Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

A summary of some biological reasons for female behavior

Aquiline

Aquiline

Armored LDAR Fist
★★★
Joined
Oct 12, 2023
Posts
214
>inb4 dnr
>inb4 GrAY
I EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM .IS, GET IT OUT WHILE YOU CAN. YES, TELL ME HOW YOU DIDN'T READ A SINGLE WORD....HOW I AM A GRAY....I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.


Greetings. In this post, I'd like to lay down some fundamental blackpill theory from I suppose a more biological/evobio/evopsych/sociological perspective on why women behave the way they do. This is a compilation of essentially gathered information gotten through various different sources, including scientific literature (which can also be found within this forum and/or the incel wiki, among other places), secondary sources, and so on. In true blackpill fashion, I do not intend to prescribe behavior - I merely seek to provide an explanation/summary of the fundamental biological principles of the blackpill that have been brought forth as arguments in its support, which I feel are seldom discussed. My intention with this is to provide both incels, blackpillers in general, and outsiders with a comprehensive overview of at least a part of the blackpill. I am not a scientist in any way, and my only contact with the profession is college-level biology classes I took while still in school.

Context and Disclaimers

When I use the term 'blackpill' in this post, I specifically refer to the blackpill on human mating preference and relationship dynamics - something that is so foundational to society. The term 'blackpill,' in general, has two meanings: it can be seen as an uncomfortable truth, or it can just be seen as the deeper truth hidden behind the veil of what initially is present in front of something. Oftentimes, due to the nature of life and reality, the two are intertwined - specifically, that they are double entailed (one equals the other and vice-versa). The blackpill is, essentially, in its most literal definition a packet of information. That is all it is. It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology. You can be a capitalist or communist and still be blackpilled. You can be a liberal or a fascist and still be blackpilled. You can be a theist or an atheist and still be blackpilled. The idea that the blackpill is a white supremacist ideology, as presented by mainstream sources, is objectively false for the simple fact that an extremely large amount of 'blackpillers' (defined as individuals who subscribe to these sets of beliefs) and the ones most affected by it are non-white ethnics. The reasons for this will be discussed in the JBW section.

It is important to remember that the blackpill deals in truths about generalized patterns. Human relationships on the individual level are always more complex, if for no other reason than for the simple fact there are just too many variables to account for even on the individual level. Each change in scope (micro vs. macroscopic) has its own changes in variables as well, as these all interact and combine/counteract eachother in very complex ways. For all effective purposes, as real life - practical application - has shown us, you're still not any less fucked because of this (and why exactly this is the case will hopefully become clearer as this post progresses). For the sake of transparency and comprehensiveness, however, I do have to point this out, or else I'd be doing any reader of this a disservice. In addition, when specifically talking about the female sex it is necessary to consider the response. It is true that there may not be an immediate, quantifiable, direct, and tangible result that will arise out of reading this; the female sex is calculating in this regard, so it is much better to just ghost and hope this goes away. An attempt, however, has to be made, for what it’s worth it.

Above all, one must remember that the blackpill takes a lot out of a normal person. It is difficult to process, and even harder to sort truth from falsehood from half-truth...and so on and so forth. It takes a lot out of someone and after a while one may start to lose their own faculty of judgement, beginning to hastily and uncritically swallow up everything as being objectively true. The macro effects of blackpill media are also something to consider: though I do not intend to dispute the truths, when viewed from the outside - especially when regarded as an ideology - it is hard not to notice it that it essentially has the demoralizing and enervating effect at the (((elites))) have been known to produce in efforts to subvert societies. There's no solid connection yet that can be pointed out, but it's something one should keep in mind.

Economics Applied to the Dating Market

Economics and Sexual Economics Theory (essentially the application of the law of supply and demand into the sexual marketplace) is one of the most comprehensive methods one can apply in order to gain a deeper understanding of what we call the blackpill. In unregulated dating markets (no forced marriages, no slutshaming, etc.), women turn out to be the chief sexual selectors and gatekeepers of sex. In economics, this is called the principle of least interest: when an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person/entity with the least interest decides the terms of that activity. This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus is more likely to compromise than the other party. Women desire initiating sex with a partner of average attractiveness much less than men. As a result, most men have fewer options and - hence - more likely to make compromises in order to be able to attract the other sex. Making compromises means dating down in terms of value, which means women automatically date up. In SET, women sexually commodify themselves with a certain exchange value whenever they reject or accept men based on what they have to offer. Sex, then, becomes a resource in itself that men can purchase by amassing an array of valued goods: genetic material (looks, athletic performance), money, status, etc. (both material and non-material; socioeconomic). Women compete in “selling high” by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing male sexual frustration/desperation in order to inflate the price of sex. This allows women to set terms, including only forcing them to commit to resource provision (even in societies in which resources are abundant), allowing themselves an abundance of males, and so on. Women slut-shame (and therefore also want to maintain an image of being pure virgins, among other reasons) in order to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away freely lowers its value and, therefore, womens’ leverage over men. Women collude in this way, essentially forming “cartels,” inciting one another’s hypergamy and becoming a leisure class. This is only one factor affecting the disparity between male and female SMV, however.

Hypergamy (not just socioeconomic, but looks-based as well)

Hypergamy is the action of dating up in terms of value, whether it be relative to a previous partner or to any other males available; the benchmark is not limited to herself or the social standing of her family. There are multiple forms: looks hypergamy, resource hypergamy, status hypergamy, and so on. Hypergamy can be easily explained through Bateman’s Principle and Briffault’s Law, along with the relative disparity between both sexes’ SMV. An emphasis is rightfully placed on looks hypergamy, due to the importance of clearly visible genetic features - signs of traits adaptive to the environment and overall physical health - that can be passed down to offspring. Variability hypothesis also states that males exhibit a greater variety in many traits than females, such as sexual preferences, social attitudes, behaviors, intelligence, strength, other physical straits, genetic variation (in part due to mutation), etc. The only exception to this is fear and emotionality, which women show a greater variability towards. Male sexual desire is much more varied in that they more readily copulated with females; even unattractive women and obese ones receive much more attention than even average men (Juggernaut Law: female SMV is unstoppable, like a Juggernaut). This phenomenon becomes even more evident when women diagnosed with various mental illnesses have twice the fertility rates as do men with the same ones. This is especially devastating for unattractive men, as they can no longer lower their own standards/compromise more in order to establish a functioning relationship or to even get short-term sex. Women also seem to engage in higher levels of mate choice copying than men, stemming from either greater conformity/hypoagency (explaining a higher proneness to hysteria) or perhaps as a means of choosing high-status men explained by the bodyguard hypothesis and female hypergamy. Such a mate, in turn, serves as a confirmation of the female’s own SMV and gives her a sense of prestige/validation, with her potential offspring also inheriting traits seen as ‘valuable’ and benefiting from the males’ high-status position. Women get part of a man's social status;

Bateman's Principle

The inherent SMV - and, as a result, disparity in inherent individual value - between men and women arises as a result of Bateman’s Principle. Bateman’s Principle deals with parental investment: it states that females tend to produce fewer offspring than males do, but do so more reliably due to differences in parental investment. Conversely, a few males can have lots of offspring but give out low parental investment. Males, essentially, have more variance in reproductive success. Bateman’s Principle stance on females can be explained thusly:
  • Pregnancy is often extremely dangerous for females
  • Pregnancy is extremely time-consuming and incapacitating for the body
  • Pregnancy is metabolically taxing
  • Pregnancy is dangerous due to the large size of the human head and high birth weight relative to the mother’s size
  • The pocket shape of female genitals is more vulnerable to STDs
  • The offspring have a higher dependence on the mother, as only she is guaranteed to be present at birth
  • Newborns are dependent upon a mother’s breast milk
  • Human offspring are among the most dependent offspring of all animals due to their complex socialization process and slow brain development that allows for higher intelligence, with women historically being much more involved in raising the offspring than men
Comparing female egg cells to male sperm cells, it can be seen that the latter require much fewer resources and carry no risk of death or incapacitation. There is also no guarantee of the male having to stay following pregnancy, either. Men are free to engage in promiscuity with not much to lose, as in doing so they increase their chances of having surviving offspring and passing down genetic legacy - an indicator of both sexual and evolutionary success.

Due to this disparity, females have a lower expected lifetime reproductive success and a lower life history speed. As a result, each of the few offspring is subjected to higher standards - meaning women must subconsciously seek out competitive genetic material, be possessed of a lower sexual libido in order to further facilitate the choosing process, and, as a result, become the gatekeepers of sex and sexual selectors. They choose which men may stay in the genetic pool and which do not. Males’ high sex drive, conversely, creates extreme demand for women, subjecting the market to further pressure and increasing male frustration/desperation. Bateman’s Principle fully explains hypergamy and Sexual Economics Theory.

Due to their biological roles, females have a different evolutionary goal than men do. They are the physically weaker sex, and, as a result, focus strongly on resource provisioning and maintenance of their physical security. Strong, tall, masculine high-testosterone males are a chief contender for this rule, having evolved specific traits/had them sexually selected for in order to fit this role. It is debatable, however, how advantageous having a “strong high-T masculine” look is compared to just having a lean body, clear skin, and good bones/hair: ideally, a male would have all such features - though it is argued that, especially in the 21st century, merely possessing the latter (a more feminized, “pretty-boy” look) is enough. Height is universally selected for, however, being a clear sign of genetic quality. The Bodyguard Hypothesis states that women choose to pair bond with the most dominant man available to them in order to be protected from other contending males, especially sexually coercive ones (behavior which is explained by Bateman’s Principle and sexual economics). Women arguably need this protection because all men are possessed of a much greater physical strength than almost all women. Regardless, despite looks demands, females also on average have a much greater demand for attention and are more neurotic/paranoid than do men. This makes sense, as they need the attention for the offspring and benefit from the increased paranoia due to threats to the undeveloped and inexperienced offspring’s life.

Just Be White (JBW) Theory

Just Be White (JBW) theory states that whites have a serious advantage over all other races. This is because ethnics are of varyingly lower attractiveness than whites; many times, they are shorter, have smaller penises, and smaller/less dimorphic frames - with an extreme case of this being asians, including Indians. Another area in which they can fall short is just being facially less attractive on average - something blacks suffer from, despite often being taller, having better penis sizes, and being possessed of more masculine frames than usually any other race. The evolutionary reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted; I can only speculate: African women had so much abundance provided to them by the naturally warm and fertile lands of Africa that they were essentially granted conditions of material independence; they could afford to exclusively select partners based on pure sexual attractiveness rather than anything else, leading to the above-mentioned strengths in Africans. However, their poor performance compared to European faces could potentially be explained by African women of that time period still only being able to choose from among the men already present in Africa; it's essentially about local effects. The effect, however, of that pure look preference by females can be argue to still be clearly observable there. Now, nutritional and other factors can definitely play a role - but, then again, so could they in other areas of the world. In other places in the world, inbreeding and forced marriages that sough to fight and overpower the female need to mate with sexually attractive men can also explain why many of these races are less attractive.

This still leaves many questions unanswered. Why is the white skin color so preferred? It's not just Europeans' facial features that give their advantage, though that is - by far - the largest one that they have in my opinion, but their skin tone. Why this is the case, I couldn't say; you could propose various theories for this, and I've even heard of schizo batshit insane theories point out to humans being created as a slave race for their raw materials, and that white skin produces the best parchment or whatever (scroll down a bit, it's the post by the user usselo). I'm only referring to this in order to put things into perspective, and give some food for thought - not necessarily because I believe or because I wish for anyone else to believe in it (>inb4 tails or whoever makes a video using my post to showcase this forum is retarded). Whatever the case, this preference exists across all cultures and races - what with that one white-skinned blue-eyed Pakistani coffee/ice cream vendor (or whatever the hell he was) becoming a celebrity and opening up an international chain. He lucked the hell out.

Furthermore, as a side note, it can also be argued that the lack in need to choose high-status men due to this (traits often strongly correlated with a high work drive/intelligence) has essentially been a main factor leading to the African propensity for violence (a genetically masculine trait) and low intelligence (makes sense if all you select for is looks/bodyguards). I expect this information will make fans of a certain Dr. Verwoerd in this forum very happy, though this is ultimately a disastrous scenario for the human race as a large portion has essentially been disadvantaged in a very destructive way that leaves them prey to not only others but their own selves. I will talk more about the dilemma of status vs. looks later.

Skeletal Observations

But I digress. Getting back on topic: from what I have seen and concluded women, more or less - in my opinion, at least - are attracted to a person's skeleton, which includes their skull (which, in turn, obviously includes their face). It dictates their facial structure, their frame, how much muscle they can pack on, and so on and so forth. Even with shit skin and muscle genetics, a good skeleton can save you; it is the basis for good looks, though certainly not the end-all be-all. The skeleton is the only feature in your body that controls TWO (2) of the THREE (3) factors of the incel pyramid - those two being face and height, and the pyramid in general being face, height, and race. Remember when I said that despite outliers existing, you're still likely to be fucked? It's because those soyentists and medcels that receive trillions in funding still haven't found a way to reliable reshape/remold the skeleton. They can't do it! They can't, they just can't, they don't know how to. Or, at least, that's what they are telling us (who the hell knows what the elites have access to). Whether this is due to funds being stolen, poured into the wrong projects, poor coordination/communication, sheer laziness, or whatever the fuck it is, I don't know. To any STEMcels/medcels reading this, get your fucking ass into gear. This is not a party. You academics have a zero-tolerance policy for mediocrity, but expect the same to not apply to you. Pathetic.

(Potential) Societal Degradation due to Lookism

Touching a bit more on the topic of status vs. looks in terms of mate selection, the optimization problem women usually faced was important as it essentially forced women to have to select men on traits beyond the superficial. Status and resources correlate strongly with intelligence, innovation, dedication, drive, hard work (which is also partly genetic), and so on - all traits essential to the creation and maintenance of a high civilization. If all that is thrown out, however, there may be societal degradation; ending up with a society of inefficient, apathetic supermodels. The only caveat to this, however, is that good look shave shown to be correlated to increased intelligence in some studies - in an apparent show of good genes coming in packages/bundles, apparently.

Granted, then there's all the direct consequences of hyper-materialism/lookism: the depression, rejection, etc. But since men are so sedated, and women are more or less content with the way things are (and I'll elaborate on this down below in the next section), things are unlikely to change on their own.

Briffault's Law

Most men are raised in this blue pill mindset of trying to seek out an "equal" companion, which is not the case due to hypergamy. This leads to men trying to treat women they know as friends, but men and women understand "friendship" differently due to their different life experience. This contradiction then causes a lot of confusion and hurt, and not helped by the fact that currently is in a hyper-egalitarian and gynocentric stage/position in the historical cycle. People just get confused, and pain inevitably ensues - though, keep in mind here that when I say "hurt" I am by no means implying women want to go back to the 1950s where they had no rights. An example we can study is the LJBF rejection.

LJBF-type rejections take several years out of men; one thing that women especially seem to not appreciate much of the time. When a man is rejected this way and his emotions are toyed with, they quite literally eat away at his life years. It is a form of slow death, though for most women it never enters their minds they do anything else other than “being friendly.” But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, is it not? Evolution has certainly made it so that men feel this pain much more acutely for a reason, just like with sexual jealousy, which women also do not experience in the way men do. Perhaps rejection is always better than regret, though: it is better to endure a bitter and painful lesson rather than laying down and rotting in self-denial. Word of mouth is that there are plenty of instances of men killing themselves upon finally waking up too late, the accumulated regret hitting them all at once. A wise man learns from the deaths of others, though emotional attachment may persist. Rationally and logically, one knows when to conclude it’s over - but it still takes time to register emotionally. It is oftentimes an ego preservation mechanism - a reaction - trying to compensate for the rejection by looking for ways to justify itself. A good example can be seen from social media: when a young man gets dumped, he begins posting all these status updates and profile pictures trying to show he is living his best life. Cope or rope is an apt saying, in this regard. It is all in vain, however, as women simply just do not experience the sense of romantic regret they do when we see an ex prospect post glow up photos or what not. Women move on a lot faster than males, and men - especially in the West - are very interchangeable and replaceable (Briffault's Law). Orbiters are a source of attention for women they can pick and choose from. In most cases, they serve as backup options in case women ever become bored or otherwise dissatisfied with their current partner.

"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place." - Robert Stephen Briffault MC. Women will, as a general rule, only interact with you if they believe they can gain something by it. When she perceives no benefit, the relationship ends. Benefits can range from a wide variety of things: attention, company, emotional support, good feelings, sexual pleasure, good genes, resources and wealth, access to a better social circle/greater status, help with work, etc. Is it cynical? Yes. But it has been remarkably enduring ever since its old redpill days, and it still has great predictive value.

In a sense, women are incredibly luck they are able to drop and forget us so easily. It is rare for a woman to grieve as deeply as a man. But, in the past, women had children to feed during cold harsh winters; the death of the male was no excuse to let their child and themselves die. To let the species die off. I am no simp or apologist, but I can understand mother Nature's actions. That's, however, another difference between the sexes: women live more superficial, normie lives. Female IQ is similar to male IQ, yes, but it has far less variation; it's very mid, I suppose you could say. On the other hand, men are gifted/cursed with greater variation - meaning a greater proclivity to genius and/or madness. It's why men are so overrepresented relative to women in the achievements of high civilizations.

G.K. Chesterton said, "Women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw." CS Lewis also said something similar - commenting that women, due to their biology, are more predisposed to partial interests and they have a harder time being impartial/neutral/fair. Essentially, they’re always seeking the greater advantage for themselves and their offspring - as all mothers in nature do (and not something I necessarily fault them for). For a civilization to survive and flourish, however, you need to have cooperation. This requires justice and peace, and this is where man’s authority (today demonized as patriarchy) has often been the lynchpin and safeguard of civilization. Case in point, those married females with families who tried breaking out their prisoner boyfriends and going on the run - one of them killing herself, the other using the car her own cuck husband bought for her (JFL). Also goes to show you what a woman is willing to do for you, however, if she believes you're worth her time/she's genuinely attracted/in love with you. Brutal.

Either sex has its pros and cons, essentially. Women are probably perfectly capable of entering STEM and being leaders and whatnot; they just probably aren't as interested in it as men are - and if they are, it will be for different reasons. Men are the risk-taking sex; women not so much. Of course, it is men that will take the blame for this - but I digress.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Personally, I think this is the most disgusting aspect of the blackpilled reality and the modern world/society we live in: the commodification of humans (and not just in the economic sense, what with automation, workers' rights being thrown to shit, etc. but also due to the blackpill, the materialism, the bastardization of everything). We have truly come full circle: yes, women are sold into sex slavery or whatever - but men are also used and abused, then dumped. Men are more directly violent, women are more cunning - yet with the amount of male sedation going on, even this male violence has slowly started to die down.

When it comes to incels/blackpillers hating women, it is understandable. It is a humiliating existence, and you're not even allowed to die in a war trying to correct it. When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature. Same for us men, I suppose. Failing to grasp this leads many blackpillers to resentful MSTOW circles or the type of cringe, deranged, and entitled feminists that stalk Reddit forums and complain about men all day.

When Apartheid South Africa was surrounded by enemy nations seeking to overthrow its government and, essentially, take it out on its ruling white minority, it had to get its act into gear. Additional economic sanctions by the west lead to the nation becoming an isolated pariah state - leading to the government taking account of everything that was coming to destroy its nation and classifying it as a sort of 'Total Onslaught'; a mass of enemy combatants, policies, states, governments, and diplomacy headed its way, seeking to destroy it. In attempting to overcome this adversity, South Africa developed robust arms industries and a world-class military capable of defending itself. It produced the best artillery system known to man at the time, its own aircraft, armored vehicles, consumer products, and even all things nuclear - from energy, to weapons. I use the example of Apartheid South Africa for two reasons: one, because apartheid is essentially what many of us are effectively undergoing through today - the irony, essentially - and two, because I wanted to show an example of someone/something bracing for something big and doing all it can to prepare. I propose we today - not only incels, not only blackpillers, not only men, but society and humanity in general - face a sort of Total Onslaught of similar, if not greater, proportions. A much more insidious onslaught, yes, but an onslaught nonetheless.

About that stolenhistory thing: if you're a believer in conspiracy theories/spiritualism/psychic powers and such, it could be part of antediluvian history. In Judeo-Christian scripture, it's written that the world was once so wicked that God essentially hit a giant reset button and caused massive calamities in order to reset things. Maybe some of what the guy in that post describes are would-be relics from that period. As for JBW and races, things are complex; yes, there's differences, but ultimately humanity should work together. The new covenant suggests that God's intention is, perhaps, a unified humanity - a new spiritual race, as Evola might have put it, which could perhaps be the only solution to our issues. Warhammer 40k style, where the Emperor wanted to unify humanity and ascend it into a psychic race. Granted, that's a very literal example - spiritual probably has more of a noospheric context here, though you never know. Such a thing could also help to free us from material constraints, and even the blackpill - as the blackpill is, essentially, one of the biggest manifestations of materialism in existence as of now. Of course, you can then explore the thought that the(((elites))) bastardized and inverted this unity plan - turning it into a carnal unification (racemixing, extreme egalitarianism, etc.) first and foremost without regard to its intended spiritual unity. Miscegenation - aside from causing loss of national identity, which is a strong unifier and motivator, source of pride, and gives someone the right of quickly and reliably tracing their ancestry, etc. - also displays a higher frequency of dysgenic effects and psychological problems that arise in the kids. There's also issues with stable family formation that often come about. That's a really deep topic, however - though some initial tentative conclusions can be that miscegenating relationships should not be encouraged as much given the painful consequences they can entail, and due to the fact that downplaying negative effects plays into the aims of racial fetishists (many of whom are allied with the people that have put us into this situation to begin with). Regardless, this bastardization of a unified humanity is, I guess, possibly what's making us all eat shit right now. That's what the Devil in Christianity does: takes what is good (because he has no original power to make something of his own), and bastardizes it into something evil. I'm not saying all that I have mentioned in this paragraph should be taken literally; if we are to assume higher civilizations existed in the past (and they would have, at least in my opinion, had to as a lot of the information presented here and much more was known by our ancestors in at least some way, shape, or form), then we can take religions, myths, etc. to be allegories/metaphors/or at least be partially literal and partially metaphorical. The Ancients often speak in - to us - meaningless riddles and cryptic messages. You have to put in the work to understand them, and even then it's not the whole piece of the puzzle that's required. We will likely never understand the relation between the deep state and prehistory.

Sorry for taking such a philosophical tangent, but with such large amounts of human suffering you more or less are forced into such a discussion. These are just some thoughts that popped up during discussion with an acquaintance of mine. Take them as you will.

It is important to look at the blackpill not just as a tool - as it's not really a tool for anything, refer to the first paragraph - but, rather, as a universal truth. Something which an ideology can at least partly be built around; something by which a logos can form out of, but not necessarily an ideology/logos/word on its own. But one should be careful, as the blackpill is a heavy burden to bear; take care of yourselves, seek comfort and contact with others, share ideas, thoughts, but be mindful. I'd personally advise against it become a religion/substitute for one, or an absolute truth; be careful of letting a desolate materialism take over you. Take care of yourself when looking deep into the blackpill on relationships and other blackpills in every other area, lest you end up like that one guy that posted on this forum to talk about how his decaying tooth tasted like pork (literally puts the R in LDAR JFL). Confront your own mortality, confront the fact you may die alone and unloved by any woman for no good reason or through and fault of your own, and find what peace you can in whatever way you can. Let life become a form of amusement; look at clown world, and just laugh. It's difficult to keep going in such a world where you are unloved whilst others are; go to work, do this, do that, but reap no rewards. But keep in mind that the system will punish you if you do not do that. Most importantly, recognize you must find your own purpose. Also, look out for people who try to instigate something; not all can be trusted (e.g. Bible saying "they who try to save their life will surely lose it" - very cryptic and mysterious, and not necessarily in the biblical conspiracy theory sense but in that of conveying profound truths you can't grasp by secular reasoning alone). Basically it's just feds (or generally servants of the powers that be) trying to mold new "extremist threats." Don't take the bait, don't trust glowies, don't trust feds. Most, if not all, rebellions/insurgencies require the backing of an external actor in order to succeed. If you don't have that, it's tough to do anything. It's difficult to say what one should do: to act or not to act? That is the question. Ultimately, it is up to the individual.
Personally? Take the relationship blackpill. The women we love/loved are getting their brains fucked out right as we speak, meanwhile we are banned from their life permanently. Jobs and degrees, means to survive, land, pride, honor, and so much else taken from us - forcing to watch as the world becomes a bleaker place day by day. We have been humbled, we have been denied, and we must face the fact that the world is against us and we are all by ourselves. Even if we do not care about it anymore, our receptors have been fried and we have been forced into an unsustainable position in our own lives - not just because of abysmal relationship dynamics, but because of economic, academic, societal, administrative, and so many other reasons.

I like to think that one day, we will be there to return the favor (in Paradox Interactive's Stellaris sci-fi grand strategy game). That the storm rises only so that the thunderbolt may fall.

I believe that ultimately, if this species as we know it is to survive, it will have to tackle all aforementioned issues in the relatively near future once and for all. How this could be done, however, still eludes me. One thing is certain, though: in doing so, we will either ascend to new Olympian heights of glory - or fall into the depths of despair; the pit of a new Dark Age.

@Intellau_Celistic
@Asgard
@Feminism Sucks!
@PPEcel
 
Read every single word. Good post gray.
 
dnr, GrAY

( but will save for late)
 
High IQ thread

Marking so that I can come back later and read it again
 
>inb4 dnr
>inb4 GrAY
I EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM .IS, GET IT OUT WHILE YOU CAN. YES, TELL ME HOW YOU DIDN'T READ A SINGLE WORD....HOW I AM A GRAY....I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.
@kay' duty calls
 
Good post, I read most of it. Although my mental ability is pretty low right now. I think you explained a great deal very well.
 
i think this is a good summery overall for few blackpill arguments explaining foid rationality.
GOOOOOD
 
don't care GrAY

"It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology"

>meanwhile you go on to use it to make an ideological point

"When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature"
Yeah, perhaps I kind if contradicted myself there and made an assumption. I guess you still can hate woman - but I believe in the same way you'd, for example, hate cyclones or tsunamis. They just do what they do because nature made them do it - they don't think for themselves that they want to fuck you over right now (though when women want to fuck you over, they do it consciously - but they do it because that is their instinct genetically hardwired into them). That doesn't make them any less dangerous, though.

Also, the conclusions are just that - conclusions I have personally reached. Everything else is just me explaining how women function/operate.
 
Last edited:
It is important to look at the blackpill not just as a tool - as it's not really a tool for anything, refer to the first paragraph - but, rather, as a universal truth. Something which an ideology can at least partly be built around; something by which a logos can form out of, but not necessarily an ideology/logos/word on its own.
 
You justifying all behavior because of genetics makes moral culpability for anyone impossible
Behavior shouldn't be justified because of genetics, don't misunderstand me. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying we must understand it; once we do, some may not hate as much. Others may hate more. I just gave my own stance on it; I still fucking hate what is happening.
 
don't care GrAY

"It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology"

>meanwhile you go on to use it to make an ideological point

"When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature"
 
not reading a single word
 
>inb4 dnr
>inb4 GrAY
I EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM .IS, GET IT OUT WHILE YOU CAN. YES, TELL ME HOW YOU DIDN'T READ A SINGLE WORD....HOW I AM A GRAY....I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.


Greetings. In this post, I'd like to lay down some fundamental blackpill theory from I suppose a more biological/evobio/evopsych/sociological perspective on why women behave the way they do. This is a compilation of essentially gathered information gotten through various different sources, including scientific literature (which can also be found within this forum and/or the incel wiki, among other places), secondary sources, and so on. In true blackpill fashion, I do not intend to prescribe behavior - I merely seek to provide an explanation/summary of the fundamental biological principles of the blackpill that have been brought forth as arguments in its support, which I feel are seldom discussed. My intention with this is to provide both incels, blackpillers in general, and outsiders with a comprehensive overview of at least a part of the blackpill. I am not a scientist in any way, and my only contact with the profession is college-level biology classes I took while still in school.

Context and Disclaimers

When I use the term 'blackpill' in this post, I specifically refer to the blackpill on human mating preference and relationship dynamics - something that is so foundational to society. The term 'blackpill,' in general, has two meanings: it can be seen as an uncomfortable truth, or it can just be seen as the deeper truth hidden behind the veil of what initially is present in front of something. Oftentimes, due to the nature of life and reality, the two are intertwined - specifically, that they are double entailed (one equals the other and vice-versa). The blackpill is, essentially, in its most literal definition a packet of information. That is all it is. It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology. You can be a capitalist or communist and still be blackpilled. You can be a liberal or a fascist and still be blackpilled. You can be a theist or an atheist and still be blackpilled. The idea that the blackpill is a white supremacist ideology, as presented by mainstream sources, is objectively false for the simple fact that an extremely large amount of 'blackpillers' (defined as individuals who subscribe to these sets of beliefs) and the ones most affected by it are non-white ethnics. The reasons for this will be discussed in the JBW section.

It is important to remember that the blackpill deals in truths about generalized patterns. Human relationships on the individual level are always more complex, if for no other reason than for the simple fact there are just too many variables to account for even on the individual level. Each change in scope (micro vs. macroscopic) has its own changes in variables as well, as these all interact and combine/counteract eachother in very complex ways. For all effective purposes, as real life - practical application - has shown us, you're still not any less fucked because of this (and why exactly this is the case will hopefully become clearer as this post progresses). For the sake of transparency and comprehensiveness, however, I do have to point this out, or else I'd be doing any reader of this a disservice. In addition, when specifically talking about the female sex it is necessary to consider the response. It is true that there may not be an immediate, quantifiable, direct, and tangible result that will arise out of reading this; the female sex is calculating in this regard, so it is much better to just ghost and hope this goes away. An attempt, however, has to be made, for what it’s worth it.

Above all, one must remember that the blackpill takes a lot out of a normal person. It is difficult to process, and even harder to sort truth from falsehood from half-truth...and so on and so forth. It takes a lot out of someone and after a while one may start to lose their own faculty of judgement, beginning to hastily and uncritically swallow up everything as being objectively true. The macro effects of blackpill media are also something to consider: though I do not intend to dispute the truths, when viewed from the outside - especially when regarded as an ideology - it is hard not to notice it that it essentially has the demoralizing and enervating effect at the (((elites))) have been known to produce in efforts to subvert societies. There's no solid connection yet that can be pointed out, but it's something one should keep in mind.

Economics Applied to the Dating Market

Economics and Sexual Economics Theory (essentially the application of the law of supply and demand into the sexual marketplace) is one of the most comprehensive methods one can apply in order to gain a deeper understanding of what we call the blackpill. In unregulated dating markets (no forced marriages, no slutshaming, etc.), women turn out to be the chief sexual selectors and gatekeepers of sex. In economics, this is called the principle of least interest: when an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person/entity with the least interest decides the terms of that activity. This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus is more likely to compromise than the other party. Women desire initiating sex with a partner of average attractiveness much less than men. As a result, most men have fewer options and - hence - more likely to make compromises in order to be able to attract the other sex. Making compromises means dating down in terms of value, which means women automatically date up. In SET, women sexually commodify themselves with a certain exchange value whenever they reject or accept men based on what they have to offer. Sex, then, becomes a resource in itself that men can purchase by amassing an array of valued goods: genetic material (looks, athletic performance), money, status, etc. (both material and non-material; socioeconomic). Women compete in “selling high” by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing male sexual frustration/desperation in order to inflate the price of sex. This allows women to set terms, including only forcing them to commit to resource provision (even in societies in which resources are abundant), allowing themselves an abundance of males, and so on. Women slut-shame (and therefore also want to maintain an image of being pure virgins, among other reasons) in order to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away freely lowers its value and, therefore, womens’ leverage over men. Women collude in this way, essentially forming “cartels,” inciting one another’s hypergamy and becoming a leisure class. This is only one factor affecting the disparity between male and female SMV, however.

Hypergamy (not just socioeconomic, but looks-based as well)

Hypergamy is the action of dating up in terms of value, whether it be relative to a previous partner or to any other males available; the benchmark is not limited to herself or the social standing of her family. There are multiple forms: looks hypergamy, resource hypergamy, status hypergamy, and so on. Hypergamy can be easily explained through Bateman’s Principle and Briffault’s Law, along with the relative disparity between both sexes’ SMV. An emphasis is rightfully placed on looks hypergamy, due to the importance of clearly visible genetic features - signs of traits adaptive to the environment and overall physical health - that can be passed down to offspring. Variability hypothesis also states that males exhibit a greater variety in many traits than females, such as sexual preferences, social attitudes, behaviors, intelligence, strength, other physical straits, genetic variation (in part due to mutation), etc. The only exception to this is fear and emotionality, which women show a greater variability towards. Male sexual desire is much more varied in that they more readily copulated with females; even unattractive women and obese ones receive much more attention than even average men (Juggernaut Law: female SMV is unstoppable, like a Juggernaut). This phenomenon becomes even more evident when women diagnosed with various mental illnesses have twice the fertility rates as do men with the same ones. This is especially devastating for unattractive men, as they can no longer lower their own standards/compromise more in order to establish a functioning relationship or to even get short-term sex. Women also seem to engage in higher levels of mate choice copying than men, stemming from either greater conformity/hypoagency (explaining a higher proneness to hysteria) or perhaps as a means of choosing high-status men explained by the bodyguard hypothesis and female hypergamy. Such a mate, in turn, serves as a confirmation of the female’s own SMV and gives her a sense of prestige/validation, with her potential offspring also inheriting traits seen as ‘valuable’ and benefiting from the males’ high-status position. Women get part of a man's social status;

Bateman's Principle

The inherent SMV - and, as a result, disparity in inherent individual value - between men and women arises as a result of Bateman’s Principle. Bateman’s Principle deals with parental investment: it states that females tend to produce fewer offspring than males do, but do so more reliably due to differences in parental investment. Conversely, a few males can have lots of offspring but give out low parental investment. Males, essentially, have more variance in reproductive success. Bateman’s Principle stance on females can be explained thusly:
  • Pregnancy is often extremely dangerous for females
  • Pregnancy is extremely time-consuming and incapacitating for the body
  • Pregnancy is metabolically taxing
  • Pregnancy is dangerous due to the large size of the human head and high birth weight relative to the mother’s size
  • The pocket shape of female genitals is more vulnerable to STDs
  • The offspring have a higher dependence on the mother, as only she is guaranteed to be present at birth
  • Newborns are dependent upon a mother’s breast milk
  • Human offspring are among the most dependent offspring of all animals due to their complex socialization process and slow brain development that allows for higher intelligence, with women historically being much more involved in raising the offspring than men
Comparing female egg cells to male sperm cells, it can be seen that the latter require much fewer resources and carry no risk of death or incapacitation. There is also no guarantee of the male having to stay following pregnancy, either. Men are free to engage in promiscuity with not much to lose, as in doing so they increase their chances of having surviving offspring and passing down genetic legacy - an indicator of both sexual and evolutionary success.

Due to this disparity, females have a lower expected lifetime reproductive success and a lower life history speed. As a result, each of the few offspring is subjected to higher standards - meaning women must subconsciously seek out competitive genetic material, be possessed of a lower sexual libido in order to further facilitate the choosing process, and, as a result, become the gatekeepers of sex and sexual selectors. They choose which men may stay in the genetic pool and which do not. Males’ high sex drive, conversely, creates extreme demand for women, subjecting the market to further pressure and increasing male frustration/desperation. Bateman’s Principle fully explains hypergamy and Sexual Economics Theory.

Due to their biological roles, females have a different evolutionary goal than men do. They are the physically weaker sex, and, as a result, focus strongly on resource provisioning and maintenance of their physical security. Strong, tall, masculine high-testosterone males are a chief contender for this rule, having evolved specific traits/had them sexually selected for in order to fit this role. It is debatable, however, how advantageous having a “strong high-T masculine” look is compared to just having a lean body, clear skin, and good bones/hair: ideally, a male would have all such features - though it is argued that, especially in the 21st century, merely possessing the latter (a more feminized, “pretty-boy” look) is enough. Height is universally selected for, however, being a clear sign of genetic quality. The Bodyguard Hypothesis states that women choose to pair bond with the most dominant man available to them in order to be protected from other contending males, especially sexually coercive ones (behavior which is explained by Bateman’s Principle and sexual economics). Women arguably need this protection because all men are possessed of a much greater physical strength than almost all women. Regardless, despite looks demands, females also on average have a much greater demand for attention and are more neurotic/paranoid than do men. This makes sense, as they need the attention for the offspring and benefit from the increased paranoia due to threats to the undeveloped and inexperienced offspring’s life.

Just Be White (JBW) Theory

Just Be White (JBW) theory states that whites have a serious advantage over all other races. This is because ethnics are of varyingly lower attractiveness than whites; many times, they are shorter, have smaller penises, and smaller/less dimorphic frames - with an extreme case of this being asians, including Indians. Another area in which they can fall short is just being facially less attractive on average - something blacks suffer from, despite often being taller, having better penis sizes, and being possessed of more masculine frames than usually any other race. The evolutionary reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted; I can only speculate: African women had so much abundance provided to them by the naturally warm and fertile lands of Africa that they were essentially granted conditions of material independence; they could afford to exclusively select partners based on pure sexual attractiveness rather than anything else, leading to the above-mentioned strengths in Africans. However, their poor performance compared to European faces could potentially be explained by African women of that time period still only being able to choose from among the men already present in Africa; it's essentially about local effects. The effect, however, of that pure look preference by females can be argue to still be clearly observable there. Now, nutritional and other factors can definitely play a role - but, then again, so could they in other areas of the world. In other places in the world, inbreeding and forced marriages that sough to fight and overpower the female need to mate with sexually attractive men can also explain why many of these races are less attractive.

This still leaves many questions unanswered. Why is the white skin color so preferred? It's not just Europeans' facial features that give their advantage, though that is - by far - the largest one that they have in my opinion, but their skin tone. Why this is the case, I couldn't say; you could propose various theories for this, and I've even heard of schizo batshit insane theories point out to humans being created as a slave race for their raw materials, and that white skin produces the best parchment or whatever (scroll down a bit, it's the post by the user usselo). I'm only referring to this in order to put things into perspective, and give some food for thought - not necessarily because I believe or because I wish for anyone else to believe in it (>inb4 tails or whoever makes a video using my post to showcase this forum is retarded). Whatever the case, this preference exists across all cultures and races - what with that one white-skinned blue-eyed Pakistani coffee/ice cream vendor (or whatever the hell he was) becoming a celebrity and opening up an international chain. He lucked the hell out.

Furthermore, as a side note, it can also be argued that the lack in need to choose high-status men due to this (traits often strongly correlated with a high work drive/intelligence) has essentially been a main factor leading to the African propensity for violence (a genetically masculine trait) and low intelligence (makes sense if all you select for is looks/bodyguards). I expect this information will make fans of a certain Dr. Verwoerd in this forum very happy, though this is ultimately a disastrous scenario for the human race as a large portion has essentially been disadvantaged in a very destructive way that leaves them prey to not only others but their own selves. I will talk more about the dilemma of status vs. looks later.

Skeletal Observations

But I digress. Getting back on topic: from what I have seen and concluded women, more or less - in my opinion, at least - are attracted to a person's skeleton, which includes their skull (which, in turn, obviously includes their face). It dictates their facial structure, their frame, how much muscle they can pack on, and so on and so forth. Even with shit skin and muscle genetics, a good skeleton can save you; it is the basis for good looks, though certainly not the end-all be-all. The skeleton is the only feature in your body that controls TWO (2) of the THREE (3) factors of the incel pyramid - those two being face and height, and the pyramid in general being face, height, and race. Remember when I said that despite outliers existing, you're still likely to be fucked? It's because those soyentists and medcels that receive trillions in funding still haven't found a way to reliable reshape/remold the skeleton. They can't do it! They can't, they just can't, they don't know how to. Or, at least, that's what they are telling us (who the hell knows what the elites have access to). Whether this is due to funds being stolen, poured into the wrong projects, poor coordination/communication, sheer laziness, or whatever the fuck it is, I don't know. To any STEMcels/medcels reading this, get your fucking ass into gear. This is not a party. You academics have a zero-tolerance policy for mediocrity, but expect the same to not apply to you. Pathetic.

(Potential) Societal Degradation due to Lookism

Touching a bit more on the topic of status vs. looks in terms of mate selection, the optimization problem women usually faced was important as it essentially forced women to have to select men on traits beyond the superficial. Status and resources correlate strongly with intelligence, innovation, dedication, drive, hard work (which is also partly genetic), and so on - all traits essential to the creation and maintenance of a high civilization. If all that is thrown out, however, there may be societal degradation; ending up with a society of inefficient, apathetic supermodels. The only caveat to this, however, is that good look shave shown to be correlated to increased intelligence in some studies - in an apparent show of good genes coming in packages/bundles, apparently.

Granted, then there's all the direct consequences of hyper-materialism/lookism: the depression, rejection, etc. But since men are so sedated, and women are more or less content with the way things are (and I'll elaborate on this down below in the next section), things are unlikely to change on their own.

Briffault's Law

Most men are raised in this blue pill mindset of trying to seek out an "equal" companion, which is not the case due to hypergamy. This leads to men trying to treat women they know as friends, but men and women understand "friendship" differently due to their different life experience. This contradiction then causes a lot of confusion and hurt, and not helped by the fact that currently is in a hyper-egalitarian and gynocentric stage/position in the historical cycle. People just get confused, and pain inevitably ensues - though, keep in mind here that when I say "hurt" I am by no means implying women want to go back to the 1950s where they had no rights. An example we can study is the LJBF rejection.

LJBF-type rejections take several years out of men; one thing that women especially seem to not appreciate much of the time. When a man is rejected this way and his emotions are toyed with, they quite literally eat away at his life years. It is a form of slow death, though for most women it never enters their minds they do anything else other than “being friendly.” But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, is it not? Evolution has certainly made it so that men feel this pain much more acutely for a reason, just like with sexual jealousy, which women also do not experience in the way men do. Perhaps rejection is always better than regret, though: it is better to endure a bitter and painful lesson rather than laying down and rotting in self-denial. Word of mouth is that there are plenty of instances of men killing themselves upon finally waking up too late, the accumulated regret hitting them all at once. A wise man learns from the deaths of others, though emotional attachment may persist. Rationally and logically, one knows when to conclude it’s over - but it still takes time to register emotionally. It is oftentimes an ego preservation mechanism - a reaction - trying to compensate for the rejection by looking for ways to justify itself. A good example can be seen from social media: when a young man gets dumped, he begins posting all these status updates and profile pictures trying to show he is living his best life. Cope or rope is an apt saying, in this regard. It is all in vain, however, as women simply just do not experience the sense of romantic regret they do when we see an ex prospect post glow up photos or what not. Women move on a lot faster than males, and men - especially in the West - are very interchangeable and replaceable (Briffault's Law). Orbiters are a source of attention for women they can pick and choose from. In most cases, they serve as backup options in case women ever become bored or otherwise dissatisfied with their current partner.

"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place." - Robert Stephen Briffault MC. Women will, as a general rule, only interact with you if they believe they can gain something by it. When she perceives no benefit, the relationship ends. Benefits can range from a wide variety of things: attention, company, emotional support, good feelings, sexual pleasure, good genes, resources and wealth, access to a better social circle/greater status, help with work, etc. Is it cynical? Yes. But it has been remarkably enduring ever since its old redpill days, and it still has great predictive value.

In a sense, women are incredibly luck they are able to drop and forget us so easily. It is rare for a woman to grieve as deeply as a man. But, in the past, women had children to feed during cold harsh winters; the death of the male was no excuse to let their child and themselves die. To let the species die off. I am no simp or apologist, but I can understand mother Nature's actions. That's, however, another difference between the sexes: women live more superficial, normie lives. Female IQ is similar to male IQ, yes, but it has far less variation; it's very mid, I suppose you could say. On the other hand, men are gifted/cursed with greater variation - meaning a greater proclivity to genius and/or madness. It's why men are so overrepresented relative to women in the achievements of high civilizations.

G.K. Chesterton said, "Women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw." CS Lewis also said something similar - commenting that women, due to their biology, are more predisposed to partial interests and they have a harder time being impartial/neutral/fair. Essentially, they’re always seeking the greater advantage for themselves and their offspring - as all mothers in nature do (and not something I necessarily fault them for). For a civilization to survive and flourish, however, you need to have cooperation. This requires justice and peace, and this is where man’s authority (today demonized as patriarchy) has often been the lynchpin and safeguard of civilization. Case in point, those married females with families who tried breaking out their prisoner boyfriends and going on the run - one of them killing herself, the other using the car her own cuck husband bought for her (JFL). Also goes to show you what a woman is willing to do for you, however, if she believes you're worth her time/she's genuinely attracted/in love with you. Brutal.

Either sex has its pros and cons, essentially. Women are probably perfectly capable of entering STEM and being leaders and whatnot; they just probably aren't as interested in it as men are - and if they are, it will be for different reasons. Men are the risk-taking sex; women not so much. Of course, it is men that will take the blame for this - but I digress.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Personally, I think this is the most disgusting aspect of the blackpilled reality and the modern world/society we live in: the commodification of humans (and not just in the economic sense, what with automation, workers' rights being thrown to shit, etc. but also due to the blackpill, the materialism, the bastardization of everything). We have truly come full circle: yes, women are sold into sex slavery or whatever - but men are also used and abused, then dumped. Men are more directly violent, women are more cunning - yet with the amount of male sedation going on, even this male violence has slowly started to die down.

When it comes to incels/blackpillers hating women, it is understandable. It is a humiliating existence, and you're not even allowed to die in a war trying to correct it. When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature. Same for us men, I suppose. Failing to grasp this leads many blackpillers to resentful MSTOW circles or the type of cringe, deranged, and entitled feminists that stalk Reddit forums and complain about men all day.

When Apartheid South Africa was surrounded by enemy nations seeking to overthrow its government and, essentially, take it out on its ruling white minority, it had to get its act into gear. Additional economic sanctions by the west lead to the nation becoming an isolated pariah state - leading to the government taking account of everything that was coming to destroy its nation and classifying it as a sort of 'Total Onslaught'; a mass of enemy combatants, policies, states, governments, and diplomacy headed its way, seeking to destroy it. In attempting to overcome this adversity, South Africa developed robust arms industries and a world-class military capable of defending itself. It produced the best artillery system known to man at the time, its own aircraft, armored vehicles, consumer products, and even all things nuclear - from energy, to weapons. I use the example of Apartheid South Africa for two reasons: one, because apartheid is essentially what many of us are effectively undergoing through today - the irony, essentially - and two, because I wanted to show an example of someone/something bracing for something big and doing all it can to prepare. I propose we today - not only incels, not only blackpillers, not only men, but society and humanity in general - face a sort of Total Onslaught of similar, if not greater, proportions. A much more insidious onslaught, yes, but an onslaught nonetheless.

About that stolenhistory thing: if you're a believer in conspiracy theories/spiritualism/psychic powers and such, it could be part of antediluvian history. In Judeo-Christian scripture, it's written that the world was once so wicked that God essentially hit a giant reset button and caused massive calamities in order to reset things. Maybe some of what the guy in that post describes are would-be relics from that period. As for JBW and races, things are complex; yes, there's differences, but ultimately humanity should work together. The new covenant suggests that God's intention is, perhaps, a unified humanity - a new spiritual race, as Evola might have put it, which could perhaps be the only solution to our issues. Warhammer 40k style, where the Emperor wanted to unify humanity and ascend it into a psychic race. Granted, that's a very literal example - spiritual probably has more of a noospheric context here, though you never know. Such a thing could also help to free us from material constraints, and even the blackpill - as the blackpill is, essentially, one of the biggest manifestations of materialism in existence as of now. Of course, you can then explore the thought that the(((elites))) bastardized and inverted this unity plan - turning it into a carnal unification (racemixing, extreme egalitarianism, etc.) first and foremost without regard to its intended spiritual unity. Miscegenation - aside from causing loss of national identity, which is a strong unifier and motivator, source of pride, and gives someone the right of quickly and reliably tracing their ancestry, etc. - also displays a higher frequency of dysgenic effects and psychological problems that arise in the kids. There's also issues with stable family formation that often come about. That's a really deep topic, however - though some initial tentative conclusions can be that miscegenating relationships should not be encouraged as much given the painful consequences they can entail, and due to the fact that downplaying negative effects plays into the aims of racial fetishists (many of whom are allied with the people that have put us into this situation to begin with). Regardless, this bastardization of a unified humanity is, I guess, possibly what's making us all eat shit right now. That's what the Devil in Christianity does: takes what is good (because he has no original power to make something of his own), and bastardizes it into something evil. I'm not saying all that I have mentioned in this paragraph should be taken literally; if we are to assume higher civilizations existed in the past (and they would have, at least in my opinion, had to as a lot of the information presented here and much more was known by our ancestors in at least some way, shape, or form), then we can take religions, myths, etc. to be allegories/metaphors/or at least be partially literal and partially metaphorical. The Ancients often speak in - to us - meaningless riddles and cryptic messages. You have to put in the work to understand them, and even then it's not the whole piece of the puzzle that's required. We will likely never understand the relation between the deep state and prehistory.

Sorry for taking such a philosophical tangent, but with such large amounts of human suffering you more or less are forced into such a discussion. These are just some thoughts that popped up during discussion with an acquaintance of mine. Take them as you will.

It is important to look at the blackpill not just as a tool - as it's not really a tool for anything, refer to the first paragraph - but, rather, as a universal truth. Something which an ideology can at least partly be built around; something by which a logos can form out of, but not necessarily an ideology/logos/word on its own. But one should be careful, as the blackpill is a heavy burden to bear; take care of yourselves, seek comfort and contact with others, share ideas, thoughts, but be mindful. I'd personally advise against it become a religion/substitute for one, or an absolute truth; be careful of letting a desolate materialism take over you. Take care of yourself when looking deep into the blackpill on relationships and other blackpills in every other area, lest you end up like that one guy that posted on this forum to talk about how his decaying tooth tasted like pork (literally puts the R in LDAR JFL). Confront your own mortality, confront the fact you may die alone and unloved by any woman for no good reason or through and fault of your own, and find what peace you can in whatever way you can. Let life become a form of amusement; look at clown world, and just laugh. It's difficult to keep going in such a world where you are unloved whilst others are; go to work, do this, do that, but reap no rewards. But keep in mind that the system will punish you if you do not do that. Most importantly, recognize you must find your own purpose. Also, look out for people who try to instigate something; not all can be trusted (e.g. Bible saying "they who try to save their life will surely lose it" - very cryptic and mysterious, and not necessarily in the biblical conspiracy theory sense but in that of conveying profound truths you can't grasp by secular reasoning alone). Basically it's just feds (or generally servants of the powers that be) trying to mold new "extremist threats." Don't take the bait, don't trust glowies, don't trust feds. Most, if not all, rebellions/insurgencies require the backing of an external actor in order to succeed. If you don't have that, it's tough to do anything. It's difficult to say what one should do: to act or not to act? That is the question. Ultimately, it is up to the individual.
Personally? Take the relationship blackpill. The women we love/loved are getting their brains fucked out right as we speak, meanwhile we are banned from their life permanently. Jobs and degrees, means to survive, land, pride, honor, and so much else taken from us - forcing to watch as the world becomes a bleaker place day by day. We have been humbled, we have been denied, and we must face the fact that the world is against us and we are all by ourselves. Even if we do not care about it anymore, our receptors have been fried and we have been forced into an unsustainable position in our own lives - not just because of abysmal relationship dynamics, but because of economic, academic, societal, administrative, and so many other reasons.

I like to think that one day, we will be there to return the favor (in Paradox Interactive's Stellaris sci-fi grand strategy game). That the storm rises only so that the thunderbolt may fall.

I believe that ultimately, if this species as we know it is to survive, it will have to tackle all aforementioned issues in the relatively near future once and for all. How this could be done, however, still eludes me. One thing is certain, though: in doing so, we will either ascend to new Olympian heights of glory - or fall into the depths of despair; the pit of a new Dark Age.

@Intellau_Celistic
@Asgard
@Feminism Sucks!
@PPEcel
Great in depth post, any psychological post is good to delve into because they hold proven unobjectifiable truth in it.
 
>inb4 dnr
>inb4 GrAY
I EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM .IS, GET IT OUT WHILE YOU CAN. YES, TELL ME HOW YOU DIDN'T READ A SINGLE WORD....HOW I AM A GRAY....I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.


Greetings. In this post, I'd like to lay down some fundamental blackpill theory from I suppose a more biological/evobio/evopsych/sociological perspective on why women behave the way they do. This is a compilation of essentially gathered information gotten through various different sources, including scientific literature (which can also be found within this forum and/or the incel wiki, among other places), secondary sources, and so on. In true blackpill fashion, I do not intend to prescribe behavior - I merely seek to provide an explanation/summary of the fundamental biological principles of the blackpill that have been brought forth as arguments in its support, which I feel are seldom discussed. My intention with this is to provide both incels, blackpillers in general, and outsiders with a comprehensive overview of at least a part of the blackpill. I am not a scientist in any way, and my only contact with the profession is college-level biology classes I took while still in school.

Context and Disclaimers

When I use the term 'blackpill' in this post, I specifically refer to the blackpill on human mating preference and relationship dynamics - something that is so foundational to society. The term 'blackpill,' in general, has two meanings: it can be seen as an uncomfortable truth, or it can just be seen as the deeper truth hidden behind the veil of what initially is present in front of something. Oftentimes, due to the nature of life and reality, the two are intertwined - specifically, that they are double entailed (one equals the other and vice-versa). The blackpill is, essentially, in its most literal definition a packet of information. That is all it is. It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology. You can be a capitalist or communist and still be blackpilled. You can be a liberal or a fascist and still be blackpilled. You can be a theist or an atheist and still be blackpilled. The idea that the blackpill is a white supremacist ideology, as presented by mainstream sources, is objectively false for the simple fact that an extremely large amount of 'blackpillers' (defined as individuals who subscribe to these sets of beliefs) and the ones most affected by it are non-white ethnics. The reasons for this will be discussed in the JBW section.

It is important to remember that the blackpill deals in truths about generalized patterns. Human relationships on the individual level are always more complex, if for no other reason than for the simple fact there are just too many variables to account for even on the individual level. Each change in scope (micro vs. macroscopic) has its own changes in variables as well, as these all interact and combine/counteract eachother in very complex ways. For all effective purposes, as real life - practical application - has shown us, you're still not any less fucked because of this (and why exactly this is the case will hopefully become clearer as this post progresses). For the sake of transparency and comprehensiveness, however, I do have to point this out, or else I'd be doing any reader of this a disservice. In addition, when specifically talking about the female sex it is necessary to consider the response. It is true that there may not be an immediate, quantifiable, direct, and tangible result that will arise out of reading this; the female sex is calculating in this regard, so it is much better to just ghost and hope this goes away. An attempt, however, has to be made, for what it’s worth it.

Above all, one must remember that the blackpill takes a lot out of a normal person. It is difficult to process, and even harder to sort truth from falsehood from half-truth...and so on and so forth. It takes a lot out of someone and after a while one may start to lose their own faculty of judgement, beginning to hastily and uncritically swallow up everything as being objectively true. The macro effects of blackpill media are also something to consider: though I do not intend to dispute the truths, when viewed from the outside - especially when regarded as an ideology - it is hard not to notice it that it essentially has the demoralizing and enervating effect at the (((elites))) have been known to produce in efforts to subvert societies. There's no solid connection yet that can be pointed out, but it's something one should keep in mind.

Economics Applied to the Dating Market

Economics and Sexual Economics Theory (essentially the application of the law of supply and demand into the sexual marketplace) is one of the most comprehensive methods one can apply in order to gain a deeper understanding of what we call the blackpill. In unregulated dating markets (no forced marriages, no slutshaming, etc.), women turn out to be the chief sexual selectors and gatekeepers of sex. In economics, this is called the principle of least interest: when an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person/entity with the least interest decides the terms of that activity. This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus is more likely to compromise than the other party. Women desire initiating sex with a partner of average attractiveness much less than men. As a result, most men have fewer options and - hence - more likely to make compromises in order to be able to attract the other sex. Making compromises means dating down in terms of value, which means women automatically date up. In SET, women sexually commodify themselves with a certain exchange value whenever they reject or accept men based on what they have to offer. Sex, then, becomes a resource in itself that men can purchase by amassing an array of valued goods: genetic material (looks, athletic performance), money, status, etc. (both material and non-material; socioeconomic). Women compete in “selling high” by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing male sexual frustration/desperation in order to inflate the price of sex. This allows women to set terms, including only forcing them to commit to resource provision (even in societies in which resources are abundant), allowing themselves an abundance of males, and so on. Women slut-shame (and therefore also want to maintain an image of being pure virgins, among other reasons) in order to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away freely lowers its value and, therefore, womens’ leverage over men. Women collude in this way, essentially forming “cartels,” inciting one another’s hypergamy and becoming a leisure class. This is only one factor affecting the disparity between male and female SMV, however.

Hypergamy (not just socioeconomic, but looks-based as well)

Hypergamy is the action of dating up in terms of value, whether it be relative to a previous partner or to any other males available; the benchmark is not limited to herself or the social standing of her family. There are multiple forms: looks hypergamy, resource hypergamy, status hypergamy, and so on. Hypergamy can be easily explained through Bateman’s Principle and Briffault’s Law, along with the relative disparity between both sexes’ SMV. An emphasis is rightfully placed on looks hypergamy, due to the importance of clearly visible genetic features - signs of traits adaptive to the environment and overall physical health - that can be passed down to offspring. Variability hypothesis also states that males exhibit a greater variety in many traits than females, such as sexual preferences, social attitudes, behaviors, intelligence, strength, other physical straits, genetic variation (in part due to mutation), etc. The only exception to this is fear and emotionality, which women show a greater variability towards. Male sexual desire is much more varied in that they more readily copulated with females; even unattractive women and obese ones receive much more attention than even average men (Juggernaut Law: female SMV is unstoppable, like a Juggernaut). This phenomenon becomes even more evident when women diagnosed with various mental illnesses have twice the fertility rates as do men with the same ones. This is especially devastating for unattractive men, as they can no longer lower their own standards/compromise more in order to establish a functioning relationship or to even get short-term sex. Women also seem to engage in higher levels of mate choice copying than men, stemming from either greater conformity/hypoagency (explaining a higher proneness to hysteria) or perhaps as a means of choosing high-status men explained by the bodyguard hypothesis and female hypergamy. Such a mate, in turn, serves as a confirmation of the female’s own SMV and gives her a sense of prestige/validation, with her potential offspring also inheriting traits seen as ‘valuable’ and benefiting from the males’ high-status position. Women get part of a man's social status;

Bateman's Principle

The inherent SMV - and, as a result, disparity in inherent individual value - between men and women arises as a result of Bateman’s Principle. Bateman’s Principle deals with parental investment: it states that females tend to produce fewer offspring than males do, but do so more reliably due to differences in parental investment. Conversely, a few males can have lots of offspring but give out low parental investment. Males, essentially, have more variance in reproductive success. Bateman’s Principle stance on females can be explained thusly:
  • Pregnancy is often extremely dangerous for females
  • Pregnancy is extremely time-consuming and incapacitating for the body
  • Pregnancy is metabolically taxing
  • Pregnancy is dangerous due to the large size of the human head and high birth weight relative to the mother’s size
  • The pocket shape of female genitals is more vulnerable to STDs
  • The offspring have a higher dependence on the mother, as only she is guaranteed to be present at birth
  • Newborns are dependent upon a mother’s breast milk
  • Human offspring are among the most dependent offspring of all animals due to their complex socialization process and slow brain development that allows for higher intelligence, with women historically being much more involved in raising the offspring than men
Comparing female egg cells to male sperm cells, it can be seen that the latter require much fewer resources and carry no risk of death or incapacitation. There is also no guarantee of the male having to stay following pregnancy, either. Men are free to engage in promiscuity with not much to lose, as in doing so they increase their chances of having surviving offspring and passing down genetic legacy - an indicator of both sexual and evolutionary success.

Due to this disparity, females have a lower expected lifetime reproductive success and a lower life history speed. As a result, each of the few offspring is subjected to higher standards - meaning women must subconsciously seek out competitive genetic material, be possessed of a lower sexual libido in order to further facilitate the choosing process, and, as a result, become the gatekeepers of sex and sexual selectors. They choose which men may stay in the genetic pool and which do not. Males’ high sex drive, conversely, creates extreme demand for women, subjecting the market to further pressure and increasing male frustration/desperation. Bateman’s Principle fully explains hypergamy and Sexual Economics Theory.

Due to their biological roles, females have a different evolutionary goal than men do. They are the physically weaker sex, and, as a result, focus strongly on resource provisioning and maintenance of their physical security. Strong, tall, masculine high-testosterone males are a chief contender for this rule, having evolved specific traits/had them sexually selected for in order to fit this role. It is debatable, however, how advantageous having a “strong high-T masculine” look is compared to just having a lean body, clear skin, and good bones/hair: ideally, a male would have all such features - though it is argued that, especially in the 21st century, merely possessing the latter (a more feminized, “pretty-boy” look) is enough. Height is universally selected for, however, being a clear sign of genetic quality. The Bodyguard Hypothesis states that women choose to pair bond with the most dominant man available to them in order to be protected from other contending males, especially sexually coercive ones (behavior which is explained by Bateman’s Principle and sexual economics). Women arguably need this protection because all men are possessed of a much greater physical strength than almost all women. Regardless, despite looks demands, females also on average have a much greater demand for attention and are more neurotic/paranoid than do men. This makes sense, as they need the attention for the offspring and benefit from the increased paranoia due to threats to the undeveloped and inexperienced offspring’s life.

Just Be White (JBW) Theory

Just Be White (JBW) theory states that whites have a serious advantage over all other races. This is because ethnics are of varyingly lower attractiveness than whites; many times, they are shorter, have smaller penises, and smaller/less dimorphic frames - with an extreme case of this being asians, including Indians. Another area in which they can fall short is just being facially less attractive on average - something blacks suffer from, despite often being taller, having better penis sizes, and being possessed of more masculine frames than usually any other race. The evolutionary reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted; I can only speculate: African women had so much abundance provided to them by the naturally warm and fertile lands of Africa that they were essentially granted conditions of material independence; they could afford to exclusively select partners based on pure sexual attractiveness rather than anything else, leading to the above-mentioned strengths in Africans. However, their poor performance compared to European faces could potentially be explained by African women of that time period still only being able to choose from among the men already present in Africa; it's essentially about local effects. The effect, however, of that pure look preference by females can be argue to still be clearly observable there. Now, nutritional and other factors can definitely play a role - but, then again, so could they in other areas of the world. In other places in the world, inbreeding and forced marriages that sough to fight and overpower the female need to mate with sexually attractive men can also explain why many of these races are less attractive.

This still leaves many questions unanswered. Why is the white skin color so preferred? It's not just Europeans' facial features that give their advantage, though that is - by far - the largest one that they have in my opinion, but their skin tone. Why this is the case, I couldn't say; you could propose various theories for this, and I've even heard of schizo batshit insane theories point out to humans being created as a slave race for their raw materials, and that white skin produces the best parchment or whatever (scroll down a bit, it's the post by the user usselo). I'm only referring to this in order to put things into perspective, and give some food for thought - not necessarily because I believe or because I wish for anyone else to believe in it (>inb4 tails or whoever makes a video using my post to showcase this forum is retarded). Whatever the case, this preference exists across all cultures and races - what with that one white-skinned blue-eyed Pakistani coffee/ice cream vendor (or whatever the hell he was) becoming a celebrity and opening up an international chain. He lucked the hell out.

Furthermore, as a side note, it can also be argued that the lack in need to choose high-status men due to this (traits often strongly correlated with a high work drive/intelligence) has essentially been a main factor leading to the African propensity for violence (a genetically masculine trait) and low intelligence (makes sense if all you select for is looks/bodyguards). I expect this information will make fans of a certain Dr. Verwoerd in this forum very happy, though this is ultimately a disastrous scenario for the human race as a large portion has essentially been disadvantaged in a very destructive way that leaves them prey to not only others but their own selves. I will talk more about the dilemma of status vs. looks later.

Skeletal Observations

But I digress. Getting back on topic: from what I have seen and concluded women, more or less - in my opinion, at least - are attracted to a person's skeleton, which includes their skull (which, in turn, obviously includes their face). It dictates their facial structure, their frame, how much muscle they can pack on, and so on and so forth. Even with shit skin and muscle genetics, a good skeleton can save you; it is the basis for good looks, though certainly not the end-all be-all. The skeleton is the only feature in your body that controls TWO (2) of the THREE (3) factors of the incel pyramid - those two being face and height, and the pyramid in general being face, height, and race. Remember when I said that despite outliers existing, you're still likely to be fucked? It's because those soyentists and medcels that receive trillions in funding still haven't found a way to reliable reshape/remold the skeleton. They can't do it! They can't, they just can't, they don't know how to. Or, at least, that's what they are telling us (who the hell knows what the elites have access to). Whether this is due to funds being stolen, poured into the wrong projects, poor coordination/communication, sheer laziness, or whatever the fuck it is, I don't know. To any STEMcels/medcels reading this, get your fucking ass into gear. This is not a party. You academics have a zero-tolerance policy for mediocrity, but expect the same to not apply to you. Pathetic.

(Potential) Societal Degradation due to Lookism

Touching a bit more on the topic of status vs. looks in terms of mate selection, the optimization problem women usually faced was important as it essentially forced women to have to select men on traits beyond the superficial. Status and resources correlate strongly with intelligence, innovation, dedication, drive, hard work (which is also partly genetic), and so on - all traits essential to the creation and maintenance of a high civilization. If all that is thrown out, however, there may be societal degradation; ending up with a society of inefficient, apathetic supermodels. The only caveat to this, however, is that good look shave shown to be correlated to increased intelligence in some studies - in an apparent show of good genes coming in packages/bundles, apparently.

Granted, then there's all the direct consequences of hyper-materialism/lookism: the depression, rejection, etc. But since men are so sedated, and women are more or less content with the way things are (and I'll elaborate on this down below in the next section), things are unlikely to change on their own.

Briffault's Law

Most men are raised in this blue pill mindset of trying to seek out an "equal" companion, which is not the case due to hypergamy. This leads to men trying to treat women they know as friends, but men and women understand "friendship" differently due to their different life experience. This contradiction then causes a lot of confusion and hurt, and not helped by the fact that currently is in a hyper-egalitarian and gynocentric stage/position in the historical cycle. People just get confused, and pain inevitably ensues - though, keep in mind here that when I say "hurt" I am by no means implying women want to go back to the 1950s where they had no rights. An example we can study is the LJBF rejection.

LJBF-type rejections take several years out of men; one thing that women especially seem to not appreciate much of the time. When a man is rejected this way and his emotions are toyed with, they quite literally eat away at his life years. It is a form of slow death, though for most women it never enters their minds they do anything else other than “being friendly.” But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, is it not? Evolution has certainly made it so that men feel this pain much more acutely for a reason, just like with sexual jealousy, which women also do not experience in the way men do. Perhaps rejection is always better than regret, though: it is better to endure a bitter and painful lesson rather than laying down and rotting in self-denial. Word of mouth is that there are plenty of instances of men killing themselves upon finally waking up too late, the accumulated regret hitting them all at once. A wise man learns from the deaths of others, though emotional attachment may persist. Rationally and logically, one knows when to conclude it’s over - but it still takes time to register emotionally. It is oftentimes an ego preservation mechanism - a reaction - trying to compensate for the rejection by looking for ways to justify itself. A good example can be seen from social media: when a young man gets dumped, he begins posting all these status updates and profile pictures trying to show he is living his best life. Cope or rope is an apt saying, in this regard. It is all in vain, however, as women simply just do not experience the sense of romantic regret they do when we see an ex prospect post glow up photos or what not. Women move on a lot faster than males, and men - especially in the West - are very interchangeable and replaceable (Briffault's Law). Orbiters are a source of attention for women they can pick and choose from. In most cases, they serve as backup options in case women ever become bored or otherwise dissatisfied with their current partner.

"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place." - Robert Stephen Briffault MC. Women will, as a general rule, only interact with you if they believe they can gain something by it. When she perceives no benefit, the relationship ends. Benefits can range from a wide variety of things: attention, company, emotional support, good feelings, sexual pleasure, good genes, resources and wealth, access to a better social circle/greater status, help with work, etc. Is it cynical? Yes. But it has been remarkably enduring ever since its old redpill days, and it still has great predictive value.

In a sense, women are incredibly luck they are able to drop and forget us so easily. It is rare for a woman to grieve as deeply as a man. But, in the past, women had children to feed during cold harsh winters; the death of the male was no excuse to let their child and themselves die. To let the species die off. I am no simp or apologist, but I can understand mother Nature's actions. That's, however, another difference between the sexes: women live more superficial, normie lives. Female IQ is similar to male IQ, yes, but it has far less variation; it's very mid, I suppose you could say. On the other hand, men are gifted/cursed with greater variation - meaning a greater proclivity to genius and/or madness. It's why men are so overrepresented relative to women in the achievements of high civilizations.

G.K. Chesterton said, "Women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw." CS Lewis also said something similar - commenting that women, due to their biology, are more predisposed to partial interests and they have a harder time being impartial/neutral/fair. Essentially, they’re always seeking the greater advantage for themselves and their offspring - as all mothers in nature do (and not something I necessarily fault them for). For a civilization to survive and flourish, however, you need to have cooperation. This requires justice and peace, and this is where man’s authority (today demonized as patriarchy) has often been the lynchpin and safeguard of civilization. Case in point, those married females with families who tried breaking out their prisoner boyfriends and going on the run - one of them killing herself, the other using the car her own cuck husband bought for her (JFL). Also goes to show you what a woman is willing to do for you, however, if she believes you're worth her time/she's genuinely attracted/in love with you. Brutal.

Either sex has its pros and cons, essentially. Women are probably perfectly capable of entering STEM and being leaders and whatnot; they just probably aren't as interested in it as men are - and if they are, it will be for different reasons. Men are the risk-taking sex; women not so much. Of course, it is men that will take the blame for this - but I digress.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Personally, I think this is the most disgusting aspect of the blackpilled reality and the modern world/society we live in: the commodification of humans (and not just in the economic sense, what with automation, workers' rights being thrown to shit, etc. but also due to the blackpill, the materialism, the bastardization of everything). We have truly come full circle: yes, women are sold into sex slavery or whatever - but men are also used and abused, then dumped. Men are more directly violent, women are more cunning - yet with the amount of male sedation going on, even this male violence has slowly started to die down.

When it comes to incels/blackpillers hating women, it is understandable. It is a humiliating existence, and you're not even allowed to die in a war trying to correct it. When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature. Same for us men, I suppose. Failing to grasp this leads many blackpillers to resentful MSTOW circles or the type of cringe, deranged, and entitled feminists that stalk Reddit forums and complain about men all day.

When Apartheid South Africa was surrounded by enemy nations seeking to overthrow its government and, essentially, take it out on its ruling white minority, it had to get its act into gear. Additional economic sanctions by the west lead to the nation becoming an isolated pariah state - leading to the government taking account of everything that was coming to destroy its nation and classifying it as a sort of 'Total Onslaught'; a mass of enemy combatants, policies, states, governments, and diplomacy headed its way, seeking to destroy it. In attempting to overcome this adversity, South Africa developed robust arms industries and a world-class military capable of defending itself. It produced the best artillery system known to man at the time, its own aircraft, armored vehicles, consumer products, and even all things nuclear - from energy, to weapons. I use the example of Apartheid South Africa for two reasons: one, because apartheid is essentially what many of us are effectively undergoing through today - the irony, essentially - and two, because I wanted to show an example of someone/something bracing for something big and doing all it can to prepare. I propose we today - not only incels, not only blackpillers, not only men, but society and humanity in general - face a sort of Total Onslaught of similar, if not greater, proportions. A much more insidious onslaught, yes, but an onslaught nonetheless.

About that stolenhistory thing: if you're a believer in conspiracy theories/spiritualism/psychic powers and such, it could be part of antediluvian history. In Judeo-Christian scripture, it's written that the world was once so wicked that God essentially hit a giant reset button and caused massive calamities in order to reset things. Maybe some of what the guy in that post describes are would-be relics from that period. As for JBW and races, things are complex; yes, there's differences, but ultimately humanity should work together. The new covenant suggests that God's intention is, perhaps, a unified humanity - a new spiritual race, as Evola might have put it, which could perhaps be the only solution to our issues. Warhammer 40k style, where the Emperor wanted to unify humanity and ascend it into a psychic race. Granted, that's a very literal example - spiritual probably has more of a noospheric context here, though you never know. Such a thing could also help to free us from material constraints, and even the blackpill - as the blackpill is, essentially, one of the biggest manifestations of materialism in existence as of now. Of course, you can then explore the thought that the(((elites))) bastardized and inverted this unity plan - turning it into a carnal unification (racemixing, extreme egalitarianism, etc.) first and foremost without regard to its intended spiritual unity. Miscegenation - aside from causing loss of national identity, which is a strong unifier and motivator, source of pride, and gives someone the right of quickly and reliably tracing their ancestry, etc. - also displays a higher frequency of dysgenic effects and psychological problems that arise in the kids. There's also issues with stable family formation that often come about. That's a really deep topic, however - though some initial tentative conclusions can be that miscegenating relationships should not be encouraged as much given the painful consequences they can entail, and due to the fact that downplaying negative effects plays into the aims of racial fetishists (many of whom are allied with the people that have put us into this situation to begin with). Regardless, this bastardization of a unified humanity is, I guess, possibly what's making us all eat shit right now. That's what the Devil in Christianity does: takes what is good (because he has no original power to make something of his own), and bastardizes it into something evil. I'm not saying all that I have mentioned in this paragraph should be taken literally; if we are to assume higher civilizations existed in the past (and they would have, at least in my opinion, had to as a lot of the information presented here and much more was known by our ancestors in at least some way, shape, or form), then we can take religions, myths, etc. to be allegories/metaphors/or at least be partially literal and partially metaphorical. The Ancients often speak in - to us - meaningless riddles and cryptic messages. You have to put in the work to understand them, and even then it's not the whole piece of the puzzle that's required. We will likely never understand the relation between the deep state and prehistory.

Sorry for taking such a philosophical tangent, but with such large amounts of human suffering you more or less are forced into such a discussion. These are just some thoughts that popped up during discussion with an acquaintance of mine. Take them as you will.

It is important to look at the blackpill not just as a tool - as it's not really a tool for anything, refer to the first paragraph - but, rather, as a universal truth. Something which an ideology can at least partly be built around; something by which a logos can form out of, but not necessarily an ideology/logos/word on its own. But one should be careful, as the blackpill is a heavy burden to bear; take care of yourselves, seek comfort and contact with others, share ideas, thoughts, but be mindful. I'd personally advise against it become a religion/substitute for one, or an absolute truth; be careful of letting a desolate materialism take over you. Take care of yourself when looking deep into the blackpill on relationships and other blackpills in every other area, lest you end up like that one guy that posted on this forum to talk about how his decaying tooth tasted like pork (literally puts the R in LDAR JFL). Confront your own mortality, confront the fact you may die alone and unloved by any woman for no good reason or through and fault of your own, and find what peace you can in whatever way you can. Let life become a form of amusement; look at clown world, and just laugh. It's difficult to keep going in such a world where you are unloved whilst others are; go to work, do this, do that, but reap no rewards. But keep in mind that the system will punish you if you do not do that. Most importantly, recognize you must find your own purpose. Also, look out for people who try to instigate something; not all can be trusted (e.g. Bible saying "they who try to save their life will surely lose it" - very cryptic and mysterious, and not necessarily in the biblical conspiracy theory sense but in that of conveying profound truths you can't grasp by secular reasoning alone). Basically it's just feds (or generally servants of the powers that be) trying to mold new "extremist threats." Don't take the bait, don't trust glowies, don't trust feds. Most, if not all, rebellions/insurgencies require the backing of an external actor in order to succeed. If you don't have that, it's tough to do anything. It's difficult to say what one should do: to act or not to act? That is the question. Ultimately, it is up to the individual.
Personally? Take the relationship blackpill. The women we love/loved are getting their brains fucked out right as we speak, meanwhile we are banned from their life permanently. Jobs and degrees, means to survive, land, pride, honor, and so much else taken from us - forcing to watch as the world becomes a bleaker place day by day. We have been humbled, we have been denied, and we must face the fact that the world is against us and we are all by ourselves. Even if we do not care about it anymore, our receptors have been fried and we have been forced into an unsustainable position in our own lives - not just because of abysmal relationship dynamics, but because of economic, academic, societal, administrative, and so many other reasons.

I like to think that one day, we will be there to return the favor (in Paradox Interactive's Stellaris sci-fi grand strategy game). That the storm rises only so that the thunderbolt may fall.

I believe that ultimately, if this species as we know it is to survive, it will have to tackle all aforementioned issues in the relatively near future once and for all. How this could be done, however, still eludes me. One thing is certain, though: in doing so, we will either ascend to new Olympian heights of glory - or fall into the depths of despair; the pit of a new Dark Age.

@Intellau_Celistic
@Asgard
@Feminism Sucks!
@PPEcel
Though I don’t agree with everything in here, most of this is pretty high IQ. Good read mate

For example though, you have that section on basically understanding female nature and male nature for that matter and sort of getting detached and not feeling the hatred anymore knowing it’s simply their nature to be this way.

But I think I don’t agree because at the end of the day I am not separate from nature or detached from these experiences like an orbiting god or an observing space alien would be.

I am part of nature and I do experience these things and my nature is to become enraged, to feel disgust by some behaviors, and to be motivated to act for some kind of change to “right the ship”. It is perfectly logical for a man that has been rejected and mistreated by women all their life and who’s observed what most are really like to feel disgust or hatred seems to me. That’s just a ground level human response to mistreatment by others — no way around it other than some kind of weird brainwashing that I know of.

Men en masse getting black pilled and developing a hatred for feminism and potentially for women themselves is the possibly the way out of this situation seems to me. Men must unite somehow to change the rules and establish new norms (which are basically the old norms) so that men and women actually pair with their approximate value match and have nuclear families again. Achieving that would require limiting women’s mate choice somewhat, enforcing monogamy, and going back to traditional gender roles where women are raised and expected to be wives and mothers and not corporate drones. It would probably require that young men be taught growing up by other men and not by women and that men are taught about the blackpill and about the failure and outcomes of feminism.

But the only way that happens is probably a massive blackpill wave combined with harsh economic conditions to motivate men to fix things.
 
Last edited:
Though I don’t agree with everything in here, most of this is pretty high IQ. Good read mate

For example though, you have that section on basically understanding female nature and male nature for that matter and sort of getting detached and not feeling the hatred anymore knowing it’s simply their nature to be this way.

But I think I don’t agree because at the end of the day I am not separate from nature or detached from these experiences like an orbiting god or an observing space alien would be.

I am part of nature and I do experience these things and my nature is to become enraged, to feel disgust by some behaviors, and to be motivated to act for some kind of change to “right the ship”. It is perfectly logical for a man that has been rejected and mistreated by women all their life and who’s observed what most are really like to feel disgust or hatred seems to me. That’s just a ground level human response to mistreatment by others — no way around it other than some kind of weird brainwashing that I know of.

Men en masse getting black pilled and developing a hatred for feminism and potentially for women themselves is the possibly the way out of this situation seems to me. Men must unite somehow to change the rules and establish new norms (which are basically the old norms) so that men and women actually pair with their approximate value match and have nuclear families again. Achieving that would require limiting women’s mate choice somewhat, enforcing monogamy, and going back to traditional gender roles where women are raised and expected to be wives and mothers and not corporate drones. It would probably require that young men be taught growing up by other men and not by women and that men are taught about the blackpill and about the failure and outcomes of feminism.

But the only way that happens is probably a massive blackpill wave combined with harsh economic conditions to motivate men to fix things.
If behavior shouldnt be justified becuase of genetics..

why wouldn't you hate someone who demonstrates bad behavior?
Could just be the LDAR part of me that has had its receptors fried talking. I'm too fucking tired to, basically.
 
Could just be the LDAR part of me that has had its receptors fried talking. I'm too fucking tired to, basically.
Yeah hopelessness does really kill your emotional response. Some days I’m more angry than others.
 
Yeah hopelessness does really kill your emotional response. Some days I’m more angry than others.
Past three years or so I've just been numb. I still feel some emotions, but like it's been heavily blunted. Life's just very boring, and I just honestly want to LDAR 24/7. I don't even feel depressed much of the time, I just cannot physically be bothered. My brain's receptors and transmitters are fried jfl
 
@Asgard I have bounced back today back to full capacity I think
 
It’s a good summary.
 
I'm of average intelligence myself. Note that I'm on protracted SSRI withdrawal.
Oh ok idk what that is are you experiencing withdrawal of some medication or hard drug?
I think of myself as above average intelligence but it could just be one giant cope since idk how you really measure it. I got 124 IQ on mensa test IQ one time but IQ tests seem retarded anyway
 
Oh ok idk what that is are you experiencing withdrawal of some medication or hard drug?
Antidepressant withdrawal. Do your own research if you're willing to. People can suffer from protracted withdrawal even years after leaving drugs. Antipsychotics tend to give some nasty withdrawal symptoms as well. I've developed depersonalization from Risperidone, but my CNS has been improving on that aspect for the past 3 years. Depersonalization episodes do not occur so often, but I can trigger them by going outdoors — more specifically, in crowded places.

Never put your trust on pharmaceutical companies.
 
I've developed depersonalization from Risperidone, but my CNS has been improving on that aspect for the past 3 years. Depersonalization episodes do not occur so often, but I can trigger them by going outdoors — more specifically, in crowded places.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate further on this. One of my family members used to take risperidone and they can have psychotic episodes sometimes. Which makes them extremely difficult for me to physically restrain and they can break stuff and hurt people.
 
Which makes them extremely difficult for me to physically restrain and they can break stuff and hurt people.
About Risperidone:


SSRI-related withdrawal:

 
Would you be so kind as to elaborate further on this. One of my family members used to take risperidone and they can have psychotic episodes sometimes. Which makes them extremely difficult for me to physically restrain and they can break stuff and hurt people.
As of myself, I currently suffer from things like restless leg syndrome. I have to put my right foot on a chair (I sleep on the middle of the bed, sideways).

 
Antidepressant withdrawal. Do your own research if you're willing to. People can suffer from protracted withdrawal even years after leaving drugs. Antipsychotics tend to give some nasty withdrawal symptoms as well. I've developed depersonalization from Risperidone, but my CNS has been improving on that aspect for the past 3 years. Depersonalization episodes do not occur so often, but I can trigger them by going outdoors — more specifically, in crowded places.

Never put your trust on pharmaceutical companies.
I think I'm around the same boat. I had a pretty bad depressive episode in early 2021 and got depersonalized, and though I have recovered a tiny bit I still feel like my life is a lot more boring, uninteresting, and unmotivating. It has helped me demystify a lot of stuff on the plus side, and I feel fear/anxiety with a bit more difficulty - but I also, of course, feel good emotions with more difficulty as well. Totally changed my worldview, too. I took escitalopram for a short while for my PDD, didn't notice too much of a difference though I guess it made me less irritable. Still would give my left leg to get some ADHD meds, though, as that's one of the core causes (and not symptoms) of my fucked life.
 
Soo many nuances, muh high iq , much wow, i miss blkpillpres
 
read every single word. this is good content, much better than just posting "i hate foids" in a circlejerk all day.
 
>inb4 dnr
>inb4 GrAY
I EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM .IS, GET IT OUT WHILE YOU CAN. YES, TELL ME HOW YOU DIDN'T READ A SINGLE WORD....HOW I AM A GRAY....I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.


Greetings. In this post, I'd like to lay down some fundamental blackpill theory from I suppose a more biological/evobio/evopsych/sociological perspective on why women behave the way they do. This is a compilation of essentially gathered information gotten through various different sources, including scientific literature (which can also be found within this forum and/or the incel wiki, among other places), secondary sources, and so on. In true blackpill fashion, I do not intend to prescribe behavior - I merely seek to provide an explanation/summary of the fundamental biological principles of the blackpill that have been brought forth as arguments in its support, which I feel are seldom discussed. My intention with this is to provide both incels, blackpillers in general, and outsiders with a comprehensive overview of at least a part of the blackpill. I am not a scientist in any way, and my only contact with the profession is college-level biology classes I took while still in school.

Context and Disclaimers

When I use the term 'blackpill' in this post, I specifically refer to the blackpill on human mating preference and relationship dynamics - something that is so foundational to society. The term 'blackpill,' in general, has two meanings: it can be seen as an uncomfortable truth, or it can just be seen as the deeper truth hidden behind the veil of what initially is present in front of something. Oftentimes, due to the nature of life and reality, the two are intertwined - specifically, that they are double entailed (one equals the other and vice-versa). The blackpill is, essentially, in its most literal definition a packet of information. That is all it is. It does not prescribe behavior, it does not make any specific calls for action, and it is not specifically associated with any ideology. You can be a capitalist or communist and still be blackpilled. You can be a liberal or a fascist and still be blackpilled. You can be a theist or an atheist and still be blackpilled. The idea that the blackpill is a white supremacist ideology, as presented by mainstream sources, is objectively false for the simple fact that an extremely large amount of 'blackpillers' (defined as individuals who subscribe to these sets of beliefs) and the ones most affected by it are non-white ethnics. The reasons for this will be discussed in the JBW section.

It is important to remember that the blackpill deals in truths about generalized patterns. Human relationships on the individual level are always more complex, if for no other reason than for the simple fact there are just too many variables to account for even on the individual level. Each change in scope (micro vs. macroscopic) has its own changes in variables as well, as these all interact and combine/counteract eachother in very complex ways. For all effective purposes, as real life - practical application - has shown us, you're still not any less fucked because of this (and why exactly this is the case will hopefully become clearer as this post progresses). For the sake of transparency and comprehensiveness, however, I do have to point this out, or else I'd be doing any reader of this a disservice. In addition, when specifically talking about the female sex it is necessary to consider the response. It is true that there may not be an immediate, quantifiable, direct, and tangible result that will arise out of reading this; the female sex is calculating in this regard, so it is much better to just ghost and hope this goes away. An attempt, however, has to be made, for what it’s worth it.

Above all, one must remember that the blackpill takes a lot out of a normal person. It is difficult to process, and even harder to sort truth from falsehood from half-truth...and so on and so forth. It takes a lot out of someone and after a while one may start to lose their own faculty of judgement, beginning to hastily and uncritically swallow up everything as being objectively true. The macro effects of blackpill media are also something to consider: though I do not intend to dispute the truths, when viewed from the outside - especially when regarded as an ideology - it is hard not to notice it that it essentially has the demoralizing and enervating effect at the (((elites))) have been known to produce in efforts to subvert societies. There's no solid connection yet that can be pointed out, but it's something one should keep in mind.

Economics Applied to the Dating Market

Economics and Sexual Economics Theory (essentially the application of the law of supply and demand into the sexual marketplace) is one of the most comprehensive methods one can apply in order to gain a deeper understanding of what we call the blackpill. In unregulated dating markets (no forced marriages, no slutshaming, etc.), women turn out to be the chief sexual selectors and gatekeepers of sex. In economics, this is called the principle of least interest: when an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person/entity with the least interest decides the terms of that activity. This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus is more likely to compromise than the other party. Women desire initiating sex with a partner of average attractiveness much less than men. As a result, most men have fewer options and - hence - more likely to make compromises in order to be able to attract the other sex. Making compromises means dating down in terms of value, which means women automatically date up. In SET, women sexually commodify themselves with a certain exchange value whenever they reject or accept men based on what they have to offer. Sex, then, becomes a resource in itself that men can purchase by amassing an array of valued goods: genetic material (looks, athletic performance), money, status, etc. (both material and non-material; socioeconomic). Women compete in “selling high” by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing male sexual frustration/desperation in order to inflate the price of sex. This allows women to set terms, including only forcing them to commit to resource provision (even in societies in which resources are abundant), allowing themselves an abundance of males, and so on. Women slut-shame (and therefore also want to maintain an image of being pure virgins, among other reasons) in order to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away freely lowers its value and, therefore, womens’ leverage over men. Women collude in this way, essentially forming “cartels,” inciting one another’s hypergamy and becoming a leisure class. This is only one factor affecting the disparity between male and female SMV, however.

Hypergamy (not just socioeconomic, but looks-based as well)

Hypergamy is the action of dating up in terms of value, whether it be relative to a previous partner or to any other males available; the benchmark is not limited to herself or the social standing of her family. There are multiple forms: looks hypergamy, resource hypergamy, status hypergamy, and so on. Hypergamy can be easily explained through Bateman’s Principle and Briffault’s Law, along with the relative disparity between both sexes’ SMV. An emphasis is rightfully placed on looks hypergamy, due to the importance of clearly visible genetic features - signs of traits adaptive to the environment and overall physical health - that can be passed down to offspring. Variability hypothesis also states that males exhibit a greater variety in many traits than females, such as sexual preferences, social attitudes, behaviors, intelligence, strength, other physical straits, genetic variation (in part due to mutation), etc. The only exception to this is fear and emotionality, which women show a greater variability towards. Male sexual desire is much more varied in that they more readily copulated with females; even unattractive women and obese ones receive much more attention than even average men (Juggernaut Law: female SMV is unstoppable, like a Juggernaut). This phenomenon becomes even more evident when women diagnosed with various mental illnesses have twice the fertility rates as do men with the same ones. This is especially devastating for unattractive men, as they can no longer lower their own standards/compromise more in order to establish a functioning relationship or to even get short-term sex. Women also seem to engage in higher levels of mate choice copying than men, stemming from either greater conformity/hypoagency (explaining a higher proneness to hysteria) or perhaps as a means of choosing high-status men explained by the bodyguard hypothesis and female hypergamy. Such a mate, in turn, serves as a confirmation of the female’s own SMV and gives her a sense of prestige/validation, with her potential offspring also inheriting traits seen as ‘valuable’ and benefiting from the males’ high-status position. Women get part of a man's social status;

Bateman's Principle

The inherent SMV - and, as a result, disparity in inherent individual value - between men and women arises as a result of Bateman’s Principle. Bateman’s Principle deals with parental investment: it states that females tend to produce fewer offspring than males do, but do so more reliably due to differences in parental investment. Conversely, a few males can have lots of offspring but give out low parental investment. Males, essentially, have more variance in reproductive success. Bateman’s Principle stance on females can be explained thusly:
  • Pregnancy is often extremely dangerous for females
  • Pregnancy is extremely time-consuming and incapacitating for the body
  • Pregnancy is metabolically taxing
  • Pregnancy is dangerous due to the large size of the human head and high birth weight relative to the mother’s size
  • The pocket shape of female genitals is more vulnerable to STDs
  • The offspring have a higher dependence on the mother, as only she is guaranteed to be present at birth
  • Newborns are dependent upon a mother’s breast milk
  • Human offspring are among the most dependent offspring of all animals due to their complex socialization process and slow brain development that allows for higher intelligence, with women historically being much more involved in raising the offspring than men
Comparing female egg cells to male sperm cells, it can be seen that the latter require much fewer resources and carry no risk of death or incapacitation. There is also no guarantee of the male having to stay following pregnancy, either. Men are free to engage in promiscuity with not much to lose, as in doing so they increase their chances of having surviving offspring and passing down genetic legacy - an indicator of both sexual and evolutionary success.

Due to this disparity, females have a lower expected lifetime reproductive success and a lower life history speed. As a result, each of the few offspring is subjected to higher standards - meaning women must subconsciously seek out competitive genetic material, be possessed of a lower sexual libido in order to further facilitate the choosing process, and, as a result, become the gatekeepers of sex and sexual selectors. They choose which men may stay in the genetic pool and which do not. Males’ high sex drive, conversely, creates extreme demand for women, subjecting the market to further pressure and increasing male frustration/desperation. Bateman’s Principle fully explains hypergamy and Sexual Economics Theory.

Due to their biological roles, females have a different evolutionary goal than men do. They are the physically weaker sex, and, as a result, focus strongly on resource provisioning and maintenance of their physical security. Strong, tall, masculine high-testosterone males are a chief contender for this rule, having evolved specific traits/had them sexually selected for in order to fit this role. It is debatable, however, how advantageous having a “strong high-T masculine” look is compared to just having a lean body, clear skin, and good bones/hair: ideally, a male would have all such features - though it is argued that, especially in the 21st century, merely possessing the latter (a more feminized, “pretty-boy” look) is enough. Height is universally selected for, however, being a clear sign of genetic quality. The Bodyguard Hypothesis states that women choose to pair bond with the most dominant man available to them in order to be protected from other contending males, especially sexually coercive ones (behavior which is explained by Bateman’s Principle and sexual economics). Women arguably need this protection because all men are possessed of a much greater physical strength than almost all women. Regardless, despite looks demands, females also on average have a much greater demand for attention and are more neurotic/paranoid than do men. This makes sense, as they need the attention for the offspring and benefit from the increased paranoia due to threats to the undeveloped and inexperienced offspring’s life.

Just Be White (JBW) Theory

Just Be White (JBW) theory states that whites have a serious advantage over all other races. This is because ethnics are of varyingly lower attractiveness than whites; many times, they are shorter, have smaller penises, and smaller/less dimorphic frames - with an extreme case of this being asians, including Indians. Another area in which they can fall short is just being facially less attractive on average - something blacks suffer from, despite often being taller, having better penis sizes, and being possessed of more masculine frames than usually any other race. The evolutionary reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted; I can only speculate: African women had so much abundance provided to them by the naturally warm and fertile lands of Africa that they were essentially granted conditions of material independence; they could afford to exclusively select partners based on pure sexual attractiveness rather than anything else, leading to the above-mentioned strengths in Africans. However, their poor performance compared to European faces could potentially be explained by African women of that time period still only being able to choose from among the men already present in Africa; it's essentially about local effects. The effect, however, of that pure look preference by females can be argue to still be clearly observable there. Now, nutritional and other factors can definitely play a role - but, then again, so could they in other areas of the world. In other places in the world, inbreeding and forced marriages that sough to fight and overpower the female need to mate with sexually attractive men can also explain why many of these races are less attractive.

This still leaves many questions unanswered. Why is the white skin color so preferred? It's not just Europeans' facial features that give their advantage, though that is - by far - the largest one that they have in my opinion, but their skin tone. Why this is the case, I couldn't say; you could propose various theories for this, and I've even heard of schizo batshit insane theories point out to humans being created as a slave race for their raw materials, and that white skin produces the best parchment or whatever (scroll down a bit, it's the post by the user usselo). I'm only referring to this in order to put things into perspective, and give some food for thought - not necessarily because I believe or because I wish for anyone else to believe in it (>inb4 tails or whoever makes a video using my post to showcase this forum is retarded). Whatever the case, this preference exists across all cultures and races - what with that one white-skinned blue-eyed Pakistani coffee/ice cream vendor (or whatever the hell he was) becoming a celebrity and opening up an international chain. He lucked the hell out.

Furthermore, as a side note, it can also be argued that the lack in need to choose high-status men due to this (traits often strongly correlated with a high work drive/intelligence) has essentially been a main factor leading to the African propensity for violence (a genetically masculine trait) and low intelligence (makes sense if all you select for is looks/bodyguards). I expect this information will make fans of a certain Dr. Verwoerd in this forum very happy, though this is ultimately a disastrous scenario for the human race as a large portion has essentially been disadvantaged in a very destructive way that leaves them prey to not only others but their own selves. I will talk more about the dilemma of status vs. looks later.

Skeletal Observations

But I digress. Getting back on topic: from what I have seen and concluded women, more or less - in my opinion, at least - are attracted to a person's skeleton, which includes their skull (which, in turn, obviously includes their face). It dictates their facial structure, their frame, how much muscle they can pack on, and so on and so forth. Even with shit skin and muscle genetics, a good skeleton can save you; it is the basis for good looks, though certainly not the end-all be-all. The skeleton is the only feature in your body that controls TWO (2) of the THREE (3) factors of the incel pyramid - those two being face and height, and the pyramid in general being face, height, and race. Remember when I said that despite outliers existing, you're still likely to be fucked? It's because those soyentists and medcels that receive trillions in funding still haven't found a way to reliable reshape/remold the skeleton. They can't do it! They can't, they just can't, they don't know how to. Or, at least, that's what they are telling us (who the hell knows what the elites have access to). Whether this is due to funds being stolen, poured into the wrong projects, poor coordination/communication, sheer laziness, or whatever the fuck it is, I don't know. To any STEMcels/medcels reading this, get your fucking ass into gear. This is not a party. You academics have a zero-tolerance policy for mediocrity, but expect the same to not apply to you. Pathetic.

(Potential) Societal Degradation due to Lookism

Touching a bit more on the topic of status vs. looks in terms of mate selection, the optimization problem women usually faced was important as it essentially forced women to have to select men on traits beyond the superficial. Status and resources correlate strongly with intelligence, innovation, dedication, drive, hard work (which is also partly genetic), and so on - all traits essential to the creation and maintenance of a high civilization. If all that is thrown out, however, there may be societal degradation; ending up with a society of inefficient, apathetic supermodels. The only caveat to this, however, is that good look shave shown to be correlated to increased intelligence in some studies - in an apparent show of good genes coming in packages/bundles, apparently.

Granted, then there's all the direct consequences of hyper-materialism/lookism: the depression, rejection, etc. But since men are so sedated, and women are more or less content with the way things are (and I'll elaborate on this down below in the next section), things are unlikely to change on their own.

Briffault's Law

Most men are raised in this blue pill mindset of trying to seek out an "equal" companion, which is not the case due to hypergamy. This leads to men trying to treat women they know as friends, but men and women understand "friendship" differently due to their different life experience. This contradiction then causes a lot of confusion and hurt, and not helped by the fact that currently is in a hyper-egalitarian and gynocentric stage/position in the historical cycle. People just get confused, and pain inevitably ensues - though, keep in mind here that when I say "hurt" I am by no means implying women want to go back to the 1950s where they had no rights. An example we can study is the LJBF rejection.

LJBF-type rejections take several years out of men; one thing that women especially seem to not appreciate much of the time. When a man is rejected this way and his emotions are toyed with, they quite literally eat away at his life years. It is a form of slow death, though for most women it never enters their minds they do anything else other than “being friendly.” But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, is it not? Evolution has certainly made it so that men feel this pain much more acutely for a reason, just like with sexual jealousy, which women also do not experience in the way men do. Perhaps rejection is always better than regret, though: it is better to endure a bitter and painful lesson rather than laying down and rotting in self-denial. Word of mouth is that there are plenty of instances of men killing themselves upon finally waking up too late, the accumulated regret hitting them all at once. A wise man learns from the deaths of others, though emotional attachment may persist. Rationally and logically, one knows when to conclude it’s over - but it still takes time to register emotionally. It is oftentimes an ego preservation mechanism - a reaction - trying to compensate for the rejection by looking for ways to justify itself. A good example can be seen from social media: when a young man gets dumped, he begins posting all these status updates and profile pictures trying to show he is living his best life. Cope or rope is an apt saying, in this regard. It is all in vain, however, as women simply just do not experience the sense of romantic regret they do when we see an ex prospect post glow up photos or what not. Women move on a lot faster than males, and men - especially in the West - are very interchangeable and replaceable (Briffault's Law). Orbiters are a source of attention for women they can pick and choose from. In most cases, they serve as backup options in case women ever become bored or otherwise dissatisfied with their current partner.

"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place." - Robert Stephen Briffault MC. Women will, as a general rule, only interact with you if they believe they can gain something by it. When she perceives no benefit, the relationship ends. Benefits can range from a wide variety of things: attention, company, emotional support, good feelings, sexual pleasure, good genes, resources and wealth, access to a better social circle/greater status, help with work, etc. Is it cynical? Yes. But it has been remarkably enduring ever since its old redpill days, and it still has great predictive value.

In a sense, women are incredibly luck they are able to drop and forget us so easily. It is rare for a woman to grieve as deeply as a man. But, in the past, women had children to feed during cold harsh winters; the death of the male was no excuse to let their child and themselves die. To let the species die off. I am no simp or apologist, but I can understand mother Nature's actions. That's, however, another difference between the sexes: women live more superficial, normie lives. Female IQ is similar to male IQ, yes, but it has far less variation; it's very mid, I suppose you could say. On the other hand, men are gifted/cursed with greater variation - meaning a greater proclivity to genius and/or madness. It's why men are so overrepresented relative to women in the achievements of high civilizations.

G.K. Chesterton said, "Women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw." CS Lewis also said something similar - commenting that women, due to their biology, are more predisposed to partial interests and they have a harder time being impartial/neutral/fair. Essentially, they’re always seeking the greater advantage for themselves and their offspring - as all mothers in nature do (and not something I necessarily fault them for). For a civilization to survive and flourish, however, you need to have cooperation. This requires justice and peace, and this is where man’s authority (today demonized as patriarchy) has often been the lynchpin and safeguard of civilization. Case in point, those married females with families who tried breaking out their prisoner boyfriends and going on the run - one of them killing herself, the other using the car her own cuck husband bought for her (JFL). Also goes to show you what a woman is willing to do for you, however, if she believes you're worth her time/she's genuinely attracted/in love with you. Brutal.

Either sex has its pros and cons, essentially. Women are probably perfectly capable of entering STEM and being leaders and whatnot; they just probably aren't as interested in it as men are - and if they are, it will be for different reasons. Men are the risk-taking sex; women not so much. Of course, it is men that will take the blame for this - but I digress.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Personally, I think this is the most disgusting aspect of the blackpilled reality and the modern world/society we live in: the commodification of humans (and not just in the economic sense, what with automation, workers' rights being thrown to shit, etc. but also due to the blackpill, the materialism, the bastardization of everything). We have truly come full circle: yes, women are sold into sex slavery or whatever - but men are also used and abused, then dumped. Men are more directly violent, women are more cunning - yet with the amount of male sedation going on, even this male violence has slowly started to die down.

When it comes to incels/blackpillers hating women, it is understandable. It is a humiliating existence, and you're not even allowed to die in a war trying to correct it. When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature. Same for us men, I suppose. Failing to grasp this leads many blackpillers to resentful MSTOW circles or the type of cringe, deranged, and entitled feminists that stalk Reddit forums and complain about men all day.

When Apartheid South Africa was surrounded by enemy nations seeking to overthrow its government and, essentially, take it out on its ruling white minority, it had to get its act into gear. Additional economic sanctions by the west lead to the nation becoming an isolated pariah state - leading to the government taking account of everything that was coming to destroy its nation and classifying it as a sort of 'Total Onslaught'; a mass of enemy combatants, policies, states, governments, and diplomacy headed its way, seeking to destroy it. In attempting to overcome this adversity, South Africa developed robust arms industries and a world-class military capable of defending itself. It produced the best artillery system known to man at the time, its own aircraft, armored vehicles, consumer products, and even all things nuclear - from energy, to weapons. I use the example of Apartheid South Africa for two reasons: one, because apartheid is essentially what many of us are effectively undergoing through today - the irony, essentially - and two, because I wanted to show an example of someone/something bracing for something big and doing all it can to prepare. I propose we today - not only incels, not only blackpillers, not only men, but society and humanity in general - face a sort of Total Onslaught of similar, if not greater, proportions. A much more insidious onslaught, yes, but an onslaught nonetheless.

About that stolenhistory thing: if you're a believer in conspiracy theories/spiritualism/psychic powers and such, it could be part of antediluvian history. In Judeo-Christian scripture, it's written that the world was once so wicked that God essentially hit a giant reset button and caused massive calamities in order to reset things. Maybe some of what the guy in that post describes are would-be relics from that period. As for JBW and races, things are complex; yes, there's differences, but ultimately humanity should work together. The new covenant suggests that God's intention is, perhaps, a unified humanity - a new spiritual race, as Evola might have put it, which could perhaps be the only solution to our issues. Warhammer 40k style, where the Emperor wanted to unify humanity and ascend it into a psychic race. Granted, that's a very literal example - spiritual probably has more of a noospheric context here, though you never know. Such a thing could also help to free us from material constraints, and even the blackpill - as the blackpill is, essentially, one of the biggest manifestations of materialism in existence as of now. Of course, you can then explore the thought that the(((elites))) bastardized and inverted this unity plan - turning it into a carnal unification (racemixing, extreme egalitarianism, etc.) first and foremost without regard to its intended spiritual unity. Miscegenation - aside from causing loss of national identity, which is a strong unifier and motivator, source of pride, and gives someone the right of quickly and reliably tracing their ancestry, etc. - also displays a higher frequency of dysgenic effects and psychological problems that arise in the kids. There's also issues with stable family formation that often come about. That's a really deep topic, however - though some initial tentative conclusions can be that miscegenating relationships should not be encouraged as much given the painful consequences they can entail, and due to the fact that downplaying negative effects plays into the aims of racial fetishists (many of whom are allied with the people that have put us into this situation to begin with). Regardless, this bastardization of a unified humanity is, I guess, possibly what's making us all eat shit right now. That's what the Devil in Christianity does: takes what is good (because he has no original power to make something of his own), and bastardizes it into something evil. I'm not saying all that I have mentioned in this paragraph should be taken literally; if we are to assume higher civilizations existed in the past (and they would have, at least in my opinion, had to as a lot of the information presented here and much more was known by our ancestors in at least some way, shape, or form), then we can take religions, myths, etc. to be allegories/metaphors/or at least be partially literal and partially metaphorical. The Ancients often speak in - to us - meaningless riddles and cryptic messages. You have to put in the work to understand them, and even then it's not the whole piece of the puzzle that's required. We will likely never understand the relation between the deep state and prehistory.

Sorry for taking such a philosophical tangent, but with such large amounts of human suffering you more or less are forced into such a discussion. These are just some thoughts that popped up during discussion with an acquaintance of mine. Take them as you will.

It is important to look at the blackpill not just as a tool - as it's not really a tool for anything, refer to the first paragraph - but, rather, as a universal truth. Something which an ideology can at least partly be built around; something by which a logos can form out of, but not necessarily an ideology/logos/word on its own. But one should be careful, as the blackpill is a heavy burden to bear; take care of yourselves, seek comfort and contact with others, share ideas, thoughts, but be mindful. I'd personally advise against it become a religion/substitute for one, or an absolute truth; be careful of letting a desolate materialism take over you. Take care of yourself when looking deep into the blackpill on relationships and other blackpills in every other area, lest you end up like that one guy that posted on this forum to talk about how his decaying tooth tasted like pork (literally puts the R in LDAR JFL). Confront your own mortality, confront the fact you may die alone and unloved by any woman for no good reason or through and fault of your own, and find what peace you can in whatever way you can. Let life become a form of amusement; look at clown world, and just laugh. It's difficult to keep going in such a world where you are unloved whilst others are; go to work, do this, do that, but reap no rewards. But keep in mind that the system will punish you if you do not do that. Most importantly, recognize you must find your own purpose. Also, look out for people who try to instigate something; not all can be trusted (e.g. Bible saying "they who try to save their life will surely lose it" - very cryptic and mysterious, and not necessarily in the biblical conspiracy theory sense but in that of conveying profound truths you can't grasp by secular reasoning alone). Basically it's just feds (or generally servants of the powers that be) trying to mold new "extremist threats." Don't take the bait, don't trust glowies, don't trust feds. Most, if not all, rebellions/insurgencies require the backing of an external actor in order to succeed. If you don't have that, it's tough to do anything. It's difficult to say what one should do: to act or not to act? That is the question. Ultimately, it is up to the individual.
Personally? Take the relationship blackpill. The women we love/loved are getting their brains fucked out right as we speak, meanwhile we are banned from their life permanently. Jobs and degrees, means to survive, land, pride, honor, and so much else taken from us - forcing to watch as the world becomes a bleaker place day by day. We have been humbled, we have been denied, and we must face the fact that the world is against us and we are all by ourselves. Even if we do not care about it anymore, our receptors have been fried and we have been forced into an unsustainable position in our own lives - not just because of abysmal relationship dynamics, but because of economic, academic, societal, administrative, and so many other reasons.

I like to think that one day, we will be there to return the favor (in Paradox Interactive's Stellaris sci-fi grand strategy game). That the storm rises only so that the thunderbolt may fall.

I believe that ultimately, if this species as we know it is to survive, it will have to tackle all aforementioned issues in the relatively near future once and for all. How this could be done, however, still eludes me. One thing is certain, though: in doing so, we will either ascend to new Olympian heights of glory - or fall into the depths of despair; the pit of a new Dark Age.

@Intellau_Celistic
@Asgard
@Feminism Sucks!
@PPEcel
i remember when i tried to impress ( :lul: ) people by making an overly complicated post like this as well.
listen. us grayniggers likely won't amount to any must read post, nor will most of those who ascend past grayniggerdom. you are not the next @GeckoBus, and restating the scientific blackpill in a wordsy pseudo intellectual manner won't help you.
 
Soo many nuances, muh high iq , much wow, i miss blkpillpres
blkpillpres did the same thing jfl most of his threads are the scientific blackpill page restated or ridiculous copes like love doesn't exist or inkwelldom is somehow a blessing
 
i remember when i tried to impress ( :lul: ) people by making an overly complicated post like this as well.
listen. us grayniggers likely won't amount to any must read post, nor will most of those who ascend past grayniggerdom. you are not the next @GeckoBus, and restating the scientific blackpill in a wordsy pseudo intellectual manner won't help you.
blkpillpres did the same thing jfl most of his threads are the scientific blackpill page restated or ridiculous copes like love doesn't exist or inkwelldom is somehow a blessing
BrothER, I do not mean to impress anyone here and neither am I stating retarded shit like that. Idc about the must-read section, I just stated shit that I felt had to be clearly stated - because most just do not even try to comprehend the blackpill beyond just "hurr durr looks and sex".
 
The whole "it's simply their nature" idea applies to everyone and everything. And even after coming to believe that free will can not exist in a world based on deterministic physics (with some real randomness at the lowest levels) I can still hate people just the same. Despite thinking they don't actually have any real choice in what they do.

Hate is an emotion and doesn't follow logical considerations. I hate people for hurting me, for all the unfairnes and cruelty they display to me and others like me, for how much they suck compared to the people that could be. If it's the fucked nature of their sex or the fucked nature of humans in general that is making them do the things they do ultimately doesn't matter to me in that regard.

Appreciate that someone is effort posting on here though, was nice to read.
 
When you logically understand women and see them for what they are, it becomes difficult to hate them; it's simply their nature
That's no excuse for allowing them to abuse men and ruin our lives. Until the laws change to be fair to men, or women as a whole start treating non-Chad men better, I will absolutely hate them and continue to do so.
 
The whole "it's simply their nature" idea applies to everyone and everything. And even after coming to believe that free will can not exist in a world based on deterministic physics (with some real randomness at the lowest levels) I can still hate people just the same. Despite thinking they don't actually have any real choice in what they do.

Hate is an emotion and doesn't follow logical considerations. I hate people for hurting me, for all the unfairnes and cruelty they display to me and others like me, for how much they suck compared to the people that could be. If it's the fucked nature of their sex or the fucked nature of humans in general that is making them do the things they do ultimately doesn't matter to me in that regard.

Appreciate that someone is effort posting on here though, was nice to read.
That's no excuse for allowing them to abuse men and ruin our lives. Until the laws change to be fair to men, or women as a whole start treating non-Chad men better, I will absolutely hate them and continue to do so.
Fair. I can't really fault you guys for believing this. I agree that nature shouldn't excuse things, I guess, and that you can still feel hate for something because of it. Probably is the correct way evolution intended, actually.

To me, I compare women to cyclones: a horrible force of nature that fucks you over, but ultimately is what it is. I hate it in the sense that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it (unless it's under controlled circumstances), and I hate that it can just completely obliterate me with zero effort. But it's nothing personal between me and the cyclone - it's just the business of survival.
 
I did read It after all . Was a pretty good RemindER that the World is Very Luck based ( yet again )

Some Attention Span Is required to read this but this Is Pinworthy

@Fat Link @PPEcel @Dregster @SlayerSlayer @Master
 
Last edited:
Fair. I can't really fault you guys for believing this. I agree that nature shouldn't excuse things, I guess, and that you can still feel hate for something because of it. Probably is the correct way evolution intended, actually.

To me, I compare women to cyclones: a horrible force of nature that fucks you over, but ultimately is what it is. I hate it in the sense that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it (unless it's under controlled circumstances), and I hate that it can just completely obliterate me with zero effort. But it's nothing personal between me and the cyclone - it's just the business of survival.
My autistic side has no idea what people mean when they use these words. "Business of survival". There is a mindless process, a happenstance, less of a clearly defined thing and more of a concept, that includes the obvious tautology "of the living things keep producing more copies of themselfs there will be more of in the future". That is "nature", the "will of nature" or "evolutionary intent".

And does that kind of perspective hold when interacting with other parts of nature? If a man beats close to death for lightly provoking him, do you also think "well, that isn't anything personal, that's just the way nature intendet the more openly competetively inclined of the two sexes to behave"?

None of that makes any sense to me. If you can't fault women for following their natural instincts, you can't really fault anybody for anything. I hate women for what they are, for the kind of person they mostly tend to be, and no evolutionary explanation for why they are that way changes anything about that. They still are the exactly same way after all. You hate a "what", the "why" is just the rationalisation you present to the outside to make your emotions seem reasonable to people who don't share them and to maybe convince other to follow your lead and develope similar feelings to yourself.
 
My autistic side has no idea what people mean when they use these words. "Business of survival". There is a mindless process, a happenstance, less of a clearly defined thing and more of a concept, that includes the obvious tautology "of the living things keep producing more copies of themselfs there will be more of in the future". That is "nature", the "will of nature" or "evolutionary intent".

And does that kind of perspective hold when interacting with other parts of nature? If a man beats close to death for lightly provoking him, do you also think "well, that isn't anything personal, that's just the way nature intendet the more openly competetively inclined of the two sexes to behave"?

None of that makes any sense to me. If you can't fault women for following their natural instincts, you can't really fault anybody for anything. I hate women for what they are, for the kind of person they mostly tend to be, and no evolutionary explanation for why they are that way changes anything about that. They still are the exactly same way after all. You hate a "what", the "why" is just the rationalisation you present to the outside to make your emotions seem reasonable to people who don't share them and to maybe convince other to follow your lead and develope similar feelings to yourself.
I agree with your analysis. Again, I guess to each his own - it may just be that I am extremely fucking burned out. I hate normies more, honestly, because they're the ones who let soyciety get so bad and who refuse to take the blackpill or view any data. At that point, you can't fucking fault women because us men and the rest of society are asking for it.
 
JBW is just status nothing else. There is no biological rationale for why whiter skin should be more attractive to the brain.
 
JBW is just status nothing else. There is no biological rationale for why whiter skin should be more attractive to the brain.
Exactly. If anything, if white status/colonizer halo didn't exist, white skin would be seen as an inferior trait because:
  1. Lightness is seen as a feminine trait. Women have always prefered darker features on men.
  2. They burn in the sun and have to put sun screen on their skin when going out in sunny weather. Women would see that as weak and feminine. But they look past it because of everything else associated with white skin.
White socioeconomic status is the only reason why whites have the highest SMV. Everyone saying it's genetics don't fully understand female nature.
 
High IQ thread. I especially liked the closing remarks.

I agree soyciety is getting worse and worse due to this issue, but at the same time, I also wouldn't be content with breadcrumbs if soyciety desperately tried to pacify us. Once the illusion has been broken, I don't feel like there's anything worth going back to even if my genes would technically benefit from it.

But, in the past, women had children to feed during cold harsh winters; the death of the male was no excuse to let their child and themselves die. To let the species die off. I am no simp or apologist, but I can understand mother Nature's actions.
Considering how evolutionarily speaking, men didn't have to sacrifice a lot for their offspring and could impregnate many women at once, I'm not so sure about this reasoning. I think foids' lack of attachment stems from their abundance of options combined with their emotional immaturity. I wonder if chad gets attached to any of the roasties in his harem.
 
High IQ thread. I especially liked the closing remarks.

I agree soyciety is getting worse and worse due to this issue, but at the same time, I also wouldn't be content with breadcrumbs if soyciety desperately tried to pacify us. Once the illusion has been broken, I don't feel like there's anything worth going back to even if my genes would technically benefit from it.


Considering how evolutionarily speaking, men didn't have to sacrifice a lot for their offspring and could impregnate many women at once, I'm not so sure about this reasoning. I think foids' lack of attachment stems from their abundance of options combined with their emotional immaturity. I wonder if chad gets attached to any of the roasties in his harem.
That is what I am saying - Bateman's Principle deals with their abundance of options and how they evolved around it. My reasoning is that males biologically have a lower value, and women subconsciously know this due to their genetics and just using basic logic. Meanwhile, women have higher value and due to everything discussed in the Pareto Principle - well, put 2+2 together.
 

Similar threads

fastnbulbous
Replies
14
Views
670
foidrapist69
foidrapist69
Mortis
Replies
10
Views
391
screwthefbi
screwthefbi
Logic55
Replies
13
Views
259
beanercel
beanercel
SlayerSlayer
Replies
4
Views
313
Lv99_BixNood
Lv99_BixNood

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top