A little bit, yes, sorry ... My dad is loaded. He is a total imbecile but I won't deny I enjoy the money sometimes ... It makes coping a little easier.
Good .. but you could statusmax or seamax eventually. You could invest in something and increase your wealth.
Wow Inceldom is truly global. Are ethnic ?
Japanese. Raised in London by helicopter parents. Not at home in Japan. Not at home in the UK. Fucked up everywhere
So many good people condem to Inceldom, we are living in horrible times. Anyways nice too meet you. Perhaps some day we will meet and eat ramen together friend.
Would love to. Take care Brocel
Y
It's not completely dualistic imo. There is nothing stopping a stacy from being a rabid feminist or from wanting more benefits for her and the female gender overall. It's just that it's more common for beckies and uglier looking women to be rabid feminists and be vocal about those kind of things.
But the whole fat "shaming", "body positivity", "promiscuous women used for their bodies deserve commitment (from chad) too" are indeed mainly the domain of unattractive women who cannot get commitment from chad and not stacies. Whereas stacies can still be animated by feminist issues like the pay/wage gap, street harassment from nonchad males, wanting access to contraception and removal of stigma of sleeping around a lot.
Last edited:
Y
Have read the first 4 chapters now.
The criticism of Socrates and Plato as engaging in elitism is imo not new but there is the uncomfortable realization that the idea of how the world can be thought of as consisting of rational and irrational aspects is not the correct dichotomy or way to think about things. Does a more suitable framework have to be by necessity more complex though? Maybe not.
The stories of Eridu and Uruk and the transition from a system governed by a village chieftain to a theocratic republic to more of a monarchy are very interesting as is the allegory about the waters and how it relates to and was possibly the inspiration for the passage in the book of Psalms. The impetus for this transition from a system headed by a live village chieftain to an ever-living god beyond this realm is not made very clear though until chapter 4 where it is tied to how "rubbish males" (low status males) conspired to make the system more meritocratic, less bogged down by personal struggles and devised in a way to make governance and overseeing as neutral as possible and not stained by favoritism. This is said to be accompanied by a strengthened system of monogamy. The conclusion though that humanity's progress and dark ages were spurred by this unwelcome transition to monarchy and triumph of gaming the system is too hasty ngl. In today's fraying democracy a similar stagnation and cultural dark ages may have began even though the closest thing to monarchy in western countries is a technocratic oligarchy with representative democracy characteristics.
The three layers of consciousness remind me of Kahneman's concept of systems 1 and 2 as outlined in his book "Thinking Fast and Slow". This is true specifically for the unconscious versus conscious aspects and how the conscious aspect acts after the immediate assumption made by the unconscious (which may have neglected some important factors or things to consider in the initial assumption otherwise).
Talk of dominant male instincts and anti-desires brought to mind what Jordan Peterson has said about the male dominance hierarchy and the struggles and shows low status males who are failing in that system make in a desperate attempt to right perceived wrongs.
From the time it is said that Bilgaga is referred to as Bilgamesh "Gilgamesh" immediately came to mind. Not liking though that Inanna's love of chaos is ultimately blamed on an Authority-S "alpha male" instinct particularly when otherwise it is said that kings have been destroyed in their proverbial tribute to Inanna's need for chaos. The tip-toeing around women's role in spurring this kind of antisocial behavior is reminiscent of the way masculinity copers like The Art of Manliness talk about how feminism has meant that men are losing in some ways but claim this still in no way justifies men thinking this is women's fault, or holding them accountable for this or even thinking lesser of them or being disillusioned as a result.
Have started reading it. It is pretty interesting though didn't expect to see parallels to code breaking from WW2 as a central theme so far ngl
Last edited:
I think that you have it backwards. According to the book, it is not Monarchy that brings stagnation, it is the cult of Ishtar/Inanna. Monarchy is just the outer form it took in that period.
I agree that we are entering today into a similar period of stagnation. I believe that the author of the book would say that the cause is the same: Ishtar worship. The outer form it takes today is Chad-dominance, which is actually quite close to monarchy in its underlying psychological principle (dominant male instinct). Our society is more complex than a neolithic village and therefore the way things manifest is also more complex.
I am not sure what you are exactly saying here. The basic idea according to the book is that Ishtar/Inanna is a mental "technology" that amplifies the dominant male-related instincts in all individuals (including foids: desire to be fucked by the alpha). But there is a catch because the tech soon becomes out of control when you use it. If you are the king, some other Chad can use it against you and usurp the throne. That is the source of the chaos.
I don't think he is tiptoeing around that. He plainly says that women had nothing to do with the emergence of Chad/Bilgamesh and Ishtar/Stacy. He portrays a situation where, to be sure, women are excited by and participate in the event because it flatters their instincts too. But the prime actor is a man: Bilgaga. Apparently, the author subscribes to the idea that women never do anything on their own. The prime actors of change are always men. Here, what happens, basically, is that a selfish Chad manipulates the situation to his benefit and fucks it up for all other males. I think that feminism started the same way. Some men saw their advantage in using foids to destroy and enslave other men. Then it all slipped out of control and they were eventually bitten in the ass (#MeToo). But foids did not come up with it on their own.
That said, there is also another way to look at what the book describes. When Bilgaga seizes power in Uruk, his closest associates are foids, the three top courtesans of the city. So this can be described as a conspiracy by one Chad and three whore-Stacies. If you look at it that way, foids do have a role. And it is not a minor one. The courtesans contribute some of the key elements of the new Inanna cult: the poetry, the personality of Ishtar herself, etc. I think the author strongly suggests that Bilgaga could not have come up with all that on his own.
Agreed. I was skepticalnat first because now days, so many of literature I like to read has been tainted or gone to shit due to what I am calling "Normification" of story writing by the normies. This one though, has me coming back to see how Finn & Aaron interpret the next part of history it in their discussion afterwards.
Y
Imo there are too many factors to conclude that just one event such as the cult of Ishtar/Inanna is why society is declining. You can point to countries where women aren't as privileged as in western countries like in the Middle East and see there hasn't been a lot of technological progress or entrepreneurial and creative successes as in western countries. This can be seen by how the standard and comfort of living hasn't drastically improved as much and the stereotype about how Middle East countries are still living in the stone age. Instead the region has been mired in war over territorial and religion based disputes even before western powers got involved. It's tempting to think that it's just one sociological phenomenon (women worship) that is responsible for the recent decline of society but imo that's premature to conclude. Creative destruction, rapid cultural change, sudden obsolescence of skills in favor of new ones because of hastily crafted trade agreements and insistence on deploying new technologies play as much a role imo.
I'm saying that the author appears to give too much credit to this being due to machinations of an usurper alpha male while still seemingly acknowledging subtly that in their quest for power and women, men are destroyed by those same forces. It's a story that's too stereotypical and contradictory and has been retold countless number of times. In a way it keeps trying to advance the narrative that the real problem is chad and not human nature or female nature as a proxy for all these events. That ultimately and perhaps ironically only serves to drive collective movements that demonize men (because of the apex fallacy in generalizing a corrupt male ruler to all men) and repeated calls for upending the system to create more chaos and making things more "interesting".
Imo the reason it seems the prime actors of change are always men is because for a lot of history women have only been able to affect things by proxy like getting men to do their dirty work for them. However when they have had the resources and attained positions of power they have been actors of change just as men have. You only have to look at the statistics of how queens have waged more war than kings and how women's need to compensate for perceived weakness has been acknowledged as a possible factor in them doubling down on aggression.
Last edited:
If you read until the end of chapter 6, you will get an idea of the theory that the author uses to back this claim. He calls it "polluting the field of credit". If you will, I suggest we keep this discussion on hold until you reach that point in the book.
Y
I've read up to that point. What does the theory of "polluting the field of credit" have to do with how it's allegedly simple enough that most problems today can be blamed on worshipping the viral technology that Inanna/Ishtar represents?
Human cooperation relies on language. Language relies on Trust/Credit (there is no "Truth"). The distribution of credit in society can be viewed as a "field', with mountains and valleys (like the gravity field). Ishtar/Inanna pollutes the credit field, i.e. creates false valleys and peaks in the credit field. As a result, our capacity to cooperate through language deteriorates bc the credit field is no longer reliable. Innovation stops. Stagnation sets in.
Ishtar/Inanna is the model, the first instance and still the most potent of the credit-polluting masturbation engines that hold humanity back by preventing our language capabilities ("the logos") to work at its peak level of efficiency.
Other technologies, like social media, amplify the problem but are not the cause of it. A society that would prevent credit pollution could have social media, industrial automation, space travel, or any number of other technologies without suffering adverse effects. In particular, there would be no Incels.
Last edited:
Y
Imo it's not that simple. There is no perfect or completely truthful way to run a society and society does involve trust. But a deviation from how society is run away from what is considered ideal and a breach of trust in one area doesn't necessarily mean that deviation is fully or even at all responsible for other declines in quality of life. There are many factors that need to be considered to explain why there was a decline in society. The cause of the collapse of society isn't always attributable to one factor.
Of course, since there is no Truth. Trust excludes perfection, by definition
Y
Imo there is a problem with trying to look at societal implications and progression of events in a framework of mechanical or theoretical physics (credit field, pollution of field of credit) which is what I'm getting the impression this literature is trying to do. Here is what I've posted earlier about this
In the same way the developments that occurred first at Eridu and then Uruk that altered the normal course of events may not necessarily have any real logical reason or be because of an error in judgement. It could just be a random process that arises out of social convenience where one group tries something different but with this new strategy not having been guaranteed to occur despite having a nonzero probability.
Last edited:
That is not what this book is doing at all. The "field of credit" is used as a metaphor, nothing more.
That is both obvious and irrelevant. Of course we don't know the ultimate WHY of things. You are missing the point.
Y
I read your edit to the post earlier (#64). I agree that technologies like social media can amplify the problem but not necessarily be the root cause. But in order for there not to be incels I don't think it's as simple as saying that there would be no credit pollution for this to occur. A society where trust breaks down doesn't mean that monogamy is impossible because people can still see personal relationships as separate and more intimate than more casual interactions with others. A breakdown in social trust can more heavily impact casual interactions then more personal relationships like monogamous relationships and marriages.
I am not understanding then what the point you are trying to make is. Can you explain it in slightly different terms?
Inceldom is a mismatch between supply and demand in a certain market. When people can use language to negotiate, a settlement can always be found to such situations. The problem we have now is that we cannot talk because people become hysterical immediately. The reason for that is a lack of trust which prevents language from playing its normal role.
It is hard for me to explain this better than this book does. That is the reason I like it. It says things I sort of thought already but it says it better than I could.
I think you should read until the end because the following chapters (especially 7 and 9) will give you a better idea of what the author is getting at.
Y
I can see how that conclusion can be made. There can be no dialogue currently examining the issues facing men because everything that starts getting too uncomfortable for women to hear is framed as "hate" or "misogyny".
Chapter 7 was kind of difficult to understand with the list of kingdoms, battles and references to characters that are also referenced in the bible. I'll probably reread it again.
Good. We'll talk then
Y
Reread Chapter 7 and then read Chapter 8. I realize now that a lot of what is being talked about is not meant to be taken literally but are metaphors for socio biological technologies. But so far the readings are taking on a bent that more or less favors monotheism over polytheism. Still this doesn't explain why there is infighting between monotheistic Abrahamic religions to this day that have popularized the notion that organized religion is an inherent source of conflict. Is the text trying to argue that reoccurring vagueness, misinterpretation, arguments revolving around excess emotion rather than facts and easiness of misunderstanding (which could be more common in polytheism and not monotheism) that leave an opening for Authority-S to reassert itself are more the issue behind declining credit and trust in society?
The basic argument of the book, I think, is that there are all sorts of copes (which it calls "masturbatory behaviors") and that there is a special category of them, "credit masturbation", which includes religion but is wider than just that. These credit-masturbation copes have a significant impact on human social interaction because they produce vast amounts of credit. When a specific credit-masturbation cope is structured by rules and procedures (rituals), it becomes a "technology", which can be an organized religion or something like Hollywood.
Most such technologies have negative impacts, like the Ishtar cult or other forms of "idolatry" (like Hollywood) because they create fake credit on a massive scale, which is detrimental to the effectiveness of language. Ishtar worship is the worst because it reinstates Authority-S (alpha monkey dominance) over Authority-L (genuine trust based on competence)
Some credit-masturbation technologies, like Judean Monotheism, the New Prophecy movement in early Greece, or Christianity, are beneficial because they do the opposite of the Ishtar cult. They place Authority-L back in the saddle over Authority-S. In particular, in the best of cases, they scare Chads into bowing down to the Sky Chad, and therefore behave like ordinary betas, and they scare Stacies into being stay at home moms instead of being whores promoting Authority-S over the L kind.
Such beneficial credit-masturbation technologies are powerful, because they make the societies that adopt them strong. Therefore, people who want power will want to control them, hence the wars. It is like Microsoft vs. Apple
Polytheism dilutes the effectiveness of beneficial CM technologies. Also, in a polytheistic setting, there will always be an Ishtar cult in the mix, with its usual negative influence. This is what happened in later Greece, in Rome or in India. In the latter case, this explains why India was weak enough to be invaded by Muslims and then by Westerners. A significant portion of Indian Polytheism is the cult of Durga and her many avatars. Durga is an almost verbatim copy of Ishtar.
over for beckycels
interesting, I'll definately look at this a bit later.
Wow, I a
Wow. High IQ shyt. I came here to this site not that long ago looking for something which both beneficially masturbates my intellectual needs and also helps me to see “why” things have gotten so bad. Right now I am really not regretting my decision as I read both the novel and both of your discussions above....Also it’s nice cause spoilers for plot are not really a problem with this Online book so far. Some of us will need to read it several times anyways to get the themes and conclusions reached.
Happy with it so far and I just got to Ch.7. Reading both of your commentaries actually helps me too. So thanks Cel-folks !
Really? Chapter 7 was not too difficult for me to comprehend. Best you reread it.
Wow. High IQ shyt. I came here to this site not that long ago looking for something which both beneficially masturbates my intellectual needs and also helps me to see “why” things have gotten so bad. Right now I am really not regretting my decision as I read both the novel and both of your discussions above....Also it’s nice cause spoilers for plot are not really a problem with this Online book so far. Some of us will need to read it several times anyways to get the themes and conclusions reached.
Happy with it so far and I just got to Ch.7. Reading both of your commentaries actually helps me too. So thanks Cel-folks !
Really? Chapter 7 was not too difficult for me to comprehend. Best you reread it.
Last edited:
Very well explained. Also this online site-book you found, for the moment, is helping me to do more than a flimsy Cope.
Saying "why India was weak enough to be invaded by Muslims and Westerners", will get someone in trouble in India of course, BUT that is totally due to the influence of Normie Western Leftist brainwashing and political correctness bullshit.
Y
I can see that. Also the mass media and social media (which are becoming interwined at this point tbh) with "manufacturing of consent" and construction of false narratives and lying by omission is another example of fake credit being created on a massive scale imo.
I don't completely agree with this. @ReconElement thoughts?
It had a lot of Mesopotamian/Middle Eastern names that I've only seen when reading the Old Testament in the bible so it was difficult to follow along at first ngl
The whole passage or just the part you underlined?
cant read this without thinking of fate grand order
I don't know about this credit masturbation per say, but naturalistic and polytheistic beliefs can't unite unlike say Abrahamic faiths, that certainly is a weakness when faced by an external enemy, it still is to this day.
Indeed bro, it's quality shit like this that keeps me here. Although the peepeepoopoo stuff is funny sometimes.
I think the end sucks...
Is there 272 pages, or is my copy damaged, or is there a proper ending or does the author give up at that point satisfied?
Yeah that is the length of mine too. The book does not appear to be finished. It is a work in progress apparently
What do you mean by "the end sucks" exactly ?
I mean it just stopped without saying goodbye. No conclusions to the three people there. No one tried to fuck the Becky.
It just ends with doom, yet a vague idea concept of another try at maybe a new "masturbatory yoga."
Anyway... That concept of "guilt yoga" was very impressive. Maybe it stopped because that was the high point?
It really explains the sheer mindless insanity of chriSTAINS!
It is unfinished. More is to come I think. The curry guy who showed it to me said something to that effect, if I remember correctly
Was his name Gupta?
No.
Oh well... That's ok. Gupta will have his day soom... Maybe.
I am sure he will
You faith in Gupta is reassuring. Hallelujah!
Who is Gupta anyway?
Just a random curry name that i propped up to be my savior for a few weeks. At least he's not a jew!
So. Anyway, do you see anyway out of the dilemma as implied by that book?
Maybe we are better off as ants. Like the nanobot mrna "vaccine" will cause...
Personally, i like my fake credit! (Since all my credit is mental, not physical. I'm not in debt and actually have some savings)
I can see how false credit is ruining the world. All the debt everywhere. (((Who))) owns this debt? The messiah?
And doesn't it seem a bit like r & s mating strategy , somehow? Or at least a binary thing. Good/evil and all that. Fake and real credits...
Rabbit and something else. I remember very little of it other than one was fast and many, and the other was slow and monogamous... It was a popular topic for a while. Sort of like whores vs wives. Or husbands vs fuckboi Chads...
Just another way of describing our shituation.
I see. It must have to do this this r/K thing then ...
Makes sense. R & K maybe. Selective mating strategies and what not...
Ha! My last name is another surname for Gupta.
And I very much see what you are saying. I feel the same way. But I am starting to wonder if some of our mental credit is fake also. And since there is so much fake credit going around, it ends up hurting everyone like us who isn't Gigachad or even just Chad..heck even just low low tier.
Last edited:
Y
Mainly the part I underlined.
I finished reading the 272 pages too. Imo it had a lot of good points but at the same time seemed to be biased in favor of monotheistic religions like Christianity from the start.
Also the idea that polytheistic religions represent a backwardness and primal inclinations has been used to justify colonization of polytheistic ethnic countries in the past @ReconElement .
Even native americans were thought by European colonists to be savages partly because of how they prayed to many different gods. But look how native americans treated the land and made use of resources. It was much better managed and all the problems of advanced technology didn't have to occur @Copexodius Maximus
Lol the hatred of "Pagans" or people who have many deities is inherent to abrahamic religions, it's inherent to the west for that matter, been so for about two thousand years by now, they just can't conceive that's its even possible. No doubt even without God, western wokes and atheists are no less millitant in their beliefs and not much different on how they view polytheists. Apart from that, I really don't care what Christian mumbo jumbo this guy is speaking about, flat earthers.
Y
tbh it's the foundation of western countries since they got taken over by Christianity.
Yup western wokes and "atheists" are often in the "spiritual but no religious" camp and believe that karma is just a thing they can use to wish ill on their enemies while making it seem like they are a good person. They otherwise view polytheism as a fashion statement and will still people they don't like to go to hell and that some ultimate authority will one day judge them.
tbh the whole book read like pseudoscience and Abrahamic apologist views even if there were some interesting points brought up.
Was this a social experiment OP
It is not "biased". It plainly says that Christianity was superior to other religions (although the author is clearly not a Christian). And he explains why. Having the courage to say that some religions (therefore cultures) might be superior to others is a rare thing today. Yet, he is obviously not a stromfontcel either. In particular, he says nice things about Judaism
Anti-colonialism and feminism are the same thing, promoted by the same people. Are you going to defend feminism, next?
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
