing inceldom to the Holocaust. I say this not just to prevent offending people, but also because it SERIOUSLY undermines any credibility you have with even the most sympathetic of your readers such as myself.

    You did not suffer at the hands of German soldiers. You were not there, nor was any of your family I assume. Incel, as uncomfortable and painful as it may be, is NOT, I repeat NOT the same as the Holocaust, when MILLIONS of human beings — productive members of society, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, children, pregnant women– were placed in ovens, gassed, worked so hard and starved in camps and ghettos until they died. And not just Jews, but other people of many ethnicities and races and religions as well. And Hitler would not have stopped had he not been thwarted by the Allies. He fully intended for world domination, and wanted to create the Aryan race.

    Is anyone depriving YOU of food and basic necessities ? Is anyone forcing you to perform backbreaking labor outside all day everyday until you die ? Is anyone lining you up for a death shower? Is anyone confiscating all of your personal possessions, your toothbrush, your money, the silver filling in your teeth?

    I will answer for you: NO. THEY ARE NOT. Until that happens, you have zero, I repeat ZERO room to make comparisons like you tried to do.

    Now, onto a few other issues.

    I can see that you like history, and you like writing. Have you considered studying history at greater depth at some university level ? Maybe a graduate degree or Ph.D. ? That is what universities are there for, people like you who want to think and write all day long, and there is no shortage of academics chomping at the bit to refute your arguments. Why waste time with such morons like you seem to be replying to so often here and on reddit ? If you were really as smart as you claim to be, you wouldn’t even waste a minute of your day responding to people who clearly will never change their minds, let alone even comprehend what you are saying.

    Which brings me to my next point– what exactly IS the purpose of all this? By this I mean, this website, your articles, your responses to people who comment. What are you trying to accomplish exactly? I tried to find some theses in your article, for instance one seems to be that you are disproving the notion that some women make, which says that if we just let them have as much sex as they want, it will be better for us. OK, great, you disproved it. I agree with you, feminists have some stupid thoughts that don’t help us out So now what? I mean, really, who cares that you have disproved this? Are you trying to change the world? If so, you better find a way to sell your ideas to a bigger audience, and fast. My opinion is that these forces of modernizing and feminism and liberalism are bigger than you or me. They are part of big changes happening in the world today, and probably aren’t going to stop anytime soon. So, I am sorry to say, but as much as you and I hate it, we aren’t going to have any impact on it. We might as well find a way to survive in this changing world, and to be happy until we die. And if you don’t want to do that, then just commit suicide.

    I generally agree with you about the PUA movement. At first years ago I was excited to learn all about it and experiment with girls, but as time goes by it has done more harm than good for me. I tend to think that the concepts are mostly valid, but one will be far more successful at picking up girls when one ISN’T thinking so hard about what to do or not do to be successful.

    BODY LANGUAGE — It’s real, whether you want to admit it or not. Some people say body language is 80% of communication, the other 20% obviously being 20%. So whether you want to answer people’s demands to see your face on youtube or not (I personally don’t care what you look like), body language is one of the most important, perhaps THE most important part of attraction. It’s also why exercise, which releases endorphins, tends to be associated with success at pickup. A relaxed, comfortable demeanor is very effective for making friends and conveying confidence. It just is. Some people are naturally more relaxed than others so they naturally have better body language.

    Idiocracy– you mentioned this term once in your article, but I couldn’t tell if you were referring to the movie or not. If you have not seen the 2006 movie by Mike Judge, watch it now. It is very funny, and also eerily similar to what society seems to be turning into.

    Alpha/Coalpha/Omega/etc… I won’t debate the scientific evidence for or against these terms. What I can say is that I don’t think it is always so crystal clear. For example I had a very difficult time figuring out which group I belong to. I have some qualities that fit into nearly all of the groups. Life is not always black or white.

    Humility — You mentioned in your response to my last post that Humility is not an attractive trait. I simply disagree. Real humility can be very attractive and you can test it out for yourself. This does not mean shyness or weakness or anything else. Humility is a trait that a lot of true Alphas possess. Cockiness and being a jerk is also an attractive trait when done correctly. Very few people have only one trait, usually people have a wide range of traits that are attractive or unattractive. FYI: Posting long articles like you do that talk endlessly about how correct you are about the state of the world and social behavior, is not exactly a humble trait. Most people would equate that with something closer to Arrogance, or being a big Know-It-All (which is OK, since i like to be a big know-it-all too)

    You also gave examples of “decent” people in today’s society, such as Amish or Hasidic Jews. Being a Jew myself who belongs to an orthodox synagogue (although I am not personally so religious in my own ways) I can tell you that while most Jews are good people overall, it is naive to think that all Hasidic Jews are always on the up and up when it comes to business dealings and other matters. So don’t assume they are all so decent without knowing them. Also you should be aware that Hasidic Jews have arranged marriage, so they do not worry at all about finding partners. How they would fare without such arranged marriages, if left to their own devices in today’s society, is unknown to me, but the fact is that they have no trouble at all marrying and having lots of children (actually they try to have as many children as possible).

    ON THE ISSUE OF thug behavior, being a deadbeat, immoral, etc. I just simply disagree that being good at getting girls requires a guy to be a badboy. Is it easier to attract girls when you are a badboy? Maybe. But plenty of really good guys in today’s society get very attractive girls and have regular sex. This is one of those things where theory does not always match with reality. What I mean is, it is easy to think that the world is becoming a sinful and horrible place filled with monsters and only the scum of the earth are having sex. It’s just not true. Go outside in public and you will see plenty of normal looking decent people who are couples. if you do not see these people outside then travel more and you will find them.

    ON THE ISSUE OF THE WORLD ENDING and turning into a big cesspool of liberal jerks– This too just is not happening anytime soon. It is easy to paint a worst case scenario just as people are always trying to predict the next date when the world will end– Well guess what, the Mayan prediction for the end of the world passed on December 21, 2012 and life went on. And not just that but life is not so bad actually in 2014. You and I are safe in the comfort of our own homes, we can communicate through the wonder of the internet, we have freedom of speech, we can eat whatever we want and no one is preventing us from going outside and approaching girls to try to get a date. I agree that it is very difficult for us to get dates but it is not impossible if we really want to make it happen.

    Lastly I will just say that I find it kind of bothersome to hear you discount your limited dating experience because I actually have even less experience than you, I think. I have never even had a real girlfriend at all. So maybe try to be a little bit more thoughtful of what you write, and be more considerate to others since you may have actually have it better than you think you do. You should count your blessings and be happy that you are not a disabled quadriplegic.

    • DonnieDarko,

      “Rambling” isn’t a matter of length, but of conciseness (information density). thatincelblogger’s post is long but says a lot. It is more concise than your writing which reads like an unedited stream of consciousness. You should work on your writing.

      thatincelblogger got his comparison of Liberalism to the Holocaust from me. I am 100% Jewish and 3 of my grandparents died in the Holocaust. Your main criticism of the comparison is that it is too politically incorrect. You didn’t actually contest any of the points made.

      The idea that thatincelblogger should join a university is absurd. Universities are just monasteries of Liberalism. thatincelblogger would never be tolerated in a university.

      What is the point of this blog post? thatincelblogger is going through a phase that I went through where I thought “There are over 7 billion people in the world and out of these there must be at least 10 reasonable ones that I can reach, so let me try to reach them.” I discovered that this is wrong, and I assume thatincelblogger is now discovering the same based on the reaction to this blog post. This reminds me of the conversation between God and Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. Of course the Torah later discloses the solution to dealing with unreasonable people, discovered by Moses. The solution is: don’t reason with them, just kick butt.

      • Franklin and Donnie – I don’t have time to respond now but something about what Franklin said – regarding the reactions on this blog. These are actually fairly mild.

        The ones that won’t be published due to this blog having a strict policy on insane nonsense would blow a sane person’s mind. I don’t think I ever got this much filth. Some of the messages are truly disturbing.

      • Franklin– I disagree with you. I read through thatincelblogger’s latest tome, and it was convoluted and repetitive, not concise by any means. It does not say a lot. The whole post could be summarized just by saying:

        “According to me, the world is filled with a lot of indecent liberal people, and the trajectory of history shows that this will continue and will eradicate all good people in the world. This is extremely unfair to me, and other people like me, and if you disagree in any way, you are just wrong, period, but I want to hear a few random morons’ opinions anyways so that I can have fun arguing with them”

        The problem with thatincelblogger’s line of thinking is that it is mostly intolerant, actually equally as intolerant as many liberals who he claims to despise so much. (It is often true that people and things which we passionately hate are often the things that we are most similar to)

        My criticism of his comparison to the Holocaust has nothing to do with political correctness. Political correctness is about muzzling people who speak the truth. There is no truth to thatincelblogger’s comparison of incel to the Holocaust, and I think you should be open minded enough to consider that you are just spewing out nonsense at a certain point rather than being forward-looking and taking real action to address the issue of inceldom which we suffer from. At some level you have to concede that if no one is actively seeking to kill you in public, or gas or starve you to death, and if you still have your basic rights as a person, the ability to travel, and live comfortably in your home, and open a business or attend a music concert then you can’t be that bad off in society! There is help out there for the dating challenged like us and while we may never -edited by tib- we can still do alright if we make it a priority. I think the concept that being a jerk attracts girls is nothing new actually, it’s as old as time itself. The Laws of Attraction in the Universe have never changed because its the way the Universe was formed in the first place. Women found physically or emotionally strong men attractive back in the Roman Empire and they would find the same kind of guy attractive today. All that has happened is that as global populations have soared and the world has modernized, standards have dropped a lot and sex is more openly seen and discussed. Dave Chappelle once quipped that “If the Pussy were a stock, the price would be hitting all time lows nowadays because women are giving it up easier than ever”. The fact that you can simply go to a bar on a Friday night and, after a couple hours of smooth talking a random girl take her home and penetrate her, or do the same just from the convenience of a mobile dating app on your phone, speaks volumes about how easy it is nowadays to get sex when you are truly determined to do so. Because of this easy access to unlimited and affordable pussy nowadays, it has made it all the more necessary for intelligent guys like us to be extra cautious before we spread our genes. When you think like this, you will see that the game is not actually rigged against you, it is rigged in our favor, but because of this it requires us to be extra careful about who we inseminate.

        Some colleges and universities can be very liberal and intolerant places, yes, but not all of them are, mostly just some of the Ivy League schools. There are many fine establishments all around the world and I think you will find that they encourage debate just like we are having here, things that cross between history, culture, social behavior, sexual reproduction, and the study of past societies. I went to a top public school, and still got a great well rounded education in business and finance, not exactly a very liberal area of study like psychology, for example. Now I am using that business knowledge to make money with my online business. Also not exactly a very liberal endeavor .

        I also want to introduce the idea that you, and thatincelblogger, and even myself may not be as “good” as we always think we are. Sure, we may not rob banks or assault people in public or murder anyone, but most of us do not exactly contribute that much to society either. When is the last time any of us have volunteered for the community? When is the last time we gave to charity ? When is the last time we actually tried to make the world a better place? And what do have to show for our supposed “goodness” ? On the surface of things, Thatincelblogger has a blog where he spends his time writing about the injustices of the world, and how unfair it is especially to him. Again I don’t disagree with everything he says but I just think, you can’t claim to be some great worthy person when all you do is stay out of trouble, sit in the comfort of your own home, and write endlessly about how unfair the world is to you.

        If thatincelblogger were really such a good person, so much better than the “losers” he criticizes, then he would be starting charities and educational nonprofits, or even for-profit enterprises that seek to help raise people’s living standards by providing goods or services that people need. Until that time comes, I don’t see him doing anything. In fact you could even make the case that he is not a very nice or pleasant guy to talk to since he does not seem to have a very good sense of humor or personality. All he does is talk about the injustices– “WOE IS ME, WOE IS ME, me me me I have it so bad.” Some losers and deadbeats out there have better personalities than this, they tell jokes and talk about pop culture and generally have fun at the beach or whatever.

        Again I am not defending losers and deadbeats I am just making a point that you have to assess yourself realistically before insisting that you are so good and amazing while calling other people losers -edited by tib-

    • I’m having formatting issues with this website on my device, so I’ll place my comment here.

      Overall I enjoyed the article and it cleared up many misconceptions I’ve been holding lately. Thank you for this great recognition that we are not the degenerate ones for not fitting into socitial molds in this age of decay. I also have wafted fumes of some of these idealists from the Happier Abroad forums. That place descended into chaos it seems and I shall have to label anyone who flees their homeland for perceivable safety a coward and theif. You are no better than Roosh (lol at that stinking Arab)… Furthermore, you will be undermining a host country’s racial and cultural integrity while spreading your disease there (this phenomena is exasperating the decay of America, a once homogenous nation). You have been marked by Western Societal ills forever and what you decide to do there from brings the greatest bearance on the character of the Man. I chose to stand and fight.

      Now, this Jew above me will know what I speak of parasitism and the history of immigrating nation wreckers, yet I do not address him. Although, most societal decay can be traced to certain virulent strains… That is all I need to say for a real student of history to recognize my message.

      I wanted to point out your ignorance regarding Germany, what woe… The Third Reich was a society of CoAlphas if there ever was one. It was the epitome of such and that was why it was targeted for swift genocide by a coalition of international bankers and hordes of deceived degenerates. The qualifications you list were present, with upward striving of morality (and the will for other nations to seek the same), sacredness of family, spousal union and even governement sanctioned prostituton. I suggest you do some digging. I can’t convince you more than recent historical revisionist documentaries could. “Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told” is one of those, but I do not personally endorse it. Ability for unbiased independent research is the greatest sign of intelligence in this age, not schooling or indoctrinaion. It is well known now that the Holocaust was a vicious hoax perpetuated on Humanity, incomparable to German civilian deaths in bombings such as Dresden alone (see book “Hellstorm”). Yes, what we witnessed was the organized genocide of perhaps the last glimpse of a possible CoAlpha society for some time. Who would do such a thing? It’s been the same cast of nation wreckers the world over; don’t let the outspoken Jews here decieve or shame you, as it is their specialty.

      • Hmm. I’ll take it you’re serious.

        Nazi Germany seemed pretty anti-intellectual. I don’t think any of the coalpha societies I mention here were like this. And while I’d say that Holocaust likely didn’t happen the way it is presented today Germans were still extremely brutal.

        Also, I do think Germany didn’t start WW2 and that USSR was the only country they attacked which they didn’t need to but that’s another story.

  4. Also a couple more thoughts that I forgot to add above. (Please read my main reply to this article first).

    Regarding George Sodini and Elliott Rodger– I have read a lot that these guys wrote and talked about online I have tried to be extremely sympathetic to what they were saying and feelings especially since I am familiar with some of the feelings and thoughts, but in the end I just am unable to justify or understand their behavior. Sodini, I thought, made some very valid points, more than Rodger at least. Actually I think he was touching on some very insightful stuff that few people in society talk about. He was noticing the ridiculousness of our society and how upside down everything is. But then to go and take out his misdirected anger on a few unsuspecting women at a public gym just made no sense to me. If you blame society, or politicians, or women as a whole for your ills, how does murdering a few random girls solve anything. They didn’t directly cause his problems and for all he knew maybe they were good people who if he had just spoken to, maybe they would have dated him even. To me it seems like a more rational solution would be suicide since it basically makes the statement that you feel the game is too rigged against you and you are in too much personal pain and suffering to continue, and if you feel the world is going to shit anyways then you might as well save yourself the hassle by just offing yourself.

    The other issue I wanted to touch on is Rape. It’s not an issue I knew much about or even gave any thought to until relatively recently. I believe that a majority of women do have rape fantasies or at least want to be taken by force, even if by someone they love. Of course fantasy is not reality and the ones that are raped probably suffer great trauma which is unfortunate but seems to be something that just happens through the history of mankind.

    I think the fantasy of rape for women can probably be equated to how we as guys often just wish we had total and free access to a girl to have sex or do whatever we want with her. Just as they want to be dominated, we like that sense of power and control knowing that a girl “belongs” to us. I know that for me starting in school I would stare at girls in class and mentally strip them naked and wish they could just be mine to have sex with.

    Of course ultimately you cannot justify rape. People are people and we have laws and society for a reason, to protect people, So anyone who supports rape is clearly sick in the head. Having said that, there are far too many women today who make false accusations of rape when all they did was get drunk and have sex with a guy and then regretted it in the morning. That is not rape. So there are too many fake victims nowadays and unfortunately the trend seems to be continuing. I think it makes a lot of good and decent guys very nervous around girls even when many girls want guys to be aggressive and take initiative when it comes to sex and relationships. This is unfortunate and does seem to be a product of a society where accountability matters. We all have to watch what we say and do in public.

    • What did you edit out? I’m curious to know.

      tib- because you didn’t follow a rule, and I just told you which one. As long as you do stuff like this you’ll be sanctioned. AND THEN, AFTER I TELL YOU WHICH ONE YOU BROKE, YOU ASK ME WHAT YOU DID, WHICH JUST PISSED ME OFF TO NO END.

      Get a grip, boy.

      • Is that supposed to be a threat? Legitimate question. This is your site, you are the one who wants people to read and comment. It seems like you simultaneously want people to listen to you, but then as soon as they do, you find silly reasons to push your visitors away and make them upset at you. So which is it? Do you want us here or not? Do you only want people commenting on your articles who already think exactly like you, agree with everything you say and inherently know the definitions of everything? If so you will remain lonely, surrounded by just a few people who think exactly as you already do and always agree with everything you say. That is a boring but safe life and you will never truly feel challenged or learn new things.

        I don’t know man, sometimes I read your stuff and I agree with the general ideas. Other times I am amazed at how incredibly stubborn, intolerant and serious you can be. It’s like you are worse than the worst liberals I can think of. Although I am incel too, I sort of understand why you are an incel in particular, and I don’t need to see what you look like to figure it out either. If I were a doctor and you were my patient, and your diagnosis was incel, then I would give the following prescription:

        1) Laugh more. Why So Serious?

        2) Exercise more to get the endorphins released. You will feel better overall.

        3) Liberate yourself from yourself. This does not mean become a scumbag, it just means breathe a little more and open yourself to new opportunities and hobbies. Contrary to your belief, art and psychology are actually quite fun every once in a while.

        4) End this blog. It is not a productive use of time, and you’re not changing anyone’s minds, at least not at a rate that would have any effect on the world.

        5) If you are as intelligent and good as you claim to be, take your talent knowledge and DO something. Start a Fortune 500 company. Create a charity. Do something, ANYTHING. I bet if you do this, make a positive tangible contribution to society, even if it is just going to a dog shelter on the weekend, you will probably attract the interest of a few girls who may take a liking to you.

        • Donnie, you were edited because you talked about incel as a lack of sex, which is against the rules. Which I told you twice before.

          And if you think me telling you that breaking rules over and over again will react in more measures then it is by all means a threat.

        • Also, I don’t want to drive anybody away at all. I want people to follow my rules in my house.

          You are free to do a lot here, including defending a movement whose goal is mass murder (feminism) but you also must follow rules.

          • For the record I am not defending feminism at all. I’m with you there. I think feminists are weak and bitter and confused women. I think we are stronger than them and they know that. But if we spend all of our time complaining about our WOE IS ME situation not getting relationships and sex and dates, because the world is so unfair, then we become just as bitter as them. Please try stepping outside your self for just a moment and look at it from the outside. You’re just as cynical on this blog as they are cynical about men, even if your arguments hold more weight than theirs.

            Also I wanted to bring up the issue of FAIRNESS and UNFAIRNESS. I personally hate these words and have tried to eliminate them from my vocabulary and I recommend the same for you. The reality of the world is that life is NOT fair, never has been, and probably should not be fair either.

            People are not equal. Not by birth, not financially, not in the dating game. Everyone has different advantages and disadvantages and we must all exploit our advantages as much as possible.

            To want fairness, to want to be treated the same as everyone else, to hope for a world where everyone has an equal shot at dates and relationships, may seem unjust, but I actually prefer it this way. I like an unfair world because unfairness provides the opportunity to find a pathway to wild and insane success. It is what allowed Google to have a monopoly as a search engine.

            Discrimination is what allows us to discern the difference between losers and winners. Between Alphas and Omegas. It is what allows us to pick good from bad, to tell the difference from a good lunch meal from a great lunch meal.

            So when I hear you complain about how unfair the world is, I feel like, OK, I empathize with you, but I also like the world just the way it is.

            it is actually the liberals who try to make things MORE unnaturally fair. They want everyone treated exactly the same (even though people are not the same). They would prefer mediocrity for everyone, even if it means everyone gets 1 date every 3 months.

            So consider where you really stand when you ask for more fairness in this world.

            • I don’t understand. The article clearly states that both alphas and omegas are not losers today. Are you using that tired PUA chronology which says omegas are really just betas and coalphas? C’mnon. It’s been disproven right here.

              • No, in that post I was not making a case that Alphas or Omegas are winners or losers. You can switch around the words just for example. I was making the point that people are different and are born with different abilities, or can develop skills too. So it is simply human nature that different people will fall into the different categories, like Alpha, Beta, or however you want to categories them. My point is just that having these different types of people is a good and natural thing, it is how the world actually works, and being able to correctly discern these differences is also very important for a society. Trying to ignore real differences, in hopes of whitewashing everyone as “equal” to create a truly “fair” society as liberals often do, is not only stupid, but also impossible.

                I say, embrace the unfairness, even when it extends to your own social life (or lack thereof). And if you happen to get the short end of the stick in one area of life, focus all your energy into whatever advantages and strengths you do have, and work from there. This is about accepting who we are and rolling with it. It is hard for most people to do. Most people would prefer to dwell on their perceived weaknesses and keep demanding that the system change to cater to their desires.

                The system is not going to change for you, or at least you should not expect it to change. If the system happens to work in your benefit, then good. But don’t wait around complaining bitterly that its not fair because by nature it just isn’t and has never been.

      • Calm down. I wasn’t asking which “rule” i broke. I was asking what specifically I said that you removed. I can’t read it anymore and I don’t remember exactly what I wrote. But I’m guessing it is just gone now as you erased it so quickly.

        Shouting in all capital letters? And then you tell me to “Get a grip boy”? That’s what your response is to me? Real mature, man.

        I may not have a lot of relationships or sex either but I do know that not taking things so personally is essential to success with dating. The fact that my post (which by the way was not insulting or offensive) “PISSED YOU OFF TO NO END” does say a lot about you. Above all it says you need to not let things get to you–. develop some tougher skin. People will perceive you as “The Man” when you are able to let things slide off you like water because it will show that you know what is truly important, and what is just small beans in this world.

          • No, not hard, but also not that important. It’s sort of a distraction from the greater arguments we are discussing here. Agree?

            Good, we all need tougher skin. It’s how we will handle rejection better. The best “players” often get to be good at women because they are able to take rejection in stride. They can move from one loss to the next without batting an eyelash. While we may not all be able to be Superman when it comes to having thick skin, we can all work on handling rejection in healthier ways. I hope you will not be offended when I say that I have read some of your posts about what girls have done to you in the past. I don’t know the full and complete stories but it sounds like a good portion of your experiences and suffering could have been avoided or can be prevented in the future by just having better internal defense mechanisms. Expect that a lot of people will not like you. Don’t go ballistic when someone rejects you as a person and as a mating option. When a horse tries to inseminate a female horse and she walks away not letting him mate, is that completely her fault? We can’t expect everyone to love us. Easier said than done but seriously, it’s just reality.

            You and I have sexual choices over which girls we want to procreate with. And they, too, have choices over which seed they want. It works both ways. Do not forget their ability to reject, and do not forget your own power to choose also.

            • DonnieDarko,

              I really like the fact that your posts are so detailed and intelligent (also seemingly sympathetic).

              But you’re totally utterly missing the point in your last paragraph, saying that you and I have choices over which women we want to be with. WRONG. There is NO choice, NO option, no opportunity to begin with, zero, zip, nada,zilch, nothing, for me, and probably none for thatincelblogger (although he’s still young so there’s a rare chance for him).

              If there are options for you, then you’re not incel. If you did say that you’re incel while simultaneously saying that you have options with women, then you’d be fragrantly lying (or totally misunderstanding what Thatincel is writing about).

              Again, good posts in some ways (although not too appropriate for this particular blog).

              Also, I’m a writer; I’ve written a book called Wowed by Truth. It goes into great detail about the topic of social problems and relationship issues which we are discussing here. Please check it out. It is the website

              Thatincel, Donnie, Franklin,

              Have a nice day/evening guys; Merry Christmas

  5. I want to add one more thought. I know this is your site, and you are free to post whatever you want on here. But also realize that you currently come up on the first page of google results when someone types in “incel” so I think you should be mindful of the things you say as they represent other incels in some people’s minds. To quote Spiderman “With great power comes great responsibility”. Especially with the Sodini and Rodger events it is important to project the right image of incels everywhere. because when we finally do find ourselves in an intimate situation with someone and they learn that we are virgins, or never had a girlfriend for example, we don’t want their first thought to be “Oh, i heard about people like you. You are angry and hate the world”.

    Your posts are often angry or attack others in society. But I don’t feel this is the defining emotion of most incels. I think if we had to pick more appropriate emotions to describe what we feel most of the time it would include some of the following:

    — Sadness
    — Frustration
    — Despair
    — Depressed
    — Confused
    — Hopeless
    — Anxious
    — Unfulfilled

    The incels who lash out at society I think are the exception. Far more incels cry silently or even literally but have neither the strength or desire to even talk about our issues.

    So my point is just to be mindful of the image being projected here. When your main argument is antagonizing others in society, and how you right and they are wrong, regardless of how awful they may be, it only leads to more hate coming back at us. We want the world to understand us and to help us, so we need to communicate our sadness and frustration as well as our genuine and natural desire to lead more normal lives.

    • I’ll just reply to this to tell you you’re wrong.

      Those incels you describe are exactly the kind of incels that get most hate. I started getting less hate after becoming a reactionary. I might even make a post on this.

      I really don’t give a damn how I come across.

      • ok well i can respect if you don’t care how you are coming across, so long as you are saying honest things that make sense and help our cause and you keep a truly open mind. You say the GGGF thing is history but the internet is written in ink and you’re still known for that in some places. I also seem to remember you talking about the solution to incel being some kind of murderous rampage similar to Sodini or Rodger ? Correct me if i am wrong. If this is how you felt or still feel, i just cannot stand behind that and i doubt many incels would either.

        Also i wanted to make another point today while I’m at it. In the past I’ve thought long and hard about liberals and why they think the way they do. I think you will find if you talk to any hardcore liberal long enough that they really believe deep down they are good people with good intentions. Realizing that they believe this is an important part of communicating more effectively with them. It is easy to make them out to be evil enemies based on their actions and behavior but once you see what they are all about from their point of view, things become more clear. The problem is not so much that all liberals are scum, it is that they are often extremely naive and childlike in their good intentions. The whole feminist movement is basically the same way. At the most basic level they just want to empower women, to prevent rape, to educate more people and accomplish more as human beings. And they want to be more feminine and attractive rather than feeling repressed. Who would be against that ? Only a true misogynist or bigot would try to stop the actual advancement of a person, male or female. The problem comes in the implementation and execution of it all. There simply arent that many women who are really capable of handling so many tasks such as financial independence, education, a full time job, all while maintaining motherly duties and staying feminine. It requires a super-woman. And a super-woman like that would require a super-man, which we just dont have that many of either. So the reality is that while it would be great to have smart, capable, feminine women who can also support themselves and protect themselves, its just not possible for most of them. What ends up happening is they either neglect their motherly duties, or they become bitter, or they start demanding more than what they deserve, etc. And then it is all too easy for a few devious guys to pretend to be for womens empowerment but actually they just want some easy sex. So all of this originates with good intentions gone horribly wrong.

        Good intentions, gone horribly wrong. I feel like if you want to make a powerful statement to society, write about this topic as it applies to lots of things.

        • Donnie, this is a great post and I agree with the latter part.

          So I’ll talk about these separately.

          1. I don’t care how incels are seen. I’d rather that they’re seen as potential ER than some pussies. Unfortunately, they’re seen as both because liberals are retarded.

          2. So what if their intentions are good? They’re still awful at their actual behavior. If I honestly believed I could make everybody a millionaire by setting on them on fire what good would my intentions do?

  6. You also talked about how you don’t understand the sort of “smugness” that many people in America seem to have, even when saying simple or dumb things. I will attempt to explain this briefly.

    I personally feel a lot of it boils down to DEFIANCE. Since the US was formed we have had a very independent and defiant attitude. In most cases this has caused us to do things our way, and to become very prosperous, but it can also cause us to keep forging ahead even when we are fucking up enormously.

    We simply don’t want to be told what to do here in America. We didn’t want to be told what to do from the British, and we still don’t. We believe in ourselves and we believe we can do things better, bigger, faster, even when we can’t.

    We also have a lot of angry black people in this country who, even after being given full rights as citizens, are still feeling very “disenfranchised” by the system so they are demanding more and more from society which is bending over backwards to take care of them. And we now have a lot of forces at work taking advantage of this. We have this crazy legal system now with lawyers and politicians all working to milk the system of everything its worth, all in the name of those who keep demanding more and more.

    You may not want to hear “entitlement” as it relates to incel, but I can assure you that “entitlement” is a big issue in America and it cannot be dismissed as conjecture. We simply have a ton of people here who feel entitled to just about anything they want. And when they don’t get it, they go batshit crazy. And this trend is growing, as awful as it is.

    I think this trend of entitlement is what is fueling other movements like feminism. People are just demanding more and more, even when it makes no sense to do so, even when the best solution would be to look at what we already have in front of us, or to compromise to find a better solution for everyone.

    So yeah, defiance and entitlement in a land of immense prosperity. Not a healthy combination.

  7. Ok, I’ll reply to all of this when I find more time. You’re a great contributor but please, never forget to stick to the rules. They’re not here for nothing and they’re not irrelevant- I’ll explain why soon.

  8. Donnie, here’s my reply… Or somewhat of it…

    It’s truly ironic how you claim I have some traits of liberal intolerance (which I do) but you completely ignore yours, which are much more pronounced.

    Most of what your long texts say are nonsense. It’s amazing how much of this text you just ignored and stated the opposite without a single thing to back it up. For example….

    1. The idea that “we” can be more successful with women due to sexual revolution is insane. Who, we? You’re incel, I’m incel. The only ones who are successful are retarded thugs. Who are “we”?

    2. You just completely ignore my point about me not being able to get a woman because seduction isn’t for me and tell me some advice on how to attract them. What the hell is wrong with you? I CAN’T ATTRACT WOMEN BECAUSE I AM A COALPHA. GIVING ME ADVICE HOW TO ATTRACT WOMEN IS LIKE GIVING ME ADVICE ON HOW TO FLY.

    You just completely ignore all of that, all of my claims that seducers are scum, all of my examples of me trying to use seduction completely failing, and you just talk about seduction again.

    3. In what is either extreme stupidity or extreme cynicism you claim I’m not decent if I don’t pay to charity or something. Really? Wow. I bet you don’t say that to anybody else, including those you find decent.
    Also, the idea that this would make me attractive to women is once again a “omg what’s wrong with you idea”.
    But even if I did that you’d still be saying the same thing and praising seducers like you do know.

    4. Your talk on Holocaust is based on a loony premise that incel doesn’t hurt one at all. But it does. People who lived through the Holocaust at least had wives, children etc. What do we have?

    Also, you don’t understand. Nazis wanted to exterminate some races but liberalism wants to exterminate decent people of all races – how is that even comparable? And it is extermination, my inability to breed and mental destruction through the pain of incel.

    • Reading your reply just now makes me wonder whether I communicated poorly, or whether you did not comprehend/read what I said carefully enough. I suspect it is a mix of both.

      I will attempt to re-state what I intended to say in my original post(s) in comparison to what you have just replied. We have more in common than you think so stop trying to antagonize me. I realize you may take a lot of heat on the internet (you do ask for it though!) but not everyone is automatically your enemy. You should also realize that even if someone does disagree THAT IS OKAY! PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!

      Onto your reply…

      1) I don’t even know where you got this from. I never said this at all. AT ALL. In fact my opinion is exactly the opposite. I actually 100% agree with you that sexual revolution does help us to be more successful. So maybe you just mis-interpreted something I wrote, maybe I was quoting something else.

      2) If you don’t want any help that’s fine. I was just pointing out that as an outsider, even I (a fellow incel) can easily see some of your problems, and maybe you can see some of mine. And furthermore, how did you come up with this idea that seduction isn’t for you? With all due respect, and I mean this in the most honest way possible, I feel like that is just an excuse you have made up to cover up your perceived weakness and insecurity over your inability to attract girls. I feel pretty confident that that is what is going on here, because I often feel the same way myself. I often feel like, the game just isn’t for me. But the truth is, anyone with a sex drive or libido does have the power to seduce. So my personal feeling — AND I REALIZE THAT I COULD BE WRONG BUT THIS IS MY OPINION ANYWAYS — is just that you are just hiding under layers of insecurity because it is very difficult to face your true self, which could be fragile, repressed, and discouraged. If this is the case, you should also know that it is OK to be insecure. It is human. To be perfectly strong, invincible, and immune to failure is part of the human condition. So yeah, its OK to be failure sometimes, because that is how we get back up and succeed. I know that sounds like a meaningless Hallmark card but there is some truth to it.

      3) Again some miscommunication here. Re-read what I wrote. I did NOT say you are an indecent person if you don’t do things like give to charity. A person can be decent, meaning they obey laws, have good morals, etc, but they still might not be doing much with their life or making any real difference in society. If a person just lays around all day without accomplishing much, then how will history remember that person? My point is that people will judge you based on what you actually do in society, not just who you are. As for the thugs in society, yes they are bad but you can’t accuse them of not putting themselves out there. They take risks, they go places, they meet people, they deal drugs, whatever it may be. And because they are out and about in society, they have an easy time attracting women. The ability to attract women seems to depend less on whether a guy is good or bad, and more on the fact that he is simply DOING something in society.

      4) I’ll tell you exactly what we have. We have OURSELVES. And that is more than people had in the Holocaust. Because when a person is not allowed to eat, not allowed to think, or work, or do anything except suffer and die, they have basically nothing and will cease to be a person at all. And that is why millions of people died at the hands of Germans, because the Germans consciously and actively sought to exterminate them from the face of the earth.

      No one is actively and consciously seeking to exterminate you or me. There may be forces at work making it unintentionally more difficult for us to find partners, but it is not part of some devious sinister plan. As I have tried to explain to you with the good intentions gone horribly wrong post, I firmly believe that the most sinister part of liberalism is that it is NOT some grand scheme to hurt anyone, but ends up having some bad consequences.

      You made the analogy of wanting to give a person a million dollars but unintentionally setting them on fire. It is a simplistic analogy but if we roll with it anyways, would you say the person is actively seeking to eradicate the guy he accidentally sets on fire? Is he evil because of what happened? You can say it does not matter either way since his victim ended up on fire, but it DOES make a difference because it helps to determine whether there was some evil scheme in the beginning which there clearly was not. It was a tragic and unfortunate outcome even if both parties don’t really understand what happened and why.

      The world will take the course that it is going to take, and there is really very little you or I can do about it. All the anger and frustration in the world will not accomplish anything. But in the meantime we can still do everything in our power to have fun, live comfortably, and improve our situation as much as possible, even if it ends up not being much. When you do this, life happens, you will have some good experiences, and then you die. You only get to live once so don’t stress out too much about the negative stuff 🙂

      • 1. Donnie, are you trolling this blog? You said

        All that has happened is that as global populations have soared and the world has modernized, standards have dropped a lot and sex is more openly seen and discussed. Dave Chappelle once quipped that “If the Pussy were a stock, the price would be hitting all time lows nowadays because women are giving it up easier than ever”. The fact that you can simply go to a bar on a Friday night and, after a couple hours of smooth talking a random girl take her home and penetrate her, or do the same just from the convenience of a mobile dating app on your phone, speaks volumes about how easy it is nowadays to get sex when you are truly determined to do so. Because of this easy access to unlimited and affordable pussy nowadays, it has made it all the more necessary for intelligent guys like us to be extra cautious before we spread our genes. When you think like this, you will see that the game is not actually rigged against you, it is rigged in our favor, but because of this it requires us to be extra careful about who we inseminate.

        2. I don’t care about your empty phrases. This essay explains why seduction isn’t for me. It’s true that I can try it just because I am a conscious being and even have some slight success with it but it’s not what suits my type and it always ends up tragically.

        3. Accomplishing is a different matter than decency.

        4. I see. Well, aside from obvious nonsense like people during the Holocaust not being allowed to “eat, work or think” (lol) I can understand your post. It’s just that I disagree with it. Your view of the situation is too rosy and you think you can still make it out somehow by seduction. But you don’t understand that I can’t make it out by using seduction and that if you can you’re almost certainly a bad person.

        In any case, I can’t make it out by seduction and my death is even more certain than that of a person in Holocaust.

        And I never said anybody wants to exterminate me consciously.

  9. In #1 i meant to say “sexual revolution does NOT help us to be more successful.”. Not sure why I forgot to include the NOT in there. I definitely do NOT think sexual revolution is good for men. I agree with you on this.

  10. Also in #2 another typo. I wrote “To be perfectly strong, invincible, and immune to failure is part of the human condition.” I should have written the opppsite. It is NOT part of the human condition to be perfectly strong invincible and immune to failure. Humans make mistakes, humans fuck up, humans get rejected from girls. It happens. We are human beings and we are not perfect.

  11. And also you said i completely ignore my liberal traits. I dont think this is accurate. In the past two years i have become much more aware of my liberal traits. I often feel like my inner feelings can be extremely liberal — i like to think in a Forward direction, move on past things quickly, i like to be creative and artsy, i like a little psychology every now and then, and philosophy. I can also be a little bit hypocritical sometimes although i do my best to make sure this does not happen.

    And the list goes on. But anyways my point is that i acknowledge i have liberal traits although if you knew me in person you would very easily peg me in the “politically conservative” category here in 2014.

  12. For all my faults, I’m the only friend you’ve got. Who else has the
    guts to speak out against Philip Chism?

  13. Just want to write another quick observation. On this blog you write a lot about history, analysis of current and past society, you do a lot of analysis of liberals, and also talk a lot about your past and what happened and why (as you see it). That’s all fine and good if you want to write about it all. But then you say that seduction and dating is just no longer for you, that you’re a bird without wings.

    Well, ok. But suspend that idea for just a brief moment.and realize that if any person spends nearly all of his time:

    1) standing on the sidelines making (cynical) observations and analyses of current and past society, and
    2) looking backwards into their own past to try to explain what happened and why these rejections or other problems happened

    then you must objectively deduce that you are devoting a tremendous amount of personal energy to pursuits (thinking, writing, dwelling, worrying) that do not help you in the game of procreation, dating, and relationships. And unless your goal is to make money or become famous through your writings, then there is not really any point to keep writing the blog, unless of course it just makes you feel good to vent (but it seems like it makes you more upset)

    So in a way that all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Do you see it?

    Conversely if a person who — and again, suspend for a moment the idea that you are a flightless bird — devotes most of his day to the actual pursuit of relationships, sex, friendmaking, etc. then it is likely (but not guaranteed) that this person will have more success at these pursuits by living in the present and moving forward.

    My point is just to take a step back and examine where your personal energy is currently being devoted to. We all have a finite amount of energy in a day and limited time on this planet so its important to take a broad perspective and direct that energy where we truly want it to go to for the absolute most important endeavors.

  14. What other people do you intend to publically name & shame, and when can we expect to read about that?

    PS: Interesting article, and well written and researched. Since the West is corrupted beyond repair, Africa a shithole, the East infected and Latin America closer to it, what will you do? What place on earth would you NOT be miserable in, and what is a good man to do in this day and age?

    • I’ll name and shame some Wikipedos. I still have to research one of them a bit with a help from Daniel Brandt. What I will reveal will be truly shocking.

      I can’t do anything myself and am basically a living dead but regarding the question what other men should do – I don’t know. Every country in the world is a cesspool in one way or another. Franklin should have more recommendations, since he traveled more.

      Thanks for your supportive comment !

    • What is a good man to do? I think the only escape from modern culture is through religion. One needs to find a religion that is strong enough to resist. The options that I have seen work are Islam, Orthodox Judaism, traditional Anabaptist sects, and Tibetan Buddhism. Orthodox Christianity is a borderline case. If you are really interested in discussing solutions/options, you can post to .

  15. Thanks, I’ll check it out when I find time.

    Btw I am not yet sure what you mean by liberals but if you’re talking about the kind of freaks I am you’re better off trying to change a concrete wall by hitting it constantly with your head.

    • Thanks. Yes same liberalism as you. Liberalism affects everyone whether they say they believe it or not, just like the overhang of Christianity does, um would you mind deleting my original comment? I’ve been trying to delete that account and I’ve been having some problems with WordPress not letting me comment using my regular account. The same info is below:

      Dear thatincelblogger,

      Since you have had many of the same ideas you might be interested in a document I wrote called “The Refutation of Liberalism”.



          • I’ll change it because it will reflect my new views. I am not so sure about your idea because many of my posts talk about 5 or more different issues which are intertwined, so that would be impractical.

            I registered there but I despise the place. It’s full of decay this article talks about. Sure, it’s incel decay but this changes nothing, as the article also says that most incels are also shit. It’s full of extremely stupid young American men.

            Anyway, I still haven’t read your text but I skimmed a bit… Tell me, do you have any formal education in philosophy? Just asking out of curiosity.

            • Ok,yeah I agree about sluthate. The basic problem I see with it is that even if everyone improves their looks women will still select from the top. There is alot of stupidity and trolling there.

              I have also not read all of your 22916 words in the post yet. Actually it’s quite good but I expect it to have limited or no impact because of its framing in explicitly personal sexual terms.

              I have had formal training in philosophy. It is nice that picked that up. Have you?

              • Oh, there’s far more problems with Sluthate than that, and practically none of the men there are intelligent enough to even troll. It’s just a good example of how degenerate modern youth are.

                ” I expect it to have limited or no impact because of its framing in explicitly personal sexual terms”

                Could you explain this further? Because this post isn’t about sex or me.

                “I have had formal training in philosophy. It is nice that picked that up. Have you?”

                I picked that up since you were quoting philosophers. Where did you receive that formal training?

                As for me, I had some philosophy in senior year of high school but that was high school… and had to learn some philosophers for college but I can’t say I really have any formal training in it.

                • I did philosophy at university and graduated in it. Not that there’s anything great with that as most of society’s problems go back to Plato.

                  The main problem that I see with your work is that it is produced under the title of “thatincelblogger” which degrades its value in the eyes of most serious minded people. The reason for this is that it displays your lack of ‘romantic’ success and allows you people to automatically pin that as the reason for your disenchantment with society and also dismiss it on such a basis. It would be the same if you called yourself ‘thatschizophrenicblogger’ or ‘thatmanic-depressiveblogger’ people could then put down all your thoughts on you having schizophrenia or manic depression.

                  Therefore if you want to change the world politically and socially in the direction you desire it would be best if you dropped the ‘incel’ stuff and simply focused on commenting on that but without the background of your own sex life. (or lack of)

                  I’m not attacking you when I say that, it’s just a helpful hint. I think it’s worth saying because you seem to be saying the same things that I was saying ten or more years ago.

                  I also wrote manifestos and that does seem to be ‘part of it’, but to tell the truth things are far worse than you realise.

                  If you would like to have a look at my ‘incel’ manifesto from those days and compare it to your own thoughts you can find it here:


                  (Password: sperg out)

                  • “The main problem that I see with your work is that it is produced under the title of “thatincelblogger” which degrades its value in the eyes of most serious minded people. The reason for this is that it displays your lack of ‘romantic’ success and allows you people to automatically pin that as the reason for your disenchantment with society and also dismiss it on such a basis. It would be the same if you called yourself ‘thatschizophrenicblogger’ or ‘thatmanic-depressiveblogger’ people could then put down all your thoughts on you having schizophrenia or manic depression.”

                    Well, it actually is the main reason for my disenchantment with society. If I were not incel I’d be far less likely to see so much wrong with the world, at least not in this way.

                    You say that this doesn’t make me taken seriously with “serious people” – I say this is nonsense. All other reactionary bloggers who are married get very similar reactions. Take Theodore Beale (Vox Day), who is married.

                    My point is that nobody serious will discount me on basis of that. Besides, this is and always will be primarily an incel blog. If some incels don’t like they are free to write their own. Incel is the main reason I got into this and my realizations would be harder to reach had I not been incel.

                    “Therefore if you want to change the world politically and socially in the direction you desire ”

                    I can’t do that nor do I want to. I want to guide sane people to find sane communities. The world itself is a lost cause.

                    “t but without the background of your own sex life. (or lack of)”

                    Incel is about lot more than sex.

      • In your last post, you said that “most of society’s problems go back to Plato”. I agree. But you begin your “The Refutation of Liberalism” with “Persons, Particularly persons who are philosophers are rational”. I couldn’t disagree more. But I think “I will continue and hope he doesn’t rely on this”. But then you say “This shall be our common point of contact; a belief in rationality over irrationality.” And then I give up. This was Plato’s line of thinking, and really is the core philosophical problem.

        Blog comments are not a sensible place to discuss philosophy. If you are interested in a real discussion, then I suggest you pick some forum from which I won’t be banned (there are very few) and we can discuss things there.

        Western philosophy is actually very narrow and dull. It is all just variations on Plato. I read a little and gave up since it is a waste of time.

        I think there are only two questions that really matter in philosophy, where to look for truth and where is truth located. All of Western philosophy locates truth in the real world. But I don’t and neither does the Old Testament or pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. We locate truth in the mind. This makes truth relative. Western philosophers have at least given some thought to other question, where to look for truth, this being rationalism versus empiricism. Rationalism says to look for truth in one’s own mind while empiricism says to look for truth in the real world. The Greek philosophers were all basically rationalists, while the Old Testament, scientists, and I are empiricists. But rationalism isn’t the only form of finding truth in one’s own mind. So is modern Protestantism which replaces rationality with the Holy Spirit. Considering how stupid people are, I don’t see a significant difference between finding truth using rationality or the Holy Spirit. Liberalism combines these things, firmly locating truth as absolute in the world, while only looking for truth in one’s own mind through either reason or spiritualism, and totally ignoring the real world as a source of truth.

        That’s a brief summary of my view.

        • Well the first bit: “Persons, Particularly persons who are philosophers are rational” is actually a modified quote from a philosopher – I believe Parfit.

          The second part “This shall be our common point of contact; a belief in rationality over irrationality.” Is an appeal to liberals on the basis of rationality of which the hope is that both parties share.

          However this isn’t about “rationalism versus empiricism” but rather about rationalism versus emotionalism, or rationalism versus blindly following culture. So I think we’re using have different definitions of rationalism. Maybe I should have said rationality.

          I fully agree with empiricism.

          If you’re worried about getting banned you may message me here:

          • I am not worried about being banned here, just that blog comments aren’t great for involved discussion. I looked at your blog and posted one comment there.

            Your “The Refutation of Liberalism” is aimed at liberals. What is the point of that? Liberals can’t be reasoned with, you are better off discussing these things with your pets. On the other hand, thatincelblogger and I can be reasoned with and I think both of us would appreciate a rewrite of your “The Refutation of Liberalism” that is short and to the point and aimed at intelligent non-liberals. Maybe you could post something like this to your blog.

            Also, I still get the feeling that you over-value rationality. Probably the most common use of rationality is for rationalizing, which isn’t terribly productive in my opinion. Yes one should be rational, meaning not irrational, but one should also recognize that rational thinking / deductive reasoning is very limited and must be combined with external facts (empiricism / inductive reasoning) and emotion (spirit/intuition) to arrive at anything of value.

            • Thanks, It would be worthwhile rewriting “The Refutation of Liberalism” for the internet age but first I would need to get feedback on what people didn’t understand or agree with in the original.

              I agree that although it is basically true I have discovered many things since I wrote it that have indicated to me the limits of rationality in people’s lives.

  16. I was interested in your description of the coaplha societies being:

    1. monogamy
    2. female premarital chastity
    3. solid moral religion
    4. legal and easily available prostitution.

    Doesn’t 4 cancel out 1? And 2 cancel out 4? And 3 cancel out 4?

    • 4 doesn’t cancel 1 out. Sane societies distinguished between male sexual and emotional/financial fidelity, as well as between sex with a married woman and prostitute. They also distinguished between sex with an unmarried virgin and a prostitute, even sex between an unmarried non-virgin and a prostitute. That’s why they had no problem with prostitution but severely punished adultery.

      As to 2 and 4 nr. 2 obviously doesn’t apply to prostitutes so, again, no. Now, men could marry prostitutes but nobody would be likely to do so. Just like nobody in the history of any society (not necessarily coalpha) which demanded female premarital chastity ever married a prostitute.

      The idea that 3 cancels out 4 is puritan bullshit. For example, Old Testament doesn’t say anything against prostitution. Why couldn’t you have a good moral religion along with legal and easily available prostitution?

      But thanks for these questions, might make a post about this.

      • Following on from that, how do we decide which women become wives and which ones become prostitutes (you didn’t say if there were any other roles for women in the coalpha society).

        Obviously, you’d want a wife that was quite attractive, but you’d also want your prostitute to look good too.

        • David,

          how do we decide which women become wives and which ones become prostitutes

          Like at any time in history, economic circumstances, as well as female choices, make that decision. It’s not as if men would say to a particular woman that she is to become a prostitute.

          (you didn’t say if there were any other roles for women in the coalpha society)

          Well, there could be sluts in this society but they would be rare. Since almost all women merely follow societal pressures they would be as rare as women who want to remain chaste until marriage but don’t expect the same from their husbands today.

          Obviously, you’d want a wife that was quite attractive, but you’d also want your prostitute to look good too.

          I don’t know where you’re getting this from at all. Sounds like you’re applying modernist superficiality to somebody who rejected modern culture. Quite attractive in what way? Physically? That’s simply not the case. Around 90 percent of young women I saw in my life were sufficiently attractive to me that I understood I might marry them if we liked each other.

          Same with prostitutes – why would a prostitute need to be very attractive? Most prostitutes aren’t gorgeous escorts only the rich can afford.

      • So, you want prostitutes to exist, but you want them to live miserable lives? Does the government decide which women must prostitute themselves, and thus let these women suffer all the scrutiny from society as a result of it? Don’t you hate whores? If you acknowledge that female and male sexuality are different, then you also must be aware that prostitution goes against a woman’s natural reproductive interest. No woman becomes a prostitute because they want to, they do it out of necessity or desperation. It would be traumatizing to any woman to have to have sex with ugly perverts all day, just so they can feed themselves. In terms of evolutionary biology, a woman desires a monogamous relationship with a man who is going to help raise the baby. That’s why it’s so traumatizing for a woman to be raped, she then has to spend lots of time and resources on a baby which probably wouldn’t even survive. (She might not survive herself, if things get really bad.) You keep talking about how it’s natural for women to have restrictions placed on their sexuality, yet you want whores to exist so you can have sex with them. Men have higher sex drives, while women do not. Thus, it is unnatural for women to be prostitutes. You could easily just release your sexual desires onto your wife, but you wouldn’t do that, as you secretly want sexual decadence to exist.

        • “So, you want prostitutes to exist, but you want them to live miserable lives?”

          Not at all. Prostitutes are legal, respected and well paid in coalpha societies. During a period in Ancient Athens they were even subsidized by the state. Compare that to how they’re treated now even in countries where it is legal. And just compare it to societies like USA (aside from Nevada) where it is illegal and prosecuted.

          “Does the government decide which women must prostitute themselves, and thus let these women suffer all the scrutiny from society as a result of it? ”

          No, the government doesn’t decide on that and there is no scrutiny, as explained above. Such societies have a different mentality.

          “Don’t you hate whores?”

          No, I don’t. I in fact regret I haven’t lost my virginity to one but instead to some disgusting skank who doesn’t deserve to breathe air, just like I consider them to be among the rare decent women in the West.

          “If you acknowledge that female and male sexuality are different, then you also must be aware that prostitution goes against a woman’s natural reproductive interest. No woman becomes a prostitute because they want to, they do it out of necessity or desperation. It would be traumatizing to any woman to have to have sex with ugly perverts all day, just so they can feed themselves.”

          Well, it’s not that many boys dream about becoming garbage-men instead of astronauts and lawyers but some do end up that way. And you’re wrong – there are prostitutes who become that because they want to. I’ve seen several men on getting to know such women.

          However, I agree that it could be traumatizing. However, what is there to do? You do know it is called “the world’s oldest profession”? So some women are engaging in that profession voluntarily for thousands of years.

          Ffs, do you think this moral society would tolerate something like trafficking? It wouldn’t. But it would also have poor people.

          ” In terms of evolutionary biology, a woman desires a monogamous relationship with a man who is going to help raise the baby.”

          As you can see in this essay, this only stands for those societies where the government doesn’t “help raise the baby”. I could find a job tomorrow but I refuse to. You know why? Because nothing would change. I’d still be forced to get women by seduction, which is fantasy for in my case. Me getting a job would mean I’m paying for a slut and her baby fathered by a thug.

          “That’s why it’s so traumatizing for a woman to be raped, she then has to spend lots of time and resources on a baby which probably wouldn’t even survive. (She might not survive herself, if things get really bad.)”

          Yes, I agree that this is somewhat traumatizing. However, it is also a turn on. You see, alphas were the ones who traditionally “raped” women in the sense we are talking about now. Alphas had harems and didn’t care about consent but women knew that their baby could have been taken care of by other women in the harem who would be well supplied by resources from that alpha. Since most of our history was spent in alpha societies and since we’re mammals and rape closely resembles typical mammalian reproduction it is inevitable that women are also turned on by rape.

          Rape was historically more of a property crime against woman’s father/husband, which I consider to be the sane approach.

          “You keep talking about how it’s natural for women to have restrictions placed on their sexuality, yet you want whores to exist so you can have sex with them.”

          Yes, but these restrictions wouldn’t be placed on all women. A small majority would be exempt. And I say small because a single prostitute could serve many men in just a single day.

          Btw, coalpha societies also have another aspect that you and your modernist friends miss, and that’s to honor women and respect them for other than sex. So even if a wife for some reason becomes unable to have sex she could stay in her position and a man could seek sex elsewhere.

          “Men have higher sex drives, while women do not. Thus, it is unnatural for women to be prostitutes.”

          So prostitutes should just be prostitutes for their pleasure? And garbage-men should just be garbage-men because they like garbage? Do you live in some parallel universe with infinite taps of liquid gold?

          ” You could easily just release your sexual desires onto your wife, but you wouldn’t do that, as you secretly want sexual decadence to exist.”

          Nah, you’re just wrong and approaching this from your modernist perspective. Sex with a prostitute isn’t a sign of sexual decadence at all. All of the societies I mention here as being moral ones had it. And aside from that wife being prevented thing there is nothing wrong with boys getting some sexual experience before they marry. Male virginity was never something that was much desired – just compare how much it sells for today compared to female virginity.

  17. Your strict banning and permabanning comment policy (covering the most obvious cricicism) leaves really narrow space to discuss your work. Not that I’ve read it full, whenever I found a repeating argument I skipped to the next paragraph. But still, I’ll just comment the five “precursor truths” :

    “1) All civilized societies were patriarchies.”

    Irrelevant. The most succesful, and the most hopeless were. The greater and the lower. The ones you set as an example of brilliant past and the ones you give as an example of terrible failure. So Patriarchy grants nothing.

    “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.”

    Wrong. If you care to examine the cultural heritage of almost any society across history (songs, paintings, sculptures, theatre, etc) you’ll find clear patterns of what makes a man desirable. With their historical and cultural variations, of course, but mostly the same, physically and mentally/emotionally. As a sexual partner and as a husband. From ancient rome to medieval texts to shakespeare to Sex and the City.

    “4) Seduction is worthless, even harmful for most species, as it does not promote any valuable traits that make the species better”.

    Wrong. Seduction between animals can be just a matter of showing how big and colorful your feathers are, but in human societies, seduction is a matter of discovering how compatible you are with your projected partner. And in western society, no one seduces to procreate, but to have fun, to have sex, to find someone you can love. The idea of kids comes really later.

    Seduction works as a filter, and it works two-ways.

    Example: You mention in some of your earlier posts your bad experiences with women who were boring and unattractive to you, physically and mentally. They failed to seduce you, thus showing you and them were not compatible. Seduction as a human interaction served you well, saving you from what would have been a failed relationship.

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

    This is true, of course, because i’s what you believe. But then, I’ll ask with some malice: I guess you consider one of those “intelligent men” who would vote.

    But who would decide that? What would be the criteria to allow someone to vote? Money? You want a spoiled son-of-a-richman to decide your destiny? IQ test? Want a mathematician with no idea whatsoever of history and politics?

    Also: the idea of someone working (and if I read well, for less salary) and paying taxes and having no voice about whare their money is spent or the laws ruling their life is quite… well, I let you choose the adjective.

    Also: “Voting is a PRIVILEGE”. Not a “RIGHT”. Interesting.

    And finally: What if the rulers chose by those “intelligent men” decided to give vote again to women?

    And to finish somewhere: the alpha-beta-etc. classification of men raises another question:

    Why don’t you classify women? You mean by that a prostitute in philippines has the same agenda, worries and strategies than Angela Merkel or your neighbour next door? Do all 3B women in the world share a hivemind? Do they interact the same way with men, and that’s all?

    Go deeper, and think wider. Challenge yourself.

    • Hi, I’ll reply later but for now – I don’t see which parts of my comment policy are unreasonable. The one where you can’t play a psychiatrist you worship so much and break one of most important rules of theirs in the process?

      The one where you can’t compare me to an animal by insisting incel is just about sex?

      The one where you can’t say lacking the most essential thing for happiness is like lacking a bag of Haribo bombons?

      The one where you can’t deny an situation of deprivation x in time period y?

      Such “criticism”‘ ? If you don’t like my comments policy go on that page and tell me what you don’t like and why and I might change it. If you look at the comments beneath it you’ll see I already did once after somebody voiced their opinions. Some of what they said was reasonable, some wasn’t, so I changed what was objected to reasonably.

      Hell, your post is critical and yet it was approved since it broke no rules.

      And let me tell you- there was a period when the comments policy was much more lax. Discussions were no better and the entire blog was horrible.

    • Goldfinger, here’s a reply to your imbecilic post.

      Irrelevant. The most succesful, and the most hopeless were. The greater and the lower. The ones you set as an example of brilliant past and the ones you give as an example of terrible failure. So Patriarchy grants nothing.

      Many anthropologists believe that patriarchies were preceded by matriarchies. Their findings say that matriarchies were too primitive to even construct a totem and no development at all occurred before a certain society left the matriarchy. They were basically a bunch of savages whose max age was 25. I don’t know if you knew this or you just don’t believe in matriarchies but judging by the “intelligence” you constantly present on this blog I’d say you’re just ignorant of this fact.

      Wrong. If you care to examine the cultural heritage of almost any society across history (songs, paintings, sculptures, theatre, etc) you’ll find clear patterns of what makes a man desirable. With their historical and cultural variations, of course, but mostly the same, physically and mentally/emotionally. As a sexual partner and as a husband. From ancient rome to medieval texts to shakespeare to Sex and the City.

      Really? And which are these? Also, why are you separating sexual partners and husbands? How many women slept with men other then their husbands prior to 20th century without it being a severe scandal, a crime even? What do despised actors who used seduction to get sex in Rome have to do with morons Amanda fucks in Sex in City? What does Cincinnatus have to do with Charlotte’s husband?

      Also, don’t most people claim that today’s “alphas” are guy who seduce women? Tell me, what would Scipio think of Roosh?

      but in human societies, seduction is a matter of discovering how compatible you are with your projected partner

      That is not seduction. You don’t know what seduction is at all. What you mention has nothing to do with seduction and is always done separately from it. Seduction has nothing to do with compatibility. Ask any PUA. The way I see this argument is “Seduction is prevalent today” so I’ll just say it is everything -comparability, sympathy, everything. Despite the arguments this essay makes. I’ll just disregard those”.

      And in western society, no one seduces to procreate, but to have fun, to have sex, to find someone you can love. The idea of kids comes really later.

      Is this some kind of a joke? Is there any point in replying any further after reading this? And how do you think kids come about? Storks? Amazing.

      Seduction works as a filter, and it works two-ways.

      In which ways? Obviously not the ones you claim. It works as a filter to make women choose the worst men, yes, but I am afraid that is not what you had in mind.

      Example: You mention in some of your earlier posts your bad experiences with women who were boring and unattractive to you, physically and mentally. They failed to seduce you, thus showing you and them were not compatible. Seduction as a human interaction served you well, saving you from what would have been a failed relationship.

      What the fuck are you rambling about? You’re plain making up shit now? The worst pains I had were with women who were interesting and attractive to me and who did seduce me while I didn’t seduce them. Who knows where you found the material for this conclusion (I’ll probably never find out) but it’s all factually incorrect. I just love it when great minds like yours read events from my life and get them so mixed and confused that they talk nonsense. Love ittttt.

      This is true, of course, because i’s what you believe. But then, I’ll ask with some malice: I guess you consider one of those “intelligent men” who would vote.

      I’m going under the pretense that you meant that I consider myself one of these who would vote but missed a word. No, not at all. Not necessarily. If I don’t pass the test I’d happily be governed by more empathetic and intelligent men.

      But who would decide that? What would be the criteria to allow someone to vote? Money? You want a spoiled son-of-a-richman to decide your destiny? IQ test? Want a mathematician with no idea whatsoever of history and politics?

      IQ and empathy tests.

      Also: the idea of someone working (and if I read well, for less salary) and paying taxes and having no voice about whare their money is spent or the laws ruling their life is quite… well, I let you choose the adjective.

      Yes, for less salary but only because there would be a more free market in a sense that women wouldn’t have the benefits they have now. Women naturally make much less in a free market. Heck, they make less even in the current situation with all the benefits they get, like forcing companies to employ them or AA. As for voting, women would be able to vote if they could have empathy toward men. Since they don’t it is wise to not allow them this. They failed to develop this empathy because they only took care of other women and children in their tribe while men took care of everybody.

      And finally: What if the rulers chose by those “intelligent men” decided to give vote again to women?

      The text has already replied to this. Then they’re no longer intelligent but a severely declining culture. Rome would have also probably given voting rights to citizen women had they retained democracy long enough. Every society which gives women voting rights is already dead. USA has been beyond hope since 1920.

      Why don’t you classify women? You mean by that a prostitute in philippines has the same agenda, worries and strategies than Angela Merkel or your neighbour next door? Do all 3B women in the world share a hivemind? Do they interact the same way with men, and that’s all?

      Why would I classify women? I said that, outside of moral communities, most of them go for the most successful type of men (omegas), some also go for alphas, used up sluts for betas and nobody for co-alphas. What more do you want? This covered both a Filipina prostitute and Angela Merkel. Completely irrelevant.

      What you, as a genius who is supposed to make me question myself (I’ll tell you how successful you were soon), fail to grasp is that this text is merely about 4 types of men from a perspective of mating strategies. It has nothing to do with ANYBODY’S, male or female, “worries and strategies” in general or how they interact with men.

      I guess one could make a lot of division between various types of men and women but from a mating perspective this is completely irrelevant – male strategies are described here and women’s strategy is simply to rate males via their success. Of course there are some differences in class so Angela Merkel, if she married again today, would probably marry a rich alpha though he is nr. 2 on the list but if she were a normal young girl she’d go for the omega scumbag. All of that is less relevant, as I said both types enjoy success.

      Go deeper, and think wider. Challenge yourself.

      Yes, I have went deep with my patience to this crap. I am challenging myself not to smash the monitor.

      You see? These are your big arguments. They haven’t been replied to until now not because they’re good but because they’re “meh” level of bad. I tossed them aside like a piece of cloth, which is what they are. They’re not even really worth replying to. You’re just a big load of hot air. Boring more than anything.

      I know this won’t phase you personally, but to those of you who have read it and understood my points, do you now see how right I am? That this confirms what the essay is about? Because this guy has a girlfriend and I don’t.

      So, yes, it is extremely easy to make some very sound judgments about your parents, upbringing and your current girlfriend. But I’ll leave that to somebody with more imagination at calling you names.


      • “Many anthropologists believe that patriarchies were preceded by matriarchies. Their findings say that matriarchies were too primitive to even construct a totem and no development at all occurred before a certain society left the matriarchy. They were basically a bunch of savages whose max age was 25. I don’t know if you knew this or you just don’t believe in matriarchies but judging by the “intelligence” you constantly present on this blog I’d say you’re just ignorant of this fact.”

        I’m no antropologist, but I’ve readed a few of Robert Graves’ works and i know about the triple goddess and all the possible pre-pathriarchy civilizations. So… What? You’re speaking of possible civilizations from far before the bronze age. You think if there were a matriarchy buildings would collapse and humanity would revert to a savage state? Crappy argument, and impossible to believe.

        And there are many savage tribes around, and they’re patriarchies, so the argument about matriarchies and technology is twice crappy. My point still is valid: it’s irrelevant for your arguments that all societies were patriarchies. All societies were dictatorships until they stopped being.
        Also, you suppose I want some kind of Matriarchy? Any political construct based on the sex or age is inefficient. I simply don’t like too many aspects of patriarcal societies. It’s like saying that i must love Communism because I say Feudalism is shit.

        [About masculine desirability patterns]

        “Really? And which are these? Also, why are you separating sexual partners and husbands? How many women slept with men other then their husbands prior to 20th century without it being a severe scandal, a crime even? What do despised actors who used seduction to get sex in Rome have to do with morons Amanda fucks in Sex in City? What does Cincinnatus have to do with Charlotte’s husband?”

        I didn’t know the names of the characters of that show. Funny that you do.
        I recently came from Rome. Just check their statues and what’s left of their art: the beauty patterns are more or less the same. Women always liked, basically, hot guys with good wits and (when they were economically dependant of the husband) a good provider for her and their children. Medieval works were about handsome warrioirs who knew their letters and could outwit their foes, etc.

        And I separate sexual partners from husbands because this is the world we’ve always lived in. Read The Decameron (I confess I’ve only seen the old movie) and it’s all about fucking people that’s not your spouse.

        caamib- the rest of the post is deleted and the author banned, read my reply to understand why.

        • Ok, here’s what will happen.

          I will reply to a part of this, marking your insane statements with numbers. Once I reach the third one it’ll be like three strikes law and I’ll reply no more.

          And once I publish this I will ban you. Your second post will just be deleted, as it’s also a baseless attack.

          I’ll tell you why I’ll ban you – I simply don’t think you should be around here. A good confirmation of that is that you will think I banned you for “disagreeing with me”. But that’s not the case. I will ban you because you’re extremely stupid and can’t follow, let alone make arguments. I will respond to your “criticism” in this post, but by the point I reach insanity number 3 I’ll delete the rest.

          Another thing is that those extremely stupid as you are can never really follow the rules properly and just end up being more work for me. You’re already on moderation because you didn’t see a post, ffs.

          I am sorry, but this is what should be done. I’ve had experiences with lunatics like you before and they’ve taught me that keeping you around means I’m insane, not you. Please don’t write anything anymore, it’ll just be sent to Trash automatically and deleted.

          So let’s start…

          I’m no antropologist, but I’ve readed a few of Robert Graves’ works and i know about the triple goddess and all the possible pre-pathriarchy civilizations. So… What? You’re speaking of possible civilizations from far before the bronze age. You think if there were a matriarchy buildings would collapse and humanity would revert to a savage state? Crappy argument, and impossible to believe.

          INSANITY NR.1: Should have probably gave up on reading the post here. When do I ever say that our buildings would collapse in a matriarchy? I said that matriarchies couldn’t even build them. Also, if you think that a collapse of civilization means a collapse of buildings you’re even crazier. Let’s say you put chimps in front of humans – would that mean that the buildings would have collapsed? Completely insane and your first strike.

          And there are many savage tribes around, and they’re patriarchies, so the argument about matriarchies and technology is twice crappy. My point still is valid: it’s irrelevant for your arguments that all societies were patriarchies. All societies were dictatorships until they stopped being.

          INSANITY NR. 2 : You’re incapable of even recognizing what the argument is. While there are savage tribes that are patriarchal no matriarchal tribes ever left the stage of savagery. What you claim in the third sentence is completely missing the actual point, which is that we’d never have even left savagery if some societies didn’t stop being matriarchies. In both of your posts you failed to refer to this with a single sentence.

          Also, you suppose I want some kind of Matriarchy? Any political construct based on the sex or age is inefficient. I simply don’t like too many aspects of patriarcal societies. It’s like saying that i must love Communism because I say Feudalism is shit.

          You’re just making shit up, I never said you want them. Sadly, this straight up fabrication is the least crazy part I will reply to.

          “I didn’t know the names of the characters of that show. Funny that you do.
          I recently came from Rome. Just check their statues and what’s left of their art: the beauty patterns are more or less the same. Women always liked, basically, hot guys with good wits and (when they were economically dependant of the husband) a good provider for her and their children. Medieval works were about handsome warrioirs who knew their letters and could outwit their foes, etc.

          And I separate sexual partners from husbands because this is the world we’ve always lived in. Read The Decameron (I confess I’ve only seen the old movie) and it’s all about fucking people that’s not your spouse.”

          INSANITY 3: You mention Roman sculptures as if they represent what women commonly wanted – of course, this is complete nonsense and completely untrue. None of the sculptors were women, these sculptures weren’t done for women, none of the sculptures were designed to show what was attractive to being married or even having sex, so you’re just making shit up as you go along, basically applying 21st century norms to Roman times. Bravo.

          Your idea that providers had to have wits in the past is also a crazy fabrication and Medieval novels were just that… novels.

          As for Decameron, had you read this post you’d know what I said about medieval sexual morality in contrast to Protestant one. Instead you just put everything in the same bag. Truly horrifying.

          And, with that, that’s it. You’re gone. I’ll reply to no more and ban you now.

          If this were a sane world I’d also keep your insane paragraphs about me not being compatible with some girl as if I could ever have been or was compatible with any as a coalpha , about me not wanting some girls (as if I could ever afford that !), about me choosing to not be involved with a girl I had been involved for months or about some girl not seducing me because I didn’t like her but I won’t. Unfortunately, this is not a sane world and there are too many fools on shitholes all over the Internet who’ll scratch their baboon heads and say “Uhhh, he must be right”.

          Goodbye, Goldinger. Enjoy your girlfriend. She picked to right amount of stupidity for short-term reproductive gains but in the long run this post alone should show how fucked she is. I know you’ll now think I’ve censored your “brilliance” and that most modernist fools will fully agree with you but in fact you’re just writing nonsense that has no place anywhere where reasonable people reside.

          I am sorry. You’re not as insane or bound to rule breaking as that imbecile Dmitry72 or that Responsibility animal but they’re the ones who taught me that it is useless to try and reason with baffling stupidity. If you go on posting here you’d just waste my nerves and times and you won’t understand me anyway.

  18. “Moderation notes (the ban parts)

    NOTE 1: I will not allow straight out denial of these concepts based on how much science has discussed them. 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.

    NOTE 3: If you approach what is written here from a position of ignorance and a blind belief in what I’ll call nowism you will probably make stupid posts which will get deleted/edited

    NOTE 4: I will absolutely not allow a single comment mentioning “nerds”, “nice guys”, “entitlement”, “creeps”, or any of that crap.

    NOTE 7: I don’t want to hear anybody using the term “conspiracy theorist”.

    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.

    A more general advice: There are several transgressions usually made by modernist pigs I ban for without warning.

    Aside from that, everybody is free to comment.”

    So I’m free to comment as long as I don’t step into the main core of discussion of this article, I don’t challenge the main pillars of men classification, don’t point any ethical argument that go against your moral code, don’t use certain terms you don’t like (but are widely used by the incel blogsphere and discussion forums), don’t use the word ‘conspiracy’ (even if you claim there’s one going on), don’t speak about hate even when your text is full of insults and disqualifications…

    And then a general advice of “I’ll ban you just because if I feel like it”.

    It’s ok not to suffer any harsh or degrading language, or don’t even answer comments you think are stupid, but these are rules of comment specifically aimed to cripple any argumentation against your article, based on “you broke my rules”.

    Anyway, this’ your house, and you can pee on any corner you fancy.

    I’ll wait for your anwser to my former comment.
    Oh, and by the way, try to split this loooong texts in several chapters and posts. It will allow to center the discussion of the topics, and will not be a pain in the ass to scroll when reading on the phone screen.

    • Ok, look, first of all I thought you were talking about the comment policy of this blog in general. Which has a specific page.


      Questioning what main core? You mean asking what immorality and stupidity are for me though I say you just have to use their dictionary definitions?

      No, I don’t claim there is a conspiracy going on. In fact, I explicitly say this is no conspiracy but spontaneous developments that have occurred before in history (I mention Rome etc).

      And, yes, demeaning terms like these are used on incel sites. Even by incels. Well, guess why is that? There’s a 22000 word text above explaining why – MOST PEOPLE ARE MORONS. So what’s your point, that I should be a moron because most people are?

      And yeah, I won’t have any talk of “hate speech” because I oppose the concept and stand for complete freedom of speech (aside for threats or slander/libel) and because I want people to discuss my essay, not their impression of it.

      As for types of men, what would you challenge this on? Science? I said what I think about that argument.

      How come you’re not banned?

  19. I questioned the “precursor truths” of your text, for a start.
    You haven’t fully answered yet. Until you have some argument defending them, the other 22k wors are just based on nothing. Air. A really loooong theoretical wank you just produced from your sleeve.

    So I wait for some words that validate your base.

    More on the banning policy, just to fill my time:

    About “morals”, Merriam Webster dictionary says:

    : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
    : based on what you think is right and good
    : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior

    So yes, you can be questioned about morals. Most of your post qualifies you as an immoral member of society, for you are absolutely wrong to most people’s eyes. But you apply your own morals, so you don’t really care.

    Hate speech: you speech about your hate towards some people and accuse them of no less than mass murder. But instead of assuming it, you seem ashamed of confronting it.


    About being banned, I suppose you don’t really think somebody gives a damns about being banned from other’s people blog, nowadays.

  20. Pingback: Where am I after two years? | thatincelblogger

  21. Okay, I’m not trying to be mean or anything and I am 100% serious… is the write of this blog by any chance Autistic?

      • If I had to describe the characteristics of a person who was the opposite of autistic i would say a highly social and empathic person. Is that how you see yourself?

        • Both of these things are very circumstantial and subjective. But I’d say I’m very emphatic in my own way and less social on first sight.

          Btw, dude, a hint – the reason why most morons here mention autism at all is that Chris Chan nonsense which got it into mainstream plus the Western cult of therapy.

  22. Pingback: A message to women – escape your slavery | thatincelblogger

  23. I’ve been prompted to reply because there is such stupidity in the comment section. While thatincelblogger’s post does have a few sloppy curt 3 sentence definitions of groups, that vast majority of his sentence constructions are masterful and and appropriately placed in the context of the whole “essay” or “treatise” or whatever you choose to call this writing. His choice of quoted excerpts is beyond excellent and in combination with his conclusions and definitions of terms, accurately defines the main social problems of male existence. The writing is heavy, only the truly humbled may be able to understand it and hear thatincelblogger’s “voice”. That the location of this writing on the blog and discussion of the holocaust may prevent a wider audience from receiving it is irrelevant. It takes coming from a position of humility from recognizing some of the disasterous effects of our culture and hopelessness the male is under current conditions, as well as understanding the inherent complexities of sociopathic obfuscation that underlies the majority of popular historical events and scientific advances that is needed to grasp the writing and understand its truth value. This article will only speak to those desperately seeking the conclusions therein contained–the smallest minority of individuals. The the writing offends you read more similar posts and “pray” for understanding before you read, the need for humility cannot be overemphasized.

    • “The the writing offends you read more similar posts and “pray” for understanding before you read, the need for humility cannot be overemphasized.”

      Could you fix this sentence? I don’t understand it and I think it’s the most important one here.

      Also, which comments section are you talking about? Once you tell me I’ll probably delete that info, since I don’t want to send traffic to some shithole which banned me.


      “. This article will only speak to those desperately seeking the conclusions therein contained–the smallest minority of individuals.”

      I wouldn’t put it this harshly. Of course that 99.9 percent of slugs will not understand this but I don’t think one needs to be desperately looking for these conclusions to accept it. I don’t see such men on CoAlpha community.

      “hopelessness the male is under current conditions”

      The problem isn’t the male itself as a biological entity. The problem is the quality of the male and humans in general.

      This is the crux of how dumb the insane evolution argument modernists make is. Purely reproducing means nothing at all. It’s even worse than death of all living things if you’re just producing feces.

  24. “If the writing offends you read more similar posts and “pray” for understanding before you read, the need for humility cannot be overemphasized.”

    I guess I’m trying to say a lot with very little here. It takes reading many blog pages from individuals trying to deduce a complicated issue into basic manageable chunks before readers can fit all the syllogisms (expressed logical statements) into a working context. The constructions are compared to real life observations made by the readers, who then have “aha that is true” moments as they read it. But our brains have to be programmed subconsciously over time in order for it to correctly contextualize life experience, with earlier readings and this treatise. I believe an “immoral” omega can come to agree with the truths, he just has to prioritize thinking about this subject and reading about it so his brain can start to make to connections over time. I have adopted the presently controversial notion that most do not have true “agency”, that is control over their thoughts and actions. As such, with good environment variables and instruction, good morals can be learned.

    The notion of “praying” was put here because just thinking about requesting of some higher power for the ability to comprehend a topic helps to put one in a frame of mind that 1. They might make hasty conclusions and not fully grasp a topic to read and to therefore, read more carefully and 2. They are not sufficient yet, not “there yet” , more to learn and see don’t know all the answers. I added this sentence in partial reflection of your writing on the usefulness of religion. So long is something accomplishes a useful purpose that relieves suffering such reminding man of his true vulnerability when he is about to harm another, rather than persecuting over differences, it has a place regardless of the falsehood of some tenants.I’ll bridle my typing fingers to avoid rambling on this point. I don’t pray before every important thing I read but recognize prayer as useful to creating both a receptive and serious mind. If higher powers are a delusion, it is a helpful one.

    • I can understand what you’re saying above. Now, regarding this…

      I believe an “immoral” omega can come to agree with the truths, he just has to prioritize thinking about this subject and reading about it so his brain can start to make to connections over time. I have adopted the presently controversial notion that most do not have true “agency”, that is control over their thoughts and actions. As such, with good environment variables and instruction, good morals can be learned.

      I guess it could be true theoretically but the hard fact is that an omega simply lacks any incentive to even attempt this. One of my posts will deal with types of omegas. There are some very educated and in some ways intelligent omegas who almost resemble alphas at times. Still no incentive to learn any morals whatsoever. So what could a stupid thug achieve? Even less.

      The notion of “praying” was put here because just thinking about requesting of some higher power for the ability to comprehend a topic helps to put one in a frame of mind that 1. They might make hasty conclusions and not fully grasp a topic to read and to therefore, read more carefully and 2. They are not sufficient yet, not “there yet” , more to learn and see don’t know all the answers. I added this sentence in partial reflection of your writing on the usefulness of religion. So long is something accomplishes a useful purpose that relieves suffering such reminding man of his true vulnerability when he is about to harm another, rather than persecuting over differences, it has a place regardless of the falsehood of some tenants.

      Oh, I am not denying that but… I am personally not religious in that way nor are men I know trying to form a CoAlpha community. So I can see this being the case, it’s just that I haven’t had experience with it.

  25. “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.”

    I just thought the above section was written in some haste for such sweeping statements covering major belief systems. I understand your post is long, however, so it is like one of those, “readers in the club” will get this brief coverage of the faults of these faiths. It is very easy even for the most critically thinking to get cought in the fullness of these faiths (largely for emotional protection and to fit in with friends/family) and thus have there “slide mechanism” activated and stop reading your post. Slide mechansim– Disagree with one point therefor lump writer in disrespected group and write off other extremely truthful and relevant conclusion made by writer.

  26. Your main point that the gene pool is being skewed towards “omega males” can easily be refuted with statistics. About 80% of men will get married by the 40s and about 80% will have kids in their lifetime – and this figure is only slightly lower than the percentage of women who have children (about 85%). This link has multiple citations

    The statistics contradict your claim that 60% of males are avoided my all women and have little hope of marriage or reproduction. Most “co-alpha” and “beta” males are still getting married and reproducing.

    • I am afraid this isn’t a refutation at all.

      1. You talk about percentages of men getting married, but you seem to have applied the notion that 80 percent of men necessarily include a lot of co-alphas and betas – not true. When in fact there is a very small number of coalphas in general and less and less betas. Men can’t seem to understand their type correctly. I mean, look at the poll results here. Most men who have voted consider themselves coalpha incels. Ok, two of thes votes are myself and my IRL friend but the remaining eleven are people that are completely anonymous to me. How many new members did join CoAlpha forums in spite of so many of this? Zero.

      My point being that most men have been omegas for quite a while.

      2. In relation to point nr. 1 – in this essay I note that most omegas are incapable of relationships. This is becoming much worse with time and basically somebody born after 1990 in today’s society has no longer any conception of a relationship and is merely a wild animal (what they call “hook-up culture”). It takes time for genes to fully decline.

      3. Your research seems kinda outdated.

      4. Didn’t you see I mention beta males getting married to used up sluts who need to feed their child?

      Women who marry betas almost always do it merely for money. I have seen countless examples of women being formally married to betas but de facto remaining a complete sex slave to an omega trucker. Many have even considered murdering the children they had knew to be fathered by beta husbands but never murdering the children they knew were fathered by omegas. This is simply because they know that beta children will have a much harder time reproducing.
      They might be married to betas but they are still slaves of omegas.

      This can be proven easily by this research

      1.5% of married men age 15-44 (about 371,000 men in the US) report they have not had sex in the last year., tabl
      4.5% of married men age 30-39 report they have not had sex in the last year.
      15.6% of married men age 30-39 report they have had sex a few times a year to monthly. … #frequency

      5. In relation to nr.4, the fact that they formally have kids is usually just that- formally. Most of these kids are fathered by omegas.

      • 1. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t aware of the relative proportion of “omegas” to everyone else.

        2. The conception that hookup culture is more prevalent today compared to before 1990 is incorrect. The average women has only had 4 sexual partners, and only 9% of women have had more than 15 sexual partners. And “hookup culture” is actually less prevalent than it used to be.

        3. Okay, here is a comparison between the present and the recent past. It turns out that the number of 40-year-old who have never married has increased to 17% from 6% in 1980. But a lot of those people are single by choice. The percentage of men who have never married and want to get married is only 5%.

        4. Your statistics don’t prove that married men in their 30s aren’t having sex because their wives are cheating on them. Most of these couples have already had children and aren’t planning to have any more. They probably aren’t having sex because their romantic feelings have faded over time. Their wives aren’t having any more sex than they are.

        5. Unfortunately, I can’t disprove this claim with statistics because there is no real way of classifying “omega” and “beta” males. However, you don’t provide any evidence to support your assertion.

        Also, on a side note: Why are you focusing on incel men without recognizing that there are also lots of incel women? If you could bring more women into the incel community, you could start a dating service that matches incel men with incel women and solve your problem that way.

        • 2. The second article talks about colleges. That is not what I was talking about.

          As for the first article, I am not sure if people being interviewed here were honest but even if so it doesn’t disprove my point. While the average number of partners could be what the article claims, a higher variance for men would make the median number of partners higher for women which would mean that most women have more sexual partners than most men. In non-mathematical terms, an elite of retard overlords are screwing most of the women.

          3. Well, no surprise there. Modern marriage is slavery for Western men and a good way to end up in jail or dead by suicide. You don’t have to be noncel not to want to get married.

          4. Well, it seems neither of us can prove or disprove what I am saying but I know what I’m seeing and reading online and I rarely, if ever, read about the situations you describe but read about what I describe daily. Women who are pregnant with omega’s child or have omega children in a marriage with a beta, women who hate the children they know were fathered by betas to the point of wanting them dead or just plain cheating whores.

          that there are also lots of incel women? If you could bring more women into the incel community, you could start a dating service that matches incel men with incel women and solve your problem that way.

          I’m sorry, were you trolling this whole time? You just lost all credibility whatsoever.

          • Okay how is it trolling to suggest that men who can’t get a date should try looking to women who also can’t get a date? That is like saying try drinking water is an unreasonable response to the problem of thirst. Its actually the most logical answer you could hope to come up with. People pretty much mate with people with similar stats I am a 3-4 in appearance, and no big surprise so are the folks I date.

            • Because this idiot is suggesting that we should all drink water in two of the springs of Sahara desert.

              Incel women are an extreme rarity. 99 percent of women who claim they’re incel are actually hicel and 99 percent of actually incel women are lesbians. Lesbians can be incel in some cases. Straight women? Like seeing a dog with three heads.

              Women can get a relationship any time they want, let alone sex. It’s just that they’re too picky and want a buff idiot who will treat them like swine.

            • Also, just the fact that you’re even saying this and you’re (I think, correct me if wrong) studying psychology is a good indicator of how insane those therapy cultists are. Seems you could do a lot of damage and no good.

              • Eh close enough on what I am studying to be. As for the practicality of the suggestion, maybe there aren’t enough women to go around and that would be an issue, but it still doesn’t make it entirely insane to suggest. Also I think there are more incel women then most people assume. It is not an uncommon complaint among conservative christian sects and the African American community (again I am in the US so this is being based on what I can observe) that there are no men. In the African American community its because of the high unemployment and incarceration rates. In the Conservative Christian community it can often be as simple as every male she knows is also a relative. She isn’t getting out enough to find other guys. Are these women thought of as traditionally incel, probably not a word they would use but they are women desperate for a date!

                As for women being picky…umm I have heard you use some pretty rough terms to describe your own dates. Remember when you had two dates in one day and you decided one was fat and a warm up for the prettier one later? Then things didn’t go so hot with the later one? Well while you claimed you were being totally open minded with the fatter uglier date, humans actually tend to be pretty good at reading other humans. Your opinion of her might have been projecting a bit. I am not saying you are hicel (you begged your mom…even in a moment of desperation that is pretty darn low) I am just saying having any standards (I want him to have a job and not to have more prison tats then facial features! or I don’t want him to be my blood kin!) does not mean you are hicel.

                • Sigh… Conservative Christian women might be incel in a sense that they want to find a guy who might want to be a virgin until marriage as well. That I do understand but such women are rare. For example, both such virgins I met had no problem with me being a virgin or even not being religious ( I didn’t reject them but it was obvious we won’t work in either case for other reasons). So I think such women are really rare.

                  As for African American women, you kiddin? Young women in such ghetto areas lose their virginity very young, have many kids and often don’t know who the father is.

                  I did describe the one as fat but you’re once more ignorant and naive if you believe I didn’t want her because of that. I didn’t want her because she rejected me. If both hadn’t rejected me you think I wouldn’t “date” both? And I put date in brackets cause what I had with that other girl wasn’t dating and she was actually much, much worse than the first one (that fat one) when I got to know her – an insane slob who later ended up in a mental hospital.

                  ” (I want him to have a job and not to have more prison tats then facial features! or I don’t want him to be my blood kin!) does not mean you are hicel.”

                  I don’t consider things like taking consideration of blood kin hicel. As for tattoos I guess it depends on who is wearing them. Things like a job are also circumstantial. Being rejected for not having a job right now certainly means the other person is hicel, but it isn’t so when somebody is rejected for not even wanting a job due to pure laziness.

                  In any case, women date jobless and tattooed men all the time and don’t even think many won’t fuck their cousins if they’re attractive enough.

                  • I wanted to talk a little about your offhanded dismissal of African American women living in poverty, and those not living in poverty. Yes, teen pregnancy is more common in the African American community then in some other minority groups and that’s a racial disparity that needs addressing, but even in the US with its high teen pregnancy rate that is only 43 births for every 1,000 young women aged 15-19. With most births occurring between 18-19. Only 18% of all African American women have had a baby by the time they reach age 19. 27% of African Americans in poverty. So even if you assume that even if you assume that every single African American teen birth comes from someone in poverty (which is not true) then that means there are about 2.2 million African American females living in the US that have not had a birth by the time they reach 19…I think 2.2 million is a large enough group of people to care about seeing as it is more people then the entire population of Slovenia.

                    As for the guys 1 in 3 born today can expect to go to prison, 1 in 6 already have. Making up 13% of the total population African Americans make up 40% of the prison population. This is a huge sexual disparity since females are already a slightly higher percentage of the population then males naturally. Reducing this pool though 1.2 million people currently incarcerated (or approximately the removal of everyone currently living in Cyprus) means that yes for many African American women today it is harder to find a partner and they are looking across racial lines.

                    • Ok, but still, unless they have a problem dating outside or are somehow prevented from dating outside of their race they’re still virtually incapable of being incel..

                      And I can assure you that most incel men in US would date a black girl, out of desperation than nothing else. Now, if a woman is somehow prevented from dating outside of her race due to social pressures this might be a problem but I can’t say I’ve ever met such a woman on incel communities. All I’ve met were white.

                      So if these black girls aren’t trash they’d be more likely to be open to dating men of other races… Am I wrong? I am not an American, just using some knowledge I have of America and common sense, much as it is lacking today.

                    • The problem is that black women are often perceived as less attractive by men of other races, regardless of their economic status. Just as Asian men are stereotyped as less masculine, black women are stereotyped as less feminine. As a result, black men have more success than black women at marrying outside their race. In 2008, 22 percent of newlywed black men in America married outside of their race, compared with just 9 percent of newlywed black women. So even without the mass incarceration factor, there are a greater number of available black women that don’t marry outside their race than available black men that marry outside of their race. This means that a lot of black women have trouble finding a partner of any race.

                      I’m not sure how applicable this is to you if you’re in Europe, but maybe you could find some other ethnic group that is marginalized, like the Roma people. Or maybe find a disabled woman?

                    • Oh fuck that. Basically all the incels I know would gladly date a black woman unless she’s too much into black culture for them to be compatible in any way or some ghetto scum.

                      I see that you’re somehow putting the blame on white men for not marrying them but is it really so? Do you have any evidence that they’re not just rejecting white men?

                      “but maybe you could find some other ethnic group that is marginalized, like the Roma people. Or maybe find a disabled woman?”

                      Not a good idea.

  27. I haven’t seen this addressed much here — but what is to be said of the fact women truthfully want a STUPID man? Women do not like intelligent men, complex, multi dimensional, thoughtful men. They like men they can quickly figure out. “Ok, he loves football on weekends, he’s going to talk himself up, he’s kind of a dummy, he loves beer pong with his buddies, oh and he gives me all this attention. I can manage this guy.”

    If a man is mentally complex and — worse — emotionally complex, women run for the hills. What’s this say about women? Sheesh.

    (Please approve this comment, not the other one, for some reason it’s showing it’s a direct reply to someone else’s comment.)

    • Roy – this article clearly states that women don’t necessarily want stupid men.

      The kind of man they want the most is completely dependent on which kind of men most successful.

      If men with an IQ of 190 who write books on quantum physics were the most successful men in terms of reproduction they’d choose them.

      If guys in wheelchairs with degenerative diseases were the most successful ones they’d choose them.

  28. I am glad I found this blog and i am glad i read this post. I now understand better why I am incel and I understand beter the sociey I live in.

    It was very frustrating for me to see the most stupid people in my university getting so many beautiful girls and the most smart people being always lonely and single. I felt disguisted and I thought I had to become more accepting towards women and understand them better and understand their needs. Now I know this is bullshit. I am studying computer science and is very hard for me to keep studing well. I feel tormented by the lack of affection. I would really love to have a woman near me to support me and love me.

    I also was love-shy and now I realise a missed some opportunities in the past because I simply ran away if a woman might have shown interest in me. I think this is especially because of my parents who alwayhs changed the tv channel when two people were kissing and stuff like this. And they talked disrespectully of people who had relationships. I think this induced in my mind the message that love is something awful.

    It is also true that most women like assholes who beat them and treat them like shit. Recently I have been turned down by a “good friend” of mine who than hooked up with a guy in a club after he kissed her when she said she didn;t want that. I was shocket. So this guy did exactly what she asked him not to do and than she wanted to be with him. I was angry but now I understand that she is simply a stupid woman and that is it. I don’t care about her anymore. Unfortunately most women are like her.

    • f. michael, I am glad you like this blog.

      If you go on posting here or reading my stuff elsewhere online or reading about me you will read virtually thousands of lies told my countless haters. All of it completely baseless. So you shouldn’t pay attention to them. I am keeping all of you sane people protected on my blog by banning trolls and cretins but I can’t control every hater website. These imbeciles are the feces I write about in this essay. If you do have some questions about what you read here or about me feel free to do so.

  29. I discovered this blog quite a while ago and i have been reading other stuff regarding incel and love-shyness but this post is one of the most comprehensive from what i have read untill now. It helped me understand my issues and the what is wrong with this society.

    I followed you on reddit and on other forums and i realised that most people who bashed you did not really understood what you were actually meaning.

    For example I was shocked that most people made you a spycho who wanted to force women into prostitution when you proposed the program of gouverment paid dating system. That is another proof that most people are extremely stupid. They clearly did not understand what was that about and they were so sure they understood in their stupidity and they immediately started to criticize you. People are stupid. I had a hard time understanding this.

    • Well, michael, I hope you now have a less hard time understanding this.

      All of these morons claiming that nonsense or worse – that I raped a women by blackmailing them for sex when I didn’t even blackmail one and these “victims” were laughing at them and calling them crazy when I showed it to them, that I am sexually attracted to my mother when I asked her for sex in extreme desperation and would never go along with it, all of those morons diagnosing me online (some are even medical experts who really should know better) etc, all of them are offspring of these omega males I describe here.

      Awful genetic material which will destroy the earth.

  30. You’re obviously a very brilliant person and almost succeed in rewriting reality to your paradigm, and much of what you say it accurate. However i believe your main flaw is the intense villainization of the “thug” or “player” type, and your belief that what females find attractive is entirely plactic.

    You insist on calling seducers who get laid a lot omegas, in disagreement the rest of the entire “men’s movement” and in defiance of science too, actually. That’s real elliot rodgers of you. maybe you should do some pushups and get some swagger instead of turning the hate up to ten. Also, some of them are geniuses.

    Additionally, women would NOT be attracted to bald fat fifty year olds with cheetos on their shirts if only society would make it seem cool.

    Muscles and big dicks will always be attractive. I’m sorry about this. maybe could intimidate women into saying this isn’t the case with a “firm hand” and all that bullsnap. But that’s just spreading your envy based delusion onto them, by force.

    I guess your hope a new coalpha society depends on these two ideas: One a villanization, and the other a delusion.

    But I sincerely complement you on this opus, otherwise.

    • in disagreement the rest of the entire “men’s movement”

      The rest of the “men’s movement” (the fuck is that anyway, there are MRA/MHRA’s but I think I get what you’re saying)? Haha, you ignorant hack. I am opposed to MRAs. Many MRAs should be sent to jail just for vilifying ladies who are nice to teenage boys and calling them “rapists” when those boys both enjoyed it and women can’t rape men. There’s your MRA, you fuckhead. God forbid I am ever to be seen as one of those dumbasses.

      in defiance of science too, actually

      Oh yeah? What “science”? Feminists always claim that Red Pill alpha/omega thing is unscientific and I claim I am not making a scientific argument here.

      That’s real elliot rodgers of you.

      And that is bad because? You see, I am not a modernist moron and to me Elliot Rodger is much better and saner than most people. I don’t think of him as a hero but he was on to the truth, he just wasn’t lucky enough to know all of it. I can only commend him for taking at least some of the 300 million slugs in US.

      maybe you should do some pushups and get some swagger instead of turning the hate up to ten

      So I should become an omega (which I can’t anyway) and everything will be settled then? Just amazing.

      Also, some of them are geniuses.

      Some omegas? Who?

      Additionally, women would NOT be attracted to bald fat fifty year olds with cheetos on their shirts if only society would make it seem cool.

      You didn’t even try to make an argument for this at all.. In fact, I am not sure you even understand mine. What do you mean by “cool”? If such guys were the most successful with women women would want them. This is obvious when we see the differences between preferences of women throughout history and locations.

      Muscles and big dicks will always be attractive.

      They can be attractive because they signify good health but are these the only elements to attraction? There are much more important ones, like those I describe in the article. You’re just proving the stupidity of modern people by superficially focusing on looks. Plenty of incels have what you mention here.

      I’m sorry about this. maybe could intimidate women into saying this isn’t the case with a “firm hand” and all that bullsnap. But that’s just spreading your envy based delusion onto them, by force.

      I have no idea what you’re rambling about anyway? Intimidate them into what? You mention some “delusions” but never explain what they are. You’ll be gone very soon from here if you believe that throwing around baseless accusations is allowed here.

      I guess your hope a new coalpha society depends on these two ideas: One a villanization, and the other a delusion.

      And you base this nonsensical idea on – what? Villanization isn’t something you can base a society on and omegas are true villains, which you didn’t debunk.

      Seems to me you’re just confirming my points.

      • Btw this fat stupid US of Idiocracy neckbeard moron is banned now. His reply to this was nothing but even more unsubstantiated claims (like his insistence that I am an MRA), insults and strawmen. That’s not how one will behave on this blog and since most of what he said was repeating the same nonsense from the first post I’ve already replied to and debunked there is no point in keeping this idiot around. He can go somewhere else where “people” will tolerate his stupidity and obtuseness.

        edit – regarding what this ape said about this, I am not censoring him for his opinion but his inability to make arguments and his insults, which are against the rules. Many idiots have been banned for this yet this a perfectly free speech zone for those who can actually uphold the very simple and reasonable rules. But it is certainly not a free speech forum for any moron who wants to sling insults and not debate arguments.

  31. Clear – I am sorry, I think I haven’t been clear enough.

    I am not calling all who live in ghettos scum. But if a black woman is so enthralled in ghetto culture that she won’t even consider marrying a white man in that case she is likely pretty scummy. You need to understand the context of this post.

  32. Pingback: The gathering storm | CoAlphaAntiModernistIncelBlogger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s