Blackpill If you think nature is right in any way or form, please kiss a shotgun barrel and pull the trigger

[Juxtaposition6]

Yeah except physical beauty has OBJECTIVE VALUE that cannot be denied and it's programmed into us.

Eg.:
https://incels.is/threads/we-are-al...you-cant-blame-women-for-wanting-chads.66343/

You can't blame women for wanting Chads or seeing us as lesser because we are lesser. And there is nothing wrong with wanting the high that only beauty provides.

You guys need to be more realistic about how human biology operates.

The value of beauty does not mean shit, it's just what we are supposedly programmed to think is best for our offspring and there is no correlation between health and facial attractiveness, none, only a perception of such.

Women want chad it's true, but a lot of these women wound up beaten up by such, their primordial instincts are unreasonable and therefore betray them, with declining birth rates and degeneracy or whichever means, i hope that one day, maybe in a millenium, this wretched species goes extinct.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Yes. He is better than you, and he's better than me. Society has removed any need for you to pick up new skills. No one cares if you get sick because there are pills to fix you if you do. If you can't look after yourself, welfare will be provided. A+ test scores impress your parents but no one else.

Those things simply don't matter.

The only thing left to select mates on - the only thing society can't otherwise provide - is looks and raw sexual attraction. So that's what we have.

And from an evolutionary standpoint, looks were likely the best quick way to assess a person's genetic quality. Is he tall? Is he masculine? Is he symmetric and free from deformity? Okay might make good mate, time to fuck.

That's it. That will always be it. Unless society collapses and women are again dependent on men as providers, nothing else matters.

I want beautiful women too. As I said in that thread, I am equally driven by that desire for beauty. But it's just not in the cards for me unless I can become beautiful myself first. That's just how it goes.

Sounds awful tautological: "people who look better than you are better than you because they look better than you."

While I agree that the only genetic factors currently determining whether or not people continue their lineages are looks (and congenitally lethal disorders), this only tells you of your value in relation to women and how they see you. Would you really reduce everything in life to this transactional pulse of the loins? It just strikes me as cucked beyond belief to take a slut's appraisal as the definite assessment of a man's worth. Everyone here already knows that they repel women. But what more?

My point is that men are not selected directly for sagacity or robustness. If the overdetermined leviathan of modern liberal states collapses, a lot of sexually attractive men will become totally, objectively worthless. Within this system, we're all dirt. But, even as we're trapped in it, why do we let it direct our consciousness and image of ourselves? We're more than a reflection of desire's absence.

 

[ControlledInsanity]

Nature can be easily fooled tho.

Implant a big chin on your face, get very lean and muscular and rich.

You will see natural selection working FOR YOU instead of against you.

I can't find the link rn but there was a study in which they adhered a brightly colored FAKE feathers to the heads of male birds and the females bent over backward to mate with these "superior" males. Zyros isn't wrong and nor are the people saying nature is beautiful. But nature is also an engineering problem to be conquered.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

The value of beauty does not mean shit, it's just what we are supposedly programmed to think is best for our offspring and there is no correlation between health and facial attractiveness, none, only a perception of such.

Women want chad it's true, but a lot of these women wound up beaten up by such, their primordial instincts are unreasonable and therefore betray them, with declining birth rates and degeneracy or whichever means, i hope that one day, maybe in a millenium, this wretched species goes extinct.

I actually agree with you. I don't think humanity has any objective value. I see no reason to worry about the future of the species.

Again, modern medicine has made health irrelevant. And women have a better chance of being happy rolling the dice with an abusive Chad than with a guy she can't even get wet over. You have to understand: the way they see us is the way we see a 400 lb obese Troll woman.

There is no deeper reason or rationality behind it except that this is the combo of evolution and societal advancement. It's bigger than either of us and there's nothing to be done about it.

Sounds awful tautological: "people who look better than you are better than you because they look better than you."

While I agree that the only genetic factors currently determining whether or not people continue their lineages are looks (and congenitally lethal disorders), this only tells you of your value in relation to women and how they see you. Would you really reduce everything in life to this transactional pulse of the loins? It just strikes me as cucked beyond belief to take a slut's appraisal as the definite assessment of a man's worth. Everyone here already knows that they repel women. But what more?

My point is that men are not selected directly for sagacity or robustness. If the overdetermined leviathan of modern liberal states collapses, a lot of sexually attractive men will become totally, objectively worthless. Within this system, we're all dirt. But, even as we're trapped in it, why do we let it direct our consciousness and image of ourselves? We're more than a reflection of desire's absence.

Worth is subjective. I don't care to judge one person's worth in a general sense. That depends on your individual values and what you care about in life. A musician who made songs you love might be highly worthwhile to you, but worthless to someone else. I don't care about that.

I am strictly speaking in terms of sexual market value since this is an incel forum. Pure SMV is generally pretty objectively easy to gauge. It's easy to gauge because it's determined based on very simple criteria.

Yes, in terms of sexual market value a pretty boy is higher in worth than an ugly engineer. Even if that engineer develops some new technology that enables light speed travel. Einstein changed the world immeasurably but he was never sexier than a random 85 IQ dumbass Chad.

You have to stop asking "why" and just accept this is the way it is. "Why" is just that our sex drives respond to visual cues. Women and men. You can't change that. And women evolved to be pickier than we are.

What do you guys expect? Women to suddenly rewire their brains to stop seeking physical attraction? Never gonna happen.

 

[Deleted member 11040]

Our looks are the result of a fallen world.

 

[Juxtaposition6]

Yes. He is better than you, and he's better than me. Society has removed any need for you to pick up new skills. No one cares if you get sick because there are pills to fix you if you do. If you can't look after yourself, welfare will be provided. A+ test scores impress your parents but no one else.

Those things simply don't matter.

The only thing left to select mates on - the only thing society can't otherwise provide - is looks and raw sexual attraction. So that's what we have.

And from an evolutionary standpoint, looks were likely the best quick way to assess a person's genetic quality. Is he tall? Is he masculine? Is he symmetric and free from deformity? Okay might make good mate, time to fuck.

That's it. That will always be it. Unless society collapses and women are again dependent on men as providers, nothing else matters.

I want beautiful women too. As I said in that thread, I am equally driven by that desire for beauty. But it's just not in the cards for me unless I can become beautiful myself first. That's just how it goes.

What exactly is the end goal of this eugenicism?
Did part of humanity realized it was such a bitch to the little man that it decided to start the process of offing itself?
Notice how the most subhuman looking places in the world are rife with large birthrate numbers and the ones most hypergamous are declining little by little?
Seems like said good genes will be extinct in a long while, or meddled with the subhuman ones to stay afloat.
Once again, just because it's in our nature/instinct doesn't mean it has some sort of utilitarian/inherently valuable aspect to it, no need to be 6'5 nowadays, but in the hunter-gatherer era, that would have been useful to pick fruit high on the trees and so and so, 5'4 manlet?
Just go buy some fruits.
Women don't like you for your height?
That's just their opinion.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

What exactly is the end goal of this eugenicism?
Did part of humanity realized it was such a bitch to the little man that it decided to start the process of offing itself?
Notice how the most subhuman looking places in the world are rife with large birthrate numbers and the ones most hypergamous are declining little by little?
Seems like said good genes will be extinct in a long while, or meddled with the subhuman ones to stay afloat.
Once again, just because it's in our nature/instinct doesn't mean it has some sort of utilitarian/inherently valuable aspect to it, no need to be 6'5 nowadays, but in the hunter-gatherer era, that would have been useful to pick fruit high on the trees and so and so, 5'4 manlet?
Just go buy some fruits.
Women don't you for your height?
That's just their opinion.

THERE IS NO GOAL. LIFE IS SLIGHTLY ORDERED ANARCHY. THE GOAL MAY WELL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SPECIES.

Read about the rat utopia experiments if you want to know where our species is likely going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Extinction is a highly probable outcome. The other outcome is possibly sustained humanity through the integration of robots and genetic engineering. I think we will likely persist as a species but only through these aids.

IQ levels are dropping:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

This is because high IQ people have fewer kids and society keeps low IQ families that might otherwise starve alive through social assistance.

The species is clearly and objectively degrading. We are de-evolving.

But who cares?

Again, this is not within our control. You might as well bitch and complain about the rain for all you can change it. This isn't about which traits are useful or aren't.

Nature is not "right" or "wrong". It just is.

We are our own "rat utopia experiment". And very few individual humans have enough power or control over the world to change its trajectory. Certainly no one on this site has that type of power.

 

[YungCell]

everyone but me gotta learn ur retarded

Makes a lot of sense bud, great way to show IM retarded.

 

[Juxtaposition6]

I actually agree with you. I don't think humanity has any objective value. I see no reason to worry about the future of the species.

Again, modern medicine has made health irrelevant. And women have a better chance of being happy rolling the dice with an abusive Chad than with a guy she can't even get wet over. You have to understand: the way they see us is the way we see a 400 lb obese Troll woman.

There is no deeper reason or rationality behind it except that this is the combo of evolution and societal advancement. It's bigger than either of us and there's nothing to be done about it.


Worth is subjective. I don't care to judge one person's worth in a general sense. That depends on your individual values and what you care about in life. A musician who made songs you love might be highly worthwhile to you, but worthless to someone else. I don't care about that.

I am strictly speaking in terms of sexual market value since this is an incel forum. Pure SMV is generally pretty objectively easy to gauge. It's easy to gauge because it's determined based on very simple criteria.

Yes, in terms of sexual market value a pretty boy is higher in worth than an ugly engineer. Even if that engineer develops some new technology that enables light speed travel. Einstein changed the world immeasurably but he was never sexier than a random 85 IQ dumbass Chad.

You have to stop asking "why" and just accept this is the way it is. "Why" is just that our sex drives respond to visual cues. Women and men. You can't change that. And women evolved to be pickier than we are.

What do you guys expect? Women to suddenly rewire their brains to stop seeking physical attraction? Never gonna happen.

The way you define yourself and the way you define others of course, women are wired to think you're trash so be it.
It's their retarded primal urges and instinct, there is no good reason for why you should value yourself based on female instinct unless you're chad that has got looks going for you.

What goes on in the brain of a female calculating how much of a subhuman i am is only in their brain, it's their opinion, and it doesn't mean i am a subhuman.

 

[FoidsDeserveCancer]

Makes a lot of sense bud, great way to show IM retarded.

Suuuure

 

[Deleted member 2798]

I actually agree with you. I don't think humanity has any objective value. I see no reason to worry about the future of the species.

Again, modern medicine has made health irrelevant. And women have a better chance of being happy rolling the dice with an abusive Chad than with a guy she can't even get wet over. You have to understand: the way they see us is the way we see a 400 lb obese Troll woman.

There is no deeper reason or rationality behind it except that this is the combo of evolution and societal advancement. It's bigger than either of us and there's nothing to be done about it.


Worth is subjective. I don't care to judge one person's worth in a general sense. That depends on your individual values and what you care about in life. A musician who made songs you love might be highly worthwhile to you, but worthless to someone else. I don't care about that.

I am strictly speaking in terms of sexual market value since this is an incel forum. Pure SMV is generally pretty objectively easy to gauge. It's easy to gauge because it's determined based on very simple criteria.

Yes, in terms of sexual market value a pretty boy is higher in worth than an ugly engineer. Even if that engineer develops some new technology that enables light speed travel. Einstein changed the world immeasurably but he was never sexier than a random 85 IQ dumbass Chad.

You have to stop asking "why" and just accept this is the way it is. "Why" is just that our sex drives respond to visual cues. Women and men. You can't change that. And women evolved to be pickier than we are.

What do you guys expect? Women to suddenly rewire their brains to stop seeking physical attraction? Never gonna happen.

Well yeah, this is what the whole forum revolves around. We all know that we have nil value on the dating market and that's exactly what strikes me as tautological: "women choose men based on their value, and their value lies in being chosen by women". No one would dispute the fact that we're not "hot", but why should we submit to women's desires? What do their desires actually matter? In a better world they could be coerced.

It was not my intention to set out describing our value in relation to the liberalized sexual marketplace, but to argue against the claim that it has some kind of clear eugenic merit that will ultimately make things "better for the species" or whatever kind of gay bullshit Redditor cucks like to say. I'd contend the opposite, in fact. The mediocre, oversocialized men that foids tend to flock to would probably not be able to keep the modern world running in the full scope of its cushioned complexity.

 

[Juxtaposition6]

THERE IS NO GOAL. LIFE IS SLIGHTLY ORDERED ANARCHY. THE GOAL MAY WELL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SPECIES.

Read about the rat utopia experiments if you want to know where our species is likely going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Extinction is a highly probable outcome. The other outcome is possibly sustained humanity through the integration of robots and genetic engineering. I think we will likely persist as a species but only through these aids.

IQ levels are dropping:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

This is because high IQ people have fewer kids and society keeps low IQ families that might otherwise starve alive through social assistance.

The species is clearly and objectively degrading. We are de-evolving.

But who cares?

Again, this is not within our control. You might as well bitch and complain about the rain for all you can change it. This isn't about which traits are useful or aren't.

Nature is not "right" or "wrong". It just is.

We are our own "rat utopia experiment". And very few individual humans have enough power or control over the world to change its trajectory. Certainly no one on this site has that type of power.

Good, let the species die, it's in my control to not value myself by what femoids think.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Well yeah, this is what the whole forum revolves around. We all know that we have nil value on the dating market and that's exactly what strikes me as tautological. No one would dispute the fact that we're not "hot", but why should we submit to women's desires? In a better world they could be coerced.

It was not my intention to set out describing our value in relation to the liberalized sexual marketplace, but to argue against the claim that it has some kind of objective eugenic value that will ultimately make things "better for the species" or whatever kind of gay bullshit Redditor sucks like to say. I'd contend the opposite, in fact. The mediocre, oversocialized men that foids tend to flock to would probably not be able to keep the modern world running in the full scope of its cushioned complexity.

Well we can argue about what a better world would entail but it doesn't really matter. We don't have the power to change it.

Personally I have come to believe that the loss of natural selection has become a major problem for our species. But government policies that would re-enact natural selection such as cutting off all social assistance programs and rebuilding a libertarian society where you live and die by your own means to survive would never become popular enough to enact.

I absolutely do not believe the current combination of how women select men and how society props up the weak ultimately makes things better for the species. Clearly from the dropping IQ rates and other problems in the world, the species is worsening.

I can see a few possible futures:

1) The species is eradicated like the rat utopia experiments leaving nothing behind.
2) Steven Spielberg's AI - we slowly replace ourselves with sentient robots that eventually become better than us and we disappear.
3) Idiocracy - The species continues de-evolving into idiots but survives based on the genius of a small few who orchestrate means for the rest to live off of.
4) Gattaca - The species survives and starts re-evolving through advanced genetic engineering and eugenics.

I don't know which one we'll get or if it will be a combo. But I absolutely know there is nothing about the female sex drive that is moving our species forward in any positive way at the present.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

I absolutely do not believe the current combination of how women select men and how society props up the weak ultimately makes things better for the species. Clearly from the dropping IQ rates and other problems in the world, that is not the case...But I absolutely know there is nothing about the female sex drive that is moving our species forward in any positive way at the present.

Well at the core of everything, it looks like we agree

I just don't see much use in clinging to something so obvious as our worthlessness to foids. It means only that we're worthless to foids and really nothing else.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Well at the core of everything, it looks like we agree

I just don't see much use in clinging to something so obvious as our worthlessness to foids. It means only that we're worthless to foids and really nothing else.

Yeah but if you think you can detach yourself from their value judgment of you and live your life as if that doesn't matter, you're deluding yourself.

You might be able to escape their judgment or feeling like shit over it by chemically castrating yourself. Some people say they can cope similarly by fucking high end whores to "get it out of their system". Sex dolls might provide a better option down the road. Or if you can fix what's wrong with you maybe you can ascend.

Otherwise if you are a hetero man, you will crave female attention/affection/validation until you die, and thus you will live under their rule and by their judgment.

We really can't escape it. Unless we get sex dolls, or you cope with hookers, or you castrate, or you ascend, 20 years from now you'll probably still be miserable over the same things you are now. I'm in my 30s and I'm still stuck ruminating over the same things I did as a teenager.

eg. Why do women love white guys so much? Why do women love tall guys? Why did I have to be short/ugly/ethnic? etc.

You'll learn with time this is all largely inescapable. The only thing that's ever given me incrementally greater peace has been surgery to improve my appearance. If I can hit 5-6/10 I think I will finally have sufficient peace that this will only be a minor bother for the rest of my years not a constant oppressive thought.

 

[Juxtaposition6]

if you are a hetero man, you will crave female attention/affection/validation until you die, and thus you will live under their rule and by their judgement

You should not define yourself by what they think of you, you will not play by their rules if you refuse to play their rigged game which is impossible for most people on here because they need said validation and affection, besides, if you have gotten used to the loneliness/deprivation of sex, you will find that there are plenty of ways you can satisfy these cravings, sexual desire is not some constantly revolving thing, once your urges are satisfied, you stop desiring whichever it is you want until you start craving it again, hence why most people here want long-term validation rather than short-lived sex, how do they get such?
Changing their looks or fixing mental illness depending on the person, so these men will have to play by their rules, i agree with you on this, but this doesn't apply to all, in my case, i do not seek to be in a relationship and my sexual desires are getting quenched on the daily, sex would be nice but i can't have everything unless i play by said rules, i will not, call me low t but if i can't get it i can't get it, sex isn't water to me and i don't want to output tremendous effort to have a chance at getting it.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

You should not define yourself by what they think of you, you will not play by their rules if you refuse to play their rigged game which is impossible for most people on here because they need said validation and affection, besides, if you have gotten used to the loneliness/deprivation of sex, you will find that there are plenty of ways you can satisfy these cravings, sexual desire is not some constantly revolving thing, once your urges are satisfied, you stop desiring whichever it is you want until you start craving it again, hence why most people here want long-term validation rather than short-lived sex, how do they get such?
Changing their looks or fixing mental illness depending on the person, so these men will have to play by their rules, i agree with you on this, but this doesn't apply to all, in my case, i do not seek to be in a relationship and my sexual desires are getting quenched on the daily, sex would be nice but i can't have everything unless i play by said rules, i will not, call me low t but if i can't get it i can't get it, sex isn't water to me and i don't want to output tremendous effort to have a chance at getting it.

You're probably right. I have an obsessive personality and when I fixate on something I can't stop. This is my current fixation. I've gone years with other fixations and hobbies and copes etc. I probably need to get back to some of those things instead.

Still hoping one day to ascend though. Hope never dies. Will keep operating until then.

 

[Juxtaposition6]

You're probably right. I have an obsessive personality and when I fixate on something I can't stop. This is my current fixation. I've gone years with other fixations and hobbies and copes etc. I probably need to get back to some of those things instead.

Still hoping one day to ascend though. Hope never dies. Will keep operating until then.

Hopefuly you do ascend one day, friend, just don't focus too much on what femoids deem worthy or unworthy, try to find as much enjoyable activities you can do to make the journey easier and good luck

 

[Limerencel]

Women being slaves to men is nature.

Single digit IQ comment.

 

[Ritalincel]

Women being slaves to men is nature.

cope

 

[Fontaine]

This. Any ugly male who makes appeal to nature fallacies is a cuck. I'll go further and say any ugly male who is not a transhumanist is a cuck.

 

[_incelinside]

Exactly, supporting eugenics and the filtering out of your own 'bad' genes (which probably aren't in any way objectively bad, just unattractive) as a incel is truly the most cucked thing you can do. Misanthropy is the only rational thing to support as a truecel.

 

[Deleted member 6101]

The thing about "human nature" is that, while it could be "overwritten" by consciousness, it makes people feel like shit if they have to do it continuously. This is why it takes a certain time for the whore to start cheating. The funny thing is that while you reject eugenics, they are the only field that can reliably deal with the leftovers of prehistorical instincts.

But if you look at it on a lower abstraction frame, we have no "free will" (whatever brainlets think that is) so overanalyzing human behaviour is pointless in a way. Nature doesn't exist as an entity. Everything a human does is "human nature". "Purpose", "meaning", "direction" and other civilizational imperatives are just abstractions in the human mind, not found in the environment and created as concepts by resource scarcity. Consequently, asking "what's the meaning of life" is possibly the best brainletism symptom. Things don't have fucking "meaning", you retards.

support eugenics

I support genetic modifications and selection in vitro for all newborns and gene therapies for already present subhumanism. Doesn't sound bad.

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

Single digit IQ comment.

cope

cope

cope

 

[armis]

Single digit IQ comment.

Women are inferior therefore they should be men's slaves. His IQ is fine, maybe yours isn't if you think women don't deserve to be slaves.

 

[Robtical]

It's also important to distinguish between natural selection by the environment and sexual selection sensu stricto. What fitness benefit should non-negative canthal tilt, a full head of hair, or especially being a drug-dealing streetwear dicksucker confer, doubly so in Current Year? "Cope. Means gud genes." Fuck off.

The demands built into the selection schema innate to the human female are worn rough by the ages. If any of these traits were ever linked by way of pleiotropy to something more meaningful, they've probably lost this meaning in a modern context. The enivronment is dynamic. The foid is not.

It would be interesting to see the generational decline of the human species occur according to "nature's" ideal. A small band of Lachowskian wiggers that can't die their shoes, sitting in circles mumbling "yuh yuh buh digga" awaiting their impending collapse. 5% of them fornicate with the remaining foids with the rest spinning their heads in stupefied bliss.

High iq.

The only thing left to select mates on - the only thing society can't otherwise provide - is looks and raw sexual attraction. So that's what we have.

False, society can offer men government funded hookers and sex bots

And from an evolutionary standpoint, looks were likely the best quick way to assess a person's genetic quality. Is he tall? Is he masculine? Is he symmetric and free from deformity? Okay might make good mate, time to fuck.

Femoids are way pickier, an ugly fat bitch won't settle for an ugly fat guy. Why should the fat guy have to settle for nothing while the fat whore gets to fuck way above her looksmatch?

I want beautiful women too. As I said in that thread, I am equally driven by that desire for beauty. But it's just not in the cards for me unless I can become beautiful myself first. That's just how it goes.

I want to fuck a beautiful woman too, but I'd still fuck an ugly or a fat or a 50 year old one, because femoids and the cucked government artificially lowered male smv. We need to get tax funded hookers, male birth control and sexbots to tip the scales back in men's side.

 

[Limerencel]

Women are inferior therefore they should be men's slaves. His IQ is fine, maybe yours isn't if you think women don't deserve to be slaves.

You are truly a fucking idiot.
His comment was that it is nature for women to be enslaved to men.
In every species, the males compete against each other to death in order to have a chance to reproduce, while women pick and choose.
If you had observed nature, or even watched a single documentary on it, you would know that the opposite of what he said is true.

 

[armis]

You are truly a fucking idiot.

Lookism/avatarism

His comment was that it is nature for women to be enslaved to men.
In every species, the males compete against each other to death in order to have a chance to reproduce, while women pick and choose.
If you had observed nature, or even watched a single documentary on it, you would know that the opposite of what he said is true.

Nature made women inferior to men, nature also made men intelligent, so men should be intelligent enough to realise that women are physically inferior enough for them to be easily enslaved, humans don't have to act like other animals.

 

[diogenes]

Huge cope.

Nature is nature boyo. Can't change it. Nature is always right. Why? Because it's nature. The truth is that foids prefer Chad. And what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Because this society prohibits us from rising up. In the past incel men had the chance to ascend by getting involved in risky behavior or allying with fellow incels.

Take a look at baboon society. The Chad baboons hold a harem of many females while the younger or weaker incel baboons attempt to displace a Chad baboon to take over his harem. This is what goes on in human society but with extra steps and as I said above incels cannot band together to kill Chads and take over their harems. Just look up "baboon fights" on YouTube, they pretty much only fight for the right to mate. It's the eternal fight that all creatures participate on for survival and the passing on of DNA.

Your post is not blackpill, it's bluepill. It's cope.

 

[Ritalincel]

nuck fature

 

[GeneticDysfunction]

Yes. He is better than you, and he's better than me. Society has removed any need for you to pick up new skills. No one cares if you get sick because there are pills to fix you if you do. If you can't look after yourself, welfare will be provided. A+ test scores impress your parents but no one else.

Those things simply don't matter.

The only thing left to select mates on - the only thing society can't otherwise provide - is looks and raw sexual attraction. So that's what we have.

And from an evolutionary standpoint, looks were likely the best quick way to assess a person's genetic quality. Is he tall? Is he masculine? Is he symmetric and free from deformity? Okay might make good mate, time to fuck.

That's it. That will always be it. Unless society collapses and women are again dependent on men as providers, nothing else matters.

I want beautiful women too. As I said in that thread, I am equally driven by that desire for beauty. But it's just not in the cards for me unless I can become beautiful myself first. That's just how it goes.

Damn it truly is over

 

[Zyros]

Huge cope.

Nature is nature boyo. Can't change it. Nature is always right. Why? Because it's nature. The truth is that foids prefer Chad. And what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Because this society prohibits us from rising up. In the past incel men had the chance to ascend by getting involved in risky behavior or allying with fellow incels.

Take a look at baboon society. The Chad baboons hold a harem of many females while the younger or weaker incel baboons attempt to displace a Chad baboon to take over his harem. This is what goes on in human society but with extra steps and as I said above incels cannot band together to kill Chads and take over their harems. Just look up "baboon fights" on YouTube, they pretty much only fight for the right to mate. It's the eternal fight that all creatures participate on for survival and the passing on of DNA.

Your post is not blackpill, it's bluepill. It's cope.

completely missed the point

 

[diogenes]

completely missed the point

Then what is the point brother? Do you expect to change the minds of the billions of NT normies? Nature is right and will always be.

 

[Zyros]

Then what is the point brother? Do you expect to change the minds of the billions of NT normies? Nature is right and will always be.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

From the subjects (us animals and living beings) point of view, nature is all about unfairness, sick competition, domination, suffering and violence. Since there is no objective meaning in life and there is not a greater purpose, our point of view is the one to take into account. And what I described is FAR from being right.

 

[diogenes]

Since there is no objective meaning in life and there is not a greater purpose, our point of view is the one to take into account.

I agree, but our point is not the one to take into account as as you said there is no objective meaning or greater purpose. That being said, the DEFAULT is nature. So therefore objectively speaking the way nature is is the right way, since it is the default, and all other alternatives are copes made up by humans.

 

[Zyros]

I agree, but our point is not the one to take into account as as you said there is no objective meaning or greater purpose. That being said, the DEFAULT is nature. So therefore objectively speaking the way nature is is the right way, since it is the default, and all other alternatives are copes made up by humans.

But default doens't mean right

 

[diogenes]

But default doens't mean right

You are correct. There is no "right". There is default, standard, status quo. And asking for more than that is cope. We won't convince the world to love us. The only thing we can do is as I said earlier do as the beta virgin baboons, band together for higher reproduction possibility and success.

 

[San Salvador]

As an antinatalist i 100% agree with you.

+ JFL at people who think that being slave to their genes is ascending. Listen, we all agree that sex is good because it feels good, but when you start giving values to blind/dumb nature like "the whole purpose of life is blabla" "transmitting ones genes is winning blabla" you are just being extremely low IQ.

They are not being low IQ. Reproducing is indeed winning.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

You are correct. There is no "right". There is default, standard, status quo. And asking for more than that is human civilization.

Accepting the default is passive, feminine behavior. In the barest state of nature, it is natural for man to kill rival men over resources, including whores. If you let yourself be killed and smile as it happens, that is completely and unequivocally cuckish.

We know what we need and we know what is right to us.

 

[Zyros]

Accepting the default is passive, feminine behavior. In the barest state of nature, it is natural for man to kill rival men over resources, including whores. If you let yourself be killed and smile as it happens, that is completely and unequivocally cuckish.

We know what we need and we know what is right to us.

someone who gets it

 

[armis]

Reproducing is indeed winning.

Bluepilled, reproducing means nothing except time and money wasted, there's no reason to pass on "muh genes" or "muh family name" either.

 

[Fontaine]

Nature is irrational and evil, but at the same time you should recognize Nature's power. Until the Singularity happens or Jesus comes back, Nature will continue to rule. It's pointless to rail against Nature and female irrationally evil mating choices if you're not currently working on next-gen AI.

Ironically, the ones who are currently contributing the most to Nature's downfall (AI / robotics researchers) tend to be low-T liberals who find few faults with the modern world.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

They are not being low IQ. Reproducing is indeed winning.

In relation to fitness (not the specious "survival of the fittest" bullshit, but strict reproductive fitness - the representation of your alleles in the next generation) and fitness exclusively, yes. But is life reducible to transmission? This line of thinking is teleological: "the purpose of life is reproduction because reproduction arises from life as necessary for its propagation".

Even if you want to hold to that, how does this make a sterile fornicator a "victor" over us? How many people are actually having children in the West? How many of those children are going to be dead-ends themselves the way things are going? The fornicator engages in a debauched pantomime of reproduction. If we are to speak of "reproduction" here, it is only in the sense where it means "imitation".

 

[diogenes]

Accepting the default is passive, feminine behavior. In the barest state of nature, it is natural for man to kill rival men over resources, including whores. If you let yourself be killed and smile as it happens, that is completely and unequivocally cuckish.

We know what we need and we know what is right to us.

That I accept the default doesn't mean that I surrender. OP wants social justice. I see that goal as unreachable and look to other means to increase my status in this world. I said clearly above that our best bet would be for us incels to band together to create a better situation for ourselves, like incel baboons do to challenge Chad baboons to take over their harems.

 

[San Salvador]

In relation to fitness (not the specious "survival of the fittest" bullshit, but strict reproductive fitness - the representation of your alleles in the next generation) and fitness exclusively, yes. But is life reducible to transmission? This line of thinking is teleological: "the purpose of life is reproduction because reproduction arises from life as necessary for its propagation".

Even if you want to hold to that, how does this make a sterile fornicator a "victor" over us? How many people are actually having children in the West? How many of those children are going to be dead-ends themselves the way things are going? The fornicator engages in a debauched pantomime of reproduction. If we are to speak of "reproduction" here, it is only in the sense where it means "imitation".

I have never implied that a "sterile fornicator" is our superior, but Europeans must have many children in order to rebuild Evropa in the image of our traditional forebears. All peoples of the world ought to do the same.

 

[itneverbegun]

Not gonna read it all but let me just say that we live in a perversion of human nature.

If you want to know how humans sexual act would be without interference from cultural norms like capitalism, you should observe bonobos.
It's not a harem situation like gorillas.

 

[armis]

I have never implied that a "sterile fornicator" is our superior, but Europeans must have many children in order to rebuild Evropa in the image of our traditional forebears. All peoples of the world ought to do the same.

Varg level cope

 

[San Salvador]

Varg level cope

Of course, spam "cope" when you run out of arguments. If all peoples of the world were traditional, you would not be an incel.

 

[Fontaine]

In relation to fitness (not the specious "survival of the fittest" bullshit, but strict reproductive fitness - the representation of your alleles in the next generation) and fitness exclusively, yes. But is life reducible to transmission? This line of thinking is teleological: "the purpose of life is reproduction because reproduction arises from life as necessary for its propagation".

Even if you want to hold to that, how does this make a sterile fornicator a "victor" over us? How many people are actually having children in the West? How many of those children are going to be dead-ends themselves the way things are going? The fornicator engages in a debauched pantomime of reproduction. If we are to speak of "reproduction" here, it is only in the sense where it means "imitation".

Reproduction is indeed a cope, and nothing is particularly admirable in living beings that reproduce a lot. It's fake immortality, both from an individual and collective perspective, because everything comes to an end, including the genes that you transmitted, since they will get diluted further and further down the line; publishing a book containing your beliefs and worldview is in fact a better cloning strategy for somewhat mitigating your death.

The dilution problem should especially concern our WN friends: over the long run, "aryan" genes are bound to get diluted in others; if not tomorrow, in three or five centuries. All your work will have been pointless.

Ironically, in Nature, those who reproduce the most are often seen as bad or lesser species: insects, parasites, pests. Those who reproduce the least are elephants, tigers, "noble" species.

Poorly understood Darwinian biological science often leads to erroneous philosophical beliefs like "the only observable goal of life is to reproduce" : this is confusing causes of existence with directions given to existence. What a dreadful existential goal it would be to simply "reproduce"! This is a philosophy fit for mindless animals, not conscious and rational beings. When Christianity was less cucked, it actually advocated against reproduction (see Paul's Epistles for instance).

 

[armis]

If all peoples of the world were traditional, you would not be an incel.

Wrong, mate selection still applies to tribalism or whatever you're advocating.