Experiment Anthropology as it relates to Inceldom

[SlayerSlayer]

Internet incels are really just amateur anthropologists studying the mating behavior of Staceys and Chads in western civilization. It all came to me when I read the official male racial hierarchy post by @RageAgainstTDL and felt sorry for aboriginals, which made me have a deep dive into the vast spectrum of furtive cultures and civilizations bound to evaporate simply due to their lack of physical beauty. It ignited a sincere curiosity of anthropology as a whole within me, as I want to learn about mate selection, meanings of social capital, and perceptions of gender as broadly as possible outside the oppressive realm of western civilization.

Indigenous tribes fascinate me for several reasons. For one, they are genetic trash like me, so I have a natural curiosity as to what makes genetically ugly people successful in mating and happiness. My own general hunch as to why indigenous people bred themselves to be ugly is simply that their imagination has been exercised so well that beauty generally is not that important. It just seems like if you live in a culture with no technology whatsoever, your imagination and the sense of belonging you have within the universe, let alone your small tribe is greatly expanded. This imagination gives rise to local rhythms, art, concepts, Gods, beliefs. Imagined things, right or wrong, are at least things the individual has ownership of. There is a lack of competitiveness to it all that I like: it's not about the historical importance of your creations, it's about the contribution of it. You imagine elaborate reasons as to why it's the 80 year old grandmother that's the hottest bitch in the tribe.

Yes, there are insane leaps in moral relativism as it pertains to indigenous tribes, and it's weird how we give them a pass. It's understandable: if you are set to one moral standard your whole life, it requires a lot of education on other cultures to bring you into that viewpoint. It's weird how we don't apply this moral relativistic pass within our culture, simply because we assume we are a lot more in sync with normiehood than we really are. It also makes you rethink the entire concept of abuse in uncomfortable ways.

I think the big sticking point is that if you don't have written laws, taxes, and a police state, generally, people become more in sync with their communities, and thus things work out morally more often within the confines of these communities. To use corporate cringe jargon, tribesmen inherently live with intrinsic motivation to serve to their communities, because it's easy to feel a sense of importance within a small tribe. In the west, especially incels, understand deeply, our insignificance: that the machine lives easily without us, that our contributions are meager taxes enforced by the threat of prison rape.

A theme of ugly tribes: so long as your tribe is harmless (or is harmful in a self-contained way), ugly, and allow your resources to be taken, the white man generally lets you do whatever you want. It's not "multiculturalism" if you aren't even a party with legal representation within the state. When indigenous peoples have hot enough chicks, suddenly the white man goes "HOW DARE THAT SAVAGE WALK AROUND NAKED." They begin to heap moral excuses to kill the ethnic men, and take the ethnic women as booty for the lesser whites.

As far as I'm concerned, morality within the broad swathe of civilizations and cultures throughout history is so varied there simply cannot be good or evil. The mutant Apocalypse is right. The strong shall survive and the weak shall perish.

 

[epillepsy]

Indigenous tribes fascinate me for several reasons. For one, they are genetic trash like me, so I have a natural curiosity as to what makes genetically ugly people successful in mating and happiness. My own general hunch as to why indigenous people bred themselves to be ugly is simply that their imagination has been exercised so well that beauty generally is not that important. It just seems like if you live in a culture with no technology whatsoever, your imagination and the sense of belonging you have within the universe, let alone your small tribe is greatly expanded. This imagination gives rise to local rhythms, art, concepts, Gods, beliefs. Imagined things, right or wrong, are at least things the individual has ownership of. There is a lack of competitiveness to it all that I like: it's not about the historical importance of your creations, it's about the contribution of it. You imagine elaborate reasons as to why it's the 80 year old grandmother that's the hottest bitch in the tribe.

Isolation from the outside world is the key to their happiness, not imagination. Indigenous people don't breed themselves to be ugly; they're simply unaware of their own ugliness. Technology is useful as long as it doesn't contribute to hypergamy, such as the internet and fast travel. Imagination does give rise to better art, of course, but whose imagination can be so powerful as to override lust and sexual desire -- to make the instinctively ugly beautiful? Only men. An example of this have been seen in men who like granny porn -- they are imagining the beauty that once was, the beauty of a decayed ruins that gives rise to an idealistic beauty of youth that existed long ago that through the process of imagination becomes more beautiful than the actual young version of the granny. That can explain the fetishization of the 80-year-old grandmother in your example. But notice how you didn't say "grandfather." Women don't have this same imaginative capacity. This is obvious by the low quality of art they create. I imagine men were the prime movers and shakers of Gods and cultures in these tribes, and that restriction of access to the outside world had more to do with the tribe's happiness in mating than imagination, although imagination is connected with the restriction of access to the outside world.

Yes, there are insane leaps in moral relativism as it pertains to indigenous tribes, and it's weird how we give them a pass. It's understandable: if you are set to one moral standard your whole life, it requires a lot of education on other cultures to bring you into that viewpoint. It's weird how we don't apply this moral relativistic pass within our culture, simply because we assume we are a lot more in sync with normiehood than we really are. It also makes you rethink the entire concept of abuse in uncomfortable ways.

This paragraph is hard to understand. We forgive the moral relativism of indigenous tribes because we acknowledge that "it requires a lot of education on other cultures to bring [us] into that viewpoint?" Morally relativistic to what? To us or other tribes? If the first, we don't give them a pass. We decry cannibalism and bodily mutilation because it's not of our morality. If the second, that pass has no bearing on our own morality, since we're simply shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Everyone has a different idea of morality." That doesn't necessarily mean we loosen our own morality, but only acknowledge that different environments require different mores.

In addition, you say "it's weird how we give [indigenous tribes] a pass," but then also say "it's weird how we don't apply this moral relativistic pass within our own culture." Logically, I think we can find one or the other weird, but not both simultaneously. If it's weird that we give indigenous tribes a pass (because it's strange that we don't apply our morality to them), then it should not be weird that we don't give ourselves a pass (because our morality obviously syncs with our morality, and we naturally wouldn't give a pass to something outside of that morality, since it's weird that we gave the tribes a pass, when their morality was different from ours).

And the final sentence of this paragraph is hard to understand because I don't know what sense to take "abuse" in.

But nice post that more should read. It seems to argue for a return to primitive nature and racial/cultural segregation. I agree to a certain extent, because I think a lot of our problems are being caused by the internet and social media.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Isolation from the outside world is the key to their happiness, not imagination. Indigenous people don't breed themselves to be ugly; they're simply unaware of their own ugliness. Technology is useful as long as it doesn't contribute to hypergamy, such as the internet and fast travel. Imagination does give rise to better art, of course, but whose imagination can be so powerful as to override lust and sexual desire -- to make the instinctively ugly beautiful? Only men. An example of this have been seen in men who like granny porn -- they are imagining the beauty that once was, the beauty of a decayed ruins that gives rise to an idealistic beauty of youth that existed long ago that through the process of imagination becomes more beautiful than the actual young version of the granny. That can explain the fetishization of the 80-year-old grandmother in your example. But notice how you didn't say "grandfather." Women don't have this same imaginative capacity. This is obvious by the low quality of art they create. I imagine men were the prime movers and shakers of Gods and cultures in these tribes, and that restriction of access to the outside world had more to do with the tribe's happiness in mating than imagination, although imagination is connected with the restriction of access to the outside world.



This paragraph is hard to understand. We forgive the moral relativism of indigenous tribes because we acknowledge that "it requires a lot of education on other cultures to bring [us] into that viewpoint?" Morally relativistic to what? To us or other tribes? If the first, we don't give them a pass. We decry cannibalism and bodily mutilation because it's not of our morality. If the second, that pass has no bearing on our own morality, since we're simply shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Everyone has a different idea of morality." That doesn't necessarily mean we loosen our own morality, but only acknowledge that different environments require different mores.

In addition, you say "it's weird how we give [indigenous tribes] a pass," but then also say "it's weird how we don't apply this moral relativistic pass within our own culture." Logically, I think we can find one or the other weird, but not both simultaneously. If it's weird that we give indigenous tribes a pass (because it's strange that we don't apply our morality to them), then it should not be weird that we don't give ourselves a pass (because our morality obviously syncs with our morality, and we naturally wouldn't give a pass to something outside of that morality, since it's weird that we gave the tribes a pass, when their morality was different from ours).

And the final sentence of this paragraph is hard to understand because I don't know what sense to take "abuse" in.

But nice post that more should read. It seems to argue for a return to primitive nature and racial/cultural segregation. I agree to a certain extent, because I think a lot of our problems are being caused by the internet and social media.

Thanks for the high IQ inputs. I agree now that isolation is the primary factor as to why they are accepting of their own ugliness. They live so primitively, yet I highly admire that it seems they are not jealous of white civilizations. Otherwise, they would actively try and become whiter and take on white customs like noodlewhores. They don't try because they are happy with the simple things they have. They are not jealous or greedy within a western framework to spark that motivation. I would imagine they view advanced civilizations like a fly in the wall, or like how we view dolphins.

It seems like even women in isolation are more imaginative. You argue that men are more imaginative because it takes a man to imagine as to why a granny is hot-- this is actually a wonderful argument for blackpill anomalies. I think some women are very imaginative and use that to justify marrying a curry manlet, or a some man with childbearing hips. The problem is, as you said, most women are not that imaginative so they MUST have CHAD due to status anxiety.

There is a sense of play among isolated peoples that never die, it's a muscle they exercise until they die, and it's a tragedy that this is taken from us in the same way that men are genitally mutilated as babies. Maybe "play" is being a bit condescending. The boss thing is that they BELIEVE in their own shit. Imagine how it must feel to truly construct your own conception of the world just by observing nature, and not having it spoon fed to you by a teacher, or even getting guided to that conception thru books or podcasts. In some ways it's a good thing when you don't have a smartass that shames you out of doing your own thing even if it's stupid. Creativity invigorates the soul, and if you tear that down, you become a fucking husk.

When I'm talking about "abuse," it seems like for a lot of victims nobody knows it's abuse or cares that they were abused until you're decades older and realize other people have it better. This seems to be at the root of this #MeToo shit.

When I talk about moral relativism, maybe I should have started that off with the premise of why they even exist in 2020. We allow that. We can easily just kill them all, or kidnap their all of their kids and force them to be house servants like the Australians. It seems the white man has killed off 99% of indigenous cultures, and just left a few live as they do in the rainforests or whatever, in the same way we preserve exotic animals. We obviously care more about exotic animals than preserving indigenous cultures.