I think it makes sense. It matches with my concerns that with broken marriage, we have the endless social problems we have now (proliferation of street gangs, decline in quality of people, sexless men, spinster women, unhappiness all around). I do see that things are stabilizing bit by bit. Divorce has stagnated and men are getting more and more aware of the situation.
Examples are how men tend to avoid being with women in the US.
My idea of a sexual utopia is a healthy marriage with a healthy woman. Everything else, to me, is utterly meaningless. The article speaks to me, and in the somewhat alarming conclusions it draws I find inspiration to achieve personal success. It strengthens belief that Modern Society is utterly corrupt as it is, and that the only way to combat this corruption is to somehow escape it.
My idea of a sexual utopia is one where the men choose the women. Like the opening page of the article states, all throughout the species, women choose the men. Men, for lack of a better word, have to peacock to get women. In fact, that's what "game" is all about. While I have no inherent issue with pick-up artists (better to come up with a solution than whine about not getting any cookie), I will say that it's backwards.
Men bring more to the table in a relationship, so why aren't they treated as such? I think the mere presence of a man should be akin to being near a tiger. A powerful, almost dangerous creature which requires -- no, DEMANDS your respect. Commands your respect. I hope I'm making sense.
I found Sexual Utopia in Power to be very accurate. You can clearly see the things talked about in the essay happening in modern American society. I see less and less guys being successful with women and a smaller minority of guys getting all the women. If we get back to being a more moral and sane society and discourage slutty behavior in women this trend would change for the better. Sadly it doesn't look like that is going to happen. Feminism will go down in history as the cause of America's collapse.
1) Occidental Quarterly is focused on white nationalism (this is neither good nor bad, but just a source of where the view point is coming from). When Devlin talks about race, he does not mean the Human race, he means White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
For the record, I'm not white so i'm sure i wasnt the intended audience. But since I live in the anglo world, the ideas apply to me in spades.
2) This should be mandatory reading for every high school male beginning Freshman year. & all throughout college, must be re-read.
It explains, in quite lucid terms, all the truisms of hypergamy & 'red pill' w/out the attendant jock culture that tends to irk many.
3) The media is responsible for the pickiness of females. The passage about women comparing men to movie stars is quite apt. Even more apt, is the example of a close knit society of farmers daughters marrying neighboring farmers sons, thus limiting the pool of selectable mates (but at ones where the men are serious of providing to women).
To humbly genuflect against myself tho, it is true that pornography has made me prefer slutty porn stars to regular women - it seems i'm no more immune to lusting after ideals instead of flesh & blood women.
This is a take away for me and something i will genuinely work on.
4) Foreign Women were already on my radar as i've mentioned on LS forums, where I came from, so that section is old hat for me.
Still, it is refreshing to see why women in other countries with a lower standard of living flourish with their womanly charms and wifely skills.
The economic disparity allows for the inequality of status vis men are higher than women (a good thing), & less influence by media on mate selection and pool of available candidates.
5) I believe Devlin's solutions are good but it may be too little too late. I estimate it will take 3 generations for women to realize their error and even if Devlin applies all the ideas by force, it will take 2 generations to see benefit for men & women - at which point, the death rate is irreversible, for whites and everyone else's middle class (all other races).
Devlin only mentions race once at the very beginning. The article has nothing to do with race.
The media is only partly responsible for the pickiness of females. There are other factors.
Women never actually realize anything. They absorb behavioral clues from their environment, so their behavior changes much faster than men's behavior does. Put a bad woman in a good environment, and she will be good within a few months.
I understand that the article has nothing to do with race, but Occidental Quarterly does. Do you not agree that medium in which the message is portrayed tends to shape the mesaage? (ex. huffpo talking about syrians - you and i know its going to be a fluff piece about some kind syrians instead of degenerates ruining people's living spaces).
But whatever, that wasnt the point of my reply. it was only to alert people of the prism in which the message was being viewed. its not good nor bad, it just has to be pointed out (would you not be skeptical if gawker or jizzable all of a sudden hails incels?)
as for your other points. I've read a lot of what you wrote and i'm pretty much in agreement with you (your post on God's blessing/punishment as genetic blessing/punishment is quite lucid and eye opening).
With that said, am i a member yet or am i not welcome here? I posted and replied to the article as instructed.
Things don't just work. It takes time and effort to get a result and to work out solutions. There are easy problems and there are HARD problems, and this is well understood in scientific circles. What you have here is a psychological problem of greater depth than it seems from cursory glance. HARD problems cannot be solved by simple deduction, serious data crunching is required, serious innovation is required.
In looking at the mission statement thread in the Old section it is clear that you have failed to understand the concept of 'Value'. It is necessary to acquire greater value and to be seen as valuable. If the members could increase their perceived value it would solve many of their personal problems and issues. A man must be seen to have value if he is to be supported and admired. The female requires a hero, and it is up to the male to become that hero - bit by bit, step by step. To acquire a better reputation than others, to set higher standards and to get better results. The opposite in fact, to Elliot Rodger.
You claim to be superior - deliver on that claim. Find ways to deliver on that claim. Whether your methods are personal or artificial or technological doesn't matter, what matters is outperforming the scum around you, even if that means doing things the hard way.
In an academic sense failure is only caused by giving up, success is a product of continued effort and persistence.
I should add here that perceived value is not the same as value and I think this represents an important dilemma.
Perhaps success cannot be observed at all? Observing anything successful may instantly cause it to become unsuccessful. The inspected school fails, while the school that is not inspected is a success.
Perceived value, perceived success may simply be a front, a fake image presented as an example of the success but not the success itself. So Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, are examples of perceived success and an image of success was presented where no real success was present. Jealousy is then caused by the image - not by the success itself.
The female is then responding to the image of success - status or implied status. No actual success can be observed, without being destroyed.
In a political sense the image of success is being artificially created, the successful result is then a product of the image - thus immoral. The egotistical nature of the successful individual is often a protectionism attempting to protect the image of success, as that's all there is - only the image exists.
The female responds to the pretence of being successful, the perceived value. The objectors complain because they see it's fake. On top of that the hard work and effort needed to succeed is wasted as the success can never be observed. Like a user interface only a front can be presented. Genuine value, ethical standards, and even being truly successful make support the community much as scientists do - but this will never be rewarded as it can never be visible, so only the faker is rewarded.
Fame is viewed as success - yet someone else is usually doing all the work. Why succeed when you can simply pretend instead? Yet, it is a kind of self consciousness of success itself to remain hidden. Failure is the normally accepted standard and the only thing that can be viewed without embarrassment.
Whether we like it or not - status and perceived success has to be artificially manufactured and presented as a lie, thus the peacocks feathers.
The feminist is obviously attempting to compete against the male, and her appearance, of trying to look like him is an attempt to fit into his world - like camouflage. She gets upset if she is then viewed sexually because she's trying to be a man, and any sexual attraction breaks her attempt to blend in.
Clearly the feminist is jealous of the man, and just as with makeup she is attempting to appear suitable for the role which in this case is fake man instead of healthy woman. His appearance then is what she is aspiring to, is what she is jealous of.
In order to have the 'perceived value' to attract this kind of female you would have to have the appearance she is aspiring to achieve. And being a man you should be able to achieved it to a higher standard than she can. The male attire of the feminist is therefore revealing the look of success that she is trying to emulate.
Your requirement then as a man, is to look better than the feminist attempting to look like her ideal man, because then you would become her ideal man. You must look like the man that she is trying to become - a businessman of some kind.
To determine the ideal appearance then, you would study the feminists attempts to look like men and copy them. You would perversely attempt as a man, to look like a female feminist! So you would study the appearance and clothing worn by feminists as they are indicating what they think is male status.