Should 20-40% of Male Babies Be Aborted?

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

[Tsar]

Having more females born though is unfair to women. You’re basically condemning girls to the same loneliness that you are trying to fix for men. Men should be celebrated for doing what @Natural_Born_Cynic mentioned, being the builders of society. We shouldn’t be manufacturing an artificial scarcity in order to raise the status of men.

Many women would be open to polygyny where they share a guy. Traditional polygyny vs. Hookup Culture.

Once Traditional relationships have been restored, it's possible to end polygyny again.

It doesn't need to be a permanent measure, but a temporary solution to fix the imbalance.

If China had favored female offspring instead of male offspring, China would be in a much better position. They could legitimately cultural colonize other nations because the excess could go to other nations, and marry foreign men. In a few generations, they could dominate other nations. That's just one of the strategic benefits of female offspring.

So, even polygyny wouldn't be needed if excess females engage in cultural demographic conquest of other nations through relationships with foreign men.

Men always have a more difficult time getting relationships. Girls wouldn't be condemned to loneliness unless it was their choice.

My solution removes excess men, all remaining men live better lives, and girls will need to respect men better if they want one. Girls will learn not to take men for granted.

[Tsar]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

The fact is that if the excess men force other men to be single, then it's about time someone states a fact.

The demographic factor must be addresses which means reducing the number of males born.

The surviving males would be more productive, more celebrated, and more motivated because of love and rewards.

[Outcast9428]

Having more females born though is unfair to women. You’re basically condemning girls to the same loneliness that you are trying to fix for men. Men should be celebrated for doing what @Natural_Born_Cynic mentioned, being the builders of society. We shouldn’t be manufacturing an artificial scarcity in order to raise the status of men.

Many women would be open to polygyny where they share a guy. Traditional polygyny vs. Hookup Culture.

Once Traditional relationships have been restored, it's possible to end polygyny again.

It doesn't need to be a permanent measure, but a temporary solution to fix the imbalance.

If China had favored female offspring instead of male offspring, China would be in a much better position. They could legitimately cultural colonize other nations because the excess could go to other nations, and marry foreign men. In a few generations, they could dominate other nations. That's just one of the strategic benefits of female offspring.

So, even polygyny wouldn't be needed if excess females engage in cultural demographic conquest of other nations through relationships with foreign men.

Men always have a more difficult time getting relationships. Girls wouldn't be condemned to loneliness unless it was their choice.

My solution removes excess men, all remaining men live better lives, and girls will need to respect men better if they want one. Girls will learn not to take men for granted.

Polygyny is an absolutely disgusting, evil, and intolerable cultural practice. No man or woman should have to tolerate living in a society with such a heinous cultural practice permitted.

[Tsar]

But Tsar, under your scheme what happens if you are the one who gets aborted?

I'm alive so it's not applicable. I was mostly using it as the most affordable option to modify the male-to-female ratio at birth. Obviously, a more humane approach like mandating IVF to
a certain number potential parents or creating an injection to make men produce semen that is all for female offspring would be much better. I personally believe that's the easiest and most humane method.

Also you said you want to have multiple wives/girlfriends. Aren't you taking those away from other guys?

Yes, that's my ideal. I want to have many girlfriends and a harem of beautiful girls. No, I am not taking them away from other men, because it would be my divine recompense. After everything that I have been through in life, I am entitled to divine recompense.

Have you thought about these things carefully?

Yes, I have, which is why I know it's a viable possible solution to the Demographic, Incel, Feminist, and Loneliness problems. If implemented on a global scale, terrorism would end, migrants and refugees are often young males in their prime so migration would also end, and traditional relationships would be restored. The birthrates would increase because girls would be forced to become quality girls. Girls would understand why they should be loyal. Girls wouldn't cheat on a guy because he would have more options available to him.

There's historical examples relating to the benefits of having many more females and substantially less males.

There's many positive aspects regarding a cull of the male population and absolutely no negatives.

[Cornfed]

Polygyny is an absolutely disgusting, evil, and intolerable cultural practice. No man or woman should have to tolerate living in a society with such a heinous cultural practice permitted.

It is permitted in the Bible so of course a Satanist like you is going to be opposed to it, much like you oppose monogamous marriage by wanting females to be sluts. Presumably you Satanists are fine with polyandry though.

[Outcast9428]

Polygyny is an absolutely disgusting, evil, and intolerable cultural practice. No man or woman should have to tolerate living in a society with such a heinous cultural practice permitted.

It is permitted in the Bible so of course a Satanist like you is going to be opposed to it, much like you oppose monogamous marriage by wanting females to be sluts. Presumably you Satanists are fine with polyandry though.

Bull f***ing shit Cornfed. Extreme right lunatics like you are honestly worse then the right leaning liberals are. You’re not traditionalists, you’re f***ing savages. You are so utterly devoid of any kind of principles whatsoever it is astonishing.

No! I am strongly opposed to polyandry. It is just as disgusting as polygyny.

[Tsar]

Satanists are fine with polyandry though.

Modern society has already made polyandry the norm and most girls are effectively polyandrous. It's one of the reasons why many men are excluded. Most girls are also polygynous because they share the same men. That's why all the Betabuxx will be Cucks and get women when the women are well past their prime, lost most of their value, and have become Cum Dumpster Sluts.

Many men will also be responsible because many also reinforce the terrible relationship dynamic that currently exists and therefore are collaborators in ruining everything for the guys who want traditional relationships and quality females.

Females are suppose to marry when they are fertile, have their youthful beauty, and are virgins for the guy they marry.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

The fact is that if the excess men force other men to be single, then it's about time someone states a fact.

The demographic factor must be addresses which means reducing the number of males born.

The surviving males would be more productive, more celebrated, and more motivated because of love and rewards.

My reasons why your civilization won't work or face collapse.

While that's true to the certain extend, how can you be sure that all 600,000 men can be productive? Some of them can be born with a handicap, retarded, dumb, birth defects, etc. And you also have to account for disease, natural disasters, available manpower, adverse climate conditions, etc. I am talking in a civilization perspective.

In addition, not all men or women would be willing to embrace a polygamous lifestyle(one men with two or more wives). And some men and women are incompatible in personality. There will be also intense and fierce competition among each men's wives to get their attention. And I don't think the men will be happy when they have to support two of more women and put up with their nagging bullsh*t from multiple women.
despite getting two or three times the salary and being celebrated and such.

I don't think crime will decrease as there will be less men to police your civilization... Despite the inclusion of female police officers, most of the time, it is the male police officer who can manhandle violent psychopathy criminals. A police force comprise of mostly women will be ineffective in deterring violent male criminals... you would need a male cop.

On top of that, despite women significantly outnumbering men, women are naturally hypergamous. Most of them will go for the alpha male powerful men with lot of wealth, land, and political power. The alpha male top 1 percenter will have 800,000 cocubines while the remaining 590,000 men will have to share 200,000 women and they will be the leftover ugly, demented, fat ones.

[Tsar]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

The fact is that if the excess men force other men to be single, then it's about time someone states a fact.

The demographic factor must be addresses which means reducing the number of males born.

The surviving males would be more productive, more celebrated, and more motivated because of love and rewards.

My reasons why your civilization won't work or face collapse.

While that's true to the certain extend, how can you be sure that all 600,000 men can be productive? Some of them can be born with a handicap, retarded, dumb, birth defects, etc. And you also have to account for disease, natural disasters, available manpower, adverse climate conditions, etc. I am talking in a civilization perspective.

In addition, not all men or women would be willing to embrace a polygamous lifestyle(one men with two or more wives). And some men and women are incompatible in personality. There will be also intense and fierce competition among each men's wives to get their attention. And I don't think the men will be happy when they have to support two of more women and put up with their nagging bullsh*t from multiple women.
despite getting two or three times the salary and being celebrated and such.

I don't think crime will decrease as there will be less men to police your civilization... Despite the inclusion of female police officers, most of the time, it is the male police officer who can manhandle violent psychopathy criminals. A police force comprise of mostly women will be ineffective in deterring violent male criminals... you would need a male cop.

On top of that, despite women significantly outnumbering men, women are naturally hypergamous. Most of them will go for the alpha male powerful men with lot of wealth, land, and political power. The alpha male top 1 percenter will have 800,000 cocubines while the remaining 590,000 men will have to share 200,000 women and they will be the leftover ugly, demented, fat ones.

No, that's impossible. All your reasons are trivial.

I favor stealth euthanasia without the family's consent for anyone born with a handicap, deformity, mentally defective, or with birth defects. We cannot waste resources on these biological losers that nature has predetermined to be worthless from a breeding perspective.

Women are more hypergamous when the society allows them to be, but what exactly is hypergamous?

@Cornfed knows that may Western Women are going for criminals and dysgenics. Also, how is miscegenation hypergamy?

Why do some girls have relationships and sex with dogs? Is that hypergamy? How is a dog a better option than a human man? What resources or status does a dog provide a girl? A unique sex experience?

Many modern girls, especially in the West, are completely worthless cum dumpster sluts. Men effectively allow them to be and allow it without any consequences. This is because females were scarce and the effective population of desirable females continue to become scarcer and scarcer.

We only need a small number of cops relative to the overall population. Also, we can have human controlled drones that can automatically kill violent criminals. An AI system can fly the drones on random patrols and if they see something suspicious then flag a barracks and the police will use a drone control unit to kill the murderers and rapists. Muggers can also be shot. Maybe not kill if a tranquilizer or temporarily paralytic agent is used on them. There are many solutions to this. Also, empower ordinary people to be volunteer police to stop violent crimes.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

The fact is that if the excess men force other men to be single, then it's about time someone states a fact.

The demographic factor must be addresses which means reducing the number of males born.

The surviving males would be more productive, more celebrated, and more motivated because of love and rewards.

My reasons why your civilization won't work or face collapse.

While that's true to the certain extend, how can you be sure that all 600,000 men can be productive? Some of them can be born with a handicap, retarded, dumb, birth defects, etc. And you also have to account for disease, natural disasters, available manpower, adverse climate conditions, etc. I am talking in a civilization perspective.

In addition, not all men or women would be willing to embrace a polygamous lifestyle(one men with two or more wives). And some men and women are incompatible in personality. There will be also intense and fierce competition among each men's wives to get their attention. And I don't think the men will be happy when they have to support two of more women and put up with their nagging bullsh*t from multiple women.
despite getting two or three times the salary and being celebrated and such.

I don't think crime will decrease as there will be less men to police your civilization... Despite the inclusion of female police officers, most of the time, it is the male police officer who can manhandle violent psychopathy criminals. A police force comprise of mostly women will be ineffective in deterring violent male criminals... you would need a male cop.

On top of that, despite women significantly outnumbering men, women are naturally hypergamous. Most of them will go for the alpha male powerful men with lot of wealth, land, and political power. The alpha male top 1 percenter will have 800,000 cocubines while the remaining 590,000 men will have to share 200,000 women and they will be the leftover ugly, demented, fat ones.

No, that's impossible. All your reasons are trivial.

I favor stealth euthanasia without the family's consent for anyone born with a handicap, deformity, mentally defective, or with birth defects. We cannot waste resources on these biological losers who nature has predetermined to be worthless from a breeding perspective.

Women are more hypergamous when the society allows them to be, but what exactly is hypergamous?

@Cornfed knows that may Western Women are going for criminals and dysgenics. Also, how is miscegenation hypergamy?

Why do some girls have relationships and sex with dogs? Is that hypergamy? How is a dog a better option than a human man? What resources or status does a dog provide a girl? A unique sex experience?

Many modern girls, especially in the West, are completely worthless cum dumpster sluts. Men effectively allow them to be and allow it without any consequences. This is because females were scarce and the effectively population of desirable females continue to become scarcer and scarcer.

We only need a small number of cops relative to the overall population. Also, we can have human controlled drones that can automatically kill violent criminals. An AI system can fly the drones on random patrols and if they see something suspicious then flag a barracks and the police will use a drone control unit to kill the murderers and rapists. Muggers can also be shot. Maybe not kill if a tranquilizer or temporarily paralytic agent is used on them. There are many solutions to this. Also, empower ordinary people to be volunteer police to stop violent crimes.

LOL Stealth euthanasia .. Oh well, then that makes it less than 600,000 males.. your gonna create a mass male shortage. Plus, Disease, Natural disasters and famine will also wipe out a portion of your males. Men are not immune to death, diseases and old age you know.

Well women are hypergamous because of evolutionary necessity for survival. They are the ones who have to carry the child for 9 months. That's less capability for them to look after themselves, so they need a strong and capable protector to look after them and their offspring. Human babies takes a long time to take care of and to cultivate.. they are not like other wild animal babies that are low maintenance.

Well your right. The men enabled western women to be shameless feminist sluts. And Big state funded western government and technology played their parts in enabling female beings sluts, and subsidizing their life style. However, if we do it your way then
you only have 600,000 to 500,000 men supporting 1,000,000 women in your civilization now based on your new eugenics policy. It's going to be a lot of burden for the men to support all those females. Nevertheless, if you have 1,100,000 men and 1,000,000 women, it wouldn't be a burden.

The better alternative would be installing a pro male-paternalistic government and have them restrict women's access to the job market in a 1 to 10 ratio. That way, men would get double and triple the salary, women will be more submissive to men, and you wouldn't have to wipe out 20-40% of your most productive and innovation churning out workforce.

So on crime, there is no due process or court system? you just kill every criminal Judge Dredd style with a drone? What if the guy is at the wrong place at the wrong time? You just blast him too? AI is not advanced yet and will takes decades to give it sentience. Drones can be used as surveillance, but criminals can find a way to jam the drones with signal disrupters(The Russian army is using it right now in Ukraine). It's going to be a giant violent sex orgy when couple of male criminals get a hold of weapons and they start shooting, killing, raping your so called volunteer civilians and police officers comprised of mostly females because you know.. there are two times more females than males..

Lastly I wonder how your military with small number of men will do against other foreign military comprised on surplus number of men?
Are you going to conscript every available female into the front line? If you do then they will make very poor soldiers..

[Lucas88]

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

I agree with this. A significant percentage of the male population isn't even necessary for the functioning or advancement of society. This is only going to accelerate as automation and AI technologies continue to advance exponentially in the upcoming decades. In light of this, a significant portion of men will be rendered nothing more than "useless eaters" if they're not so already. There will no longer be much need for a large populace of unintelligent semi-retarded serfs to do the menial jerbs of present-day society (advanced robotics and AI will take care of most of these). A considerably smaller population of intelligent and well-constituted men will suffice.

@Natural_Born_Cynic mentioned the police force and military, but even in the most militarized modern nations those institutions comprise a small minority of the population. Even if women outnumber men 2:1, there will still be enough men to operate an effective police force and military. Moreover, the military is going to become increasingly technologized towards the midway point of this century. Expect remote-controlled unmanned drones, aircrafts and even terminator-style military robots to take precedence in futuristic warfare. Once robotics become advanced enough, they'll make these kind of things.

If it is possible to change the sex ratio of births in the female direction in a medically safe manner, then I think that it would be a good idea. We no longer live in times of constant warfare or extreme competition for resources. There is no reason why nature should continue to produce more males than females. A greater ratio of females would result in an increase in the value of men, largely solve the incel problem (provided that the men of the future are willing to cultivate masculine virtue and actually behave like men) and nullify the effects of feminism. It would also allow some men to have two or more women in accordance with our natural masculine polygamist instincts.

It would also be best to limit the number of children born to each female in order to keep the population at a relatively low number and avoid massive resource depletion. In the hypermodern age of high technology and advanced AI, we are able to favor quality over quantity. We are no longer living in some barbaric and war-torn primitive world where the optimal procreative strategy is to pump out as many potential warriors as possible. Fewer kids born to high-quality parents and with a lot of educational investment would be the best option.

[Tsar]

LOL Stealth euthanasia .. Oh well, then that makes it less than 600,000 males.. your gonna create a mass male shortage. Plus, Disease, Natural disasters and famine will also wipe out a portion of your males. Men are not immune to death, diseases and old age you know.

Well women are hypergamous because of evolutionary necessity for survival. They are the ones who have to carry the child for 9 months. That's less capability for them to look after themselves, so they need a strong and capable protector to look after them and their offspring. Human babies takes a long time to take care of and to cultivate.. they are not like other wild animal babies that are low maintenance.

Well your right. The men enabled western women to be shameless feminist sluts. And Big state funded western government and technology played their parts in enabling female beings sluts, and subsidizing their life style. However, if we do it your way then
you only have 600,000 to 500,000 men supporting 1,000,000 women in your civilization now based on your new eugenics policy. It's going to be a lot of burden for the men to support all those females. Nevertheless, if you have 1,100,000 men and 1,000,000 women, it wouldn't be a burden.

The better alternative would be installing a pro male-paternalistic government and have them restrict women's access to the job market in a 1 to 10 ratio. That way, men would get double and triple the salary, women will be more submissive to men, and you wouldn't have to wipe out 20-40% of your most productive and innovation churning out workforce.

So on crime, there is no due process or court system? you just kill every criminal Judge Dredd style with a drone? What if the guy is at the wrong place at the wrong time? You just blast him too? AI is not advanced yet and will takes decades to give it sentience. Drones can be used as surveillance, but criminals can find a way to jam the drones with signal disrupters(The Russian army is using it right now in Ukraine). It's going to be a giant violent sex orgy when couple of male criminals get a hold of weapons and they start shooting, killing, raping your so called volunteer civilians and police officers comprised of mostly females because you know.. there are two times more females than males..

Lastly I wonder how your military with small number of men will do against other foreign military comprised on surplus number of men?
Are you going to conscript every available female into the front line? If you do then they will make very poor soldiers..

People who have deformities or are mentally incapable of intelligent thought are predetermined losers by nature and have no right to exist as sub-humans. Anyone with a mental handicap that makes them intellectually incapable of intelligence along with anyone completely deformed should be euthanized. They are already by fact of their unworthy existence, individuals who will never reproduce, they are useless eaters that consume resources, and they have as much value as a two-legged mule.

Female hypergamy is a luxury. They do it purely because they can fornicate like sluts and society encourages it. Hypergamy ends if their options decrease.

Most men but most people in general aren't productive. Less than 1% of men actually define and build a civilization. 10%-20% of men are subordinates. Then the other 30% are what's necessary to maintain it. The other 49% are excess whose loss makes absolutely no difference. That's why a 20-40% reduction of the population of men doesn't make a difference.

Also, there hasn't been a natural famine for over 80 years. Most famines were intentional or because farmers were killed by the Jewish Elites or dismantled by the Jewish Elites.

The quality of jobs has declined and so has wealth. You can't adjust levers of a corrupt and broken system. Also, changing the birth ratio is easier than trying to convince females to give up certain rights. Capitalism itself is corrupted and unsustainable for the modern era, much like @Pixel--Dude and @Lucas88 mention in different threads. I also don't agree with completely restricting the ability of females to work and I am against a fixed quota system for workers. Girls should have the option to work but it should become the most undesirable option available to them. It also shouldn't be encouraged by society, girls should become supporters and a loyal partner for a guy.

No, not Judge Dredd style, but like surveillance drones and CCTV cameras. The surveillance drones can carry temporary paralytic darts and shoot them at a definite criminal. Other drones can detain people and say they're under arrest. Human police will arrive and arrest them. Only definite murderers and other violent criminals can be executed by drones. And yes, I favor abolishing all formal trials if someone is definitely guilty, because arguing they're not guilty isn't a valid argument. Premeditated violence like murdering someone for insurance money or a one-time murder of killing an adulterous wife can be pardoned or lightly punished, but a person who engages in random murder or a random violent crime should definitely be shot without any trial.

Build nuclear weapons and actually use them.

Also, let's use your Ukraine example, but in a fictional context.

Let's say I rule a small coastal country in Europe and it's called the Kingdom of Whiteland. I have a friendly nation neighboring it but it turned hostile after a coup. NATO, led by the US, seeks to use it in a proxy war, and they want to overthrow my reign because I am the only country in continental Europe that will not go along with their agenda and I have recently given permission for Russia, China, and Iran to dock warships and military units at my ports. Assume that Whiteland in this fictional scenario also has a colony in Latin America where it has given the same permission for permanent Iranian, Russian, and Chinese bases. They, as in the Jewish Elite and their Zionist Christian Collaborators, seek to overthrow my reign to install a corrupt elected leader to be compliant and turn my nation into a vassal state.

I would preemptively bomb my neighbor's Presidential Palace and mercilessly takeout targets in the preemptive strikes on that nation regardless of collateral damage, including key cities that wipeout everyone in them if necessary, then reinstall a monarchy in my neighbor, while at the same time, use my nukes as deterrence, and if NATO decided to intervene, immediately launch the fastest nukes to immediately annihilate the capital cities and greatest cities of all NATO's greatest members. This applies whether they do "crippling sanctions" or "military action" because the moment they think about waging a proxy war, I escalate it to nuclear war. Once the mightiest nuclear-armed NATO nations lose their greatest cities, they can think about losing all the other significant cities that remain, and that's their invitation to for me to end all life on Earth. But my point is that I would build a nation like North Korea but with an arsenal of thousands of nukes and tens of thousands of decoys. I won't focus much on conventional warfare if I had a small or small-medium nation. Any nation that started a war would immediately find itself in total ruins and they can't count on nuclear deterrence to restrain me, because I say "Bring it! I'll burn the world to end the war you started and be victorious! If everyone dies in the end, then ashes to ashes, dust to dust, say goodbye to life on Earth!" And here's the thing, they can't respond against a tiny nation in Europe without inflicting mass collateral damage on their own allies. Therefore, in this fictional hypothetical scenario in this alternate reality, I am using the nations that are NATO nations as nation-size human shields. Plus, my nukes give me the advantage where if I was going to be taken out by a conventional invasion that my enemies want to use to overwhelm my own defenses, I can nuke everyone just the same. I would have three different nuclear controls. One system completely under my personal control as authoritarian leader with absolutely no checks and balances, that I can use whenever I want, including on a personal whim, and then the other that my loyal subordinates can use. I will also give one set of nuclear controls to a cult of personality so if I were to be assassinated, die a suspicious death, or had an accident, or got cancer then they will launch the nukes at whoever is most likely responsible even if there's no evidence. I would be dangerous and the world would know it, and that's what would keep the peace. Someone who has power but is willing to lose it, someone who values justice and can't be bought, and will always have sovereignty and will always be independent is someone who must be respected or there would be extreme consequences.

So no, I don't need a powerful conventional army since I wouldn't seek to have imperialist or neocolonial wars. I would seek an army with limited power projection in specific spheres, to give support to allies, and a nuclear arsenal designed for use against the most powerful nations in the world to overwhelm or penetrate all the best defense systems, and it would strike fear into them so they wouldn't ever mess with my kingdom.



Don't awaken the dragon! This is what would happen to cities if someone did awaken the dragon!



I would be confident the Western Nations wouldn't ever dare do anything that would provoke my wrath or my loyal cult of personality's wrath, because there wouldn't be any deterrence that their nuclear weapons give against my cult of personality or I.

Of course that's an ideal scenario.

A real world scenario with existing nations is different but similar. No matter what nation that I ruled, as long as it was small or medium, I would be willing to risk the bet that by them losing one city in a nuclear strike, NATO (the only imperialist and colonialist powers who are led by Jewish Elite) would be willing to back down because they would also be shocked by it really happening. Also, if I ruled a small or medium nation, would NATO truly allow their nations to burn in a nuclear war with a small or medium nation, when they seek to deter an attack by Russia or China? It effectively destroys NATO's hegemonic ambitions. So no, NATO wouldn't make a move unless they were suicidal, and they wouldn't even sanction my nation out of fear of what I would do in response. As for the other nations in the world, they can be reasoned with or they can also be intimidated not to antagonize me out of fear.

[Outcast9428]

@Outcast9428

Yep. Without men, we all be living in mud huts.
Why? because check this out. Men vs Women Deserted Island survival by Bear Grylls.

Modern, Feminist, confident Women's team reduced to crying, begging, drama, being bailed out by the camera crew and later by the men's team while the Men's team are building food, shelter, and others without any assistance from the camera crew. Both teams had equal amount of resources and number of people from all walks of life. It shows how woefully inadequate women are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8 ... reYouSleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyuUkUa ... nel=Aloudy

If we implement tsar's plan, then we are going to be F*cked.

We don't need 20%-40% of the men.

Imagine there's a society with 1,000,000 men. Would killing of 400,000 men really make any difference to how that society functions and advances? No! It would actually function better.

Guys would be celebrated, respected, easily build lives, and start families.

Employers would need to higher men.

Incomes would rise. Crime would decrease.

There's many benefits to having a cull of males, and it should happen either by changing nature or removing a percentage of males before they're born.

The only reason why excess men would be favored is to have expendable numbers to fight in wars to conquer new territory and build empires. That doesn't exist anymore so without eliminating excess men, as in them dying, some other way must be implemented to remove the 20%-40% of excess men.

The fact is that if the excess men force other men to be single, then it's about time someone states a fact.

The demographic factor must be addresses which means reducing the number of males born.

The surviving males would be more productive, more celebrated, and more motivated because of love and rewards.

My reasons why your civilization won't work or face collapse.

While that's true to the certain extend, how can you be sure that all 600,000 men can be productive? Some of them can be born with a handicap, retarded, dumb, birth defects, etc. And you also have to account for disease, natural disasters, available manpower, adverse climate conditions, etc. I am talking in a civilization perspective.

In addition, not all men or women would be willing to embrace a polygamous lifestyle(one men with two or more wives). And some men and women are incompatible in personality. There will be also intense and fierce competition among each men's wives to get their attention. And I don't think the men will be happy when they have to support two of more women and put up with their nagging bullsh*t from multiple women.
despite getting two or three times the salary and being celebrated and such.

I don't think crime will decrease as there will be less men to police your civilization... Despite the inclusion of female police officers, most of the time, it is the male police officer who can manhandle violent psychopathy criminals. A police force comprise of mostly women will be ineffective in deterring violent male criminals... you would need a male cop.

On top of that, despite women significantly outnumbering men, women are naturally hypergamous. Most of them will go for the alpha male powerful men with lot of wealth, land, and political power. The alpha male top 1 percenter will have 800,000 cocubines while the remaining 590,000 men will have to share 200,000 women and they will be the leftover ugly, demented, fat ones.

No, that's impossible. All your reasons are trivial.

I favor stealth euthanasia without the family's consent for anyone born with a handicap, deformity, mentally defective, or with birth defects. We cannot waste resources on these biological losers who nature has predetermined to be worthless from a breeding perspective.

Women are more hypergamous when the society allows them to be, but what exactly is hypergamous?

@Cornfed knows that may Western Women are going for criminals and dysgenics. Also, how is miscegenation hypergamy?

Why do some girls have relationships and sex with dogs? Is that hypergamy? How is a dog a better option than a human man? What resources or status does a dog provide a girl? A unique sex experience?

Many modern girls, especially in the West, are completely worthless cum dumpster sluts. Men effectively allow them to be and allow it without any consequences. This is because females were scarce and the effectively population of desirable females continue to become scarcer and scarcer.

We only need a small number of cops relative to the overall population. Also, we can have human controlled drones that can automatically kill violent criminals. An AI system can fly the drones on random patrols and if they see something suspicious then flag a barracks and the police will use a drone control unit to kill the murderers and rapists. Muggers can also be shot. Maybe not kill if a tranquilizer or temporarily paralytic agent is used on them. There are many solutions to this. Also, empower ordinary people to be volunteer police to stop violent crimes.

LOL Stealth euthanasia .. Oh well, then that makes it less than 600,000 males.. your gonna create a mass male shortage. Plus, Disease, Natural disasters and famine will also wipe out a portion of your males. Men are not immune to death, diseases and old age you know.

Well women are hypergamous because of evolutionary necessity for survival. They are the ones who have to carry the child for 9 months. That's less capability for them to look after themselves, so they need a strong and capable protector to look after them and their offspring. Human babies takes a long time to take care of and to cultivate.. they are not like other wild animal babies that are low maintenance.

Well your right. The men enabled western women to be shameless feminist sluts. And Big state funded western government and technology played their parts in enabling female beings sluts, and subsidizing their life style. However, if we do it your way then
you only have 600,000 to 500,000 men supporting 1,000,000 women in your civilization now based on your new eugenics policy. It's going to be a lot of burden for the men to support all those females. Nevertheless, if you have 1,100,000 men and 1,000,000 women, it wouldn't be a burden.

The better alternative would be installing a pro male-paternalistic government and have them restrict women's access to the job market in a 1 to 10 ratio. That way, men would get double and triple the salary, women will be more submissive to men, and you wouldn't have to wipe out 20-40% of your most productive and innovation churning out workforce.

So on crime, there is no due process or court system? you just kill every criminal Judge Dredd style with a drone? What if the guy is at the wrong place at the wrong time? You just blast him too? AI is not advanced yet and will takes decades to give it sentience. Drones can be used as surveillance, but criminals can find a way to jam the drones with signal disrupters(The Russian army is using it right now in Ukraine). It's going to be a giant violent sex orgy when couple of male criminals get a hold of weapons and they start shooting, killing, raping your so called volunteer civilians and police officers comprised of mostly females because you know.. there are two times more females than males..

Lastly I wonder how your military with small number of men will do against other foreign military comprised on surplus number of men?
Are you going to conscript every available female into the front line? If you do then they will make very poor soldiers..

Honestly it is shocking and disturbing to find a thread like this being made by supposedly traditional men. Slaughter male babies on mass so we can all have harems of women? This thread belongs on an extremist feminist forum. They sound like Megalians.

They also act like having two women for every guy and legalizing polygyny would result in some perfect 2 or 3 women per guy ratio when the reality is one guy who’s filthy rich would get like 1,000 concubines and a bunch of guys would still be left with no one.

The extreme right people on this forum prove more and more that horseshoe theory is in-fact real because there are times when I cannot distinguish the forum’s extreme right members from communists and radical feminists.

I’m not bashing true radical traditionalism/reactionary politics by the way. One can be in favor of radical transformations to society without being a crazy extremist.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Outcast9428

Not my idea to mass murder male babies..
Another one of Tsar's fantasy..