Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
I hate my mom for having me later in her life. She should've never reproduced when she was a roastie. Ignorance from foids brings only misery. A third party should step in and mandate breeding.
Foids hold too much emotional sway over men: They utilize their higher levels of emotional intelligence, combined with their frontal lobes higher levels of white matter in order to lie their way into whatever they want.
Hence, why I support selective breeding & eugenics: Call me "cucked" "cruel" or whatever, but as the result of this, I can see the consequences of it.
So, I just used the Scientific Blackpill page on Incels.wiki to reply to another thread on here, and as I did so, I discovered the study below the one I used as a reply and decided to give it a read: A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status - Incels.wiki...
Foids don't value a mans actual intelligence(as indicated by this article) & instead only value looks, as well as extraversion which is impacted heavily by being NT.
But a look into the current beauty standards of foids will reveal something - they choose contradictory men with both feminine and masculine traits (so called pretty boys) - a freak of nature. The top lifters in Olympics are not the most attractive, destroying the myth that foids choose for health/strength and hence the existence of "ogrecels".
This(amongst many other things) has given me an incentive to make a thread as to how the diet, chemicals in water, products, etc. we have in the US are contributing to Inceldom.
A similar effect is peacocks. Natural selection doesn't always choose the best traits. Brightly colored peacocks are a easy picking in nature and doesn't serve much purposes besides attracting a mate, but things are just like that.
Liked both the writing and the articles and nothing really comes to my mind that you could've done better, I'm not really much of a critic like this, even when we have uni assignments where we are supposed to grade each other's work, I can never find anything to dislike apart from obvious stuff like entire sections missing and such.
If I had to guess explanations for this... The coronary artery disease one is probably simply because there's never a single gene responsible for a trait, and genes can also simultaneously affect multiple traits.
Truly, it is blackpilling in various ways to see something such as this: Oftentimes, the data you see simply reinforces your own observations.
Many stated how it correlated heavily with the fact foids will choose that kind of dumbo Jock or Thugmaxxer in HS.
However, when examining the wealth gap I fall into, it further confirmed to me the consequences of late-life child birth.
In fact, it prompted me to text my mother when she had me, since I wasn't exactly sure: Turns out, she had me at 35.
I plan on making a thread about late-life child bearing, and it's connection to Inceldom: I'm worried it would be just another "water" thread, but I will try 7 find a way to put a spin on it.
As for height, obviously that's a wanted trait, but that doesn't necessarily translate into actual reproductive success. For example, as was posted about here a lot, good looks are correlated with income, height is a very important part of that, and it just so happens that poor people tend to have more children.
The height part stumped me a bit, I will say that.
Height does seemingly correlate well with income(and thus good looks) which as you said, clearly correlates with the poor in this case having more children.
Regardless, it is evident that either way foids dysgenic choices rule our world: This is done by design, for many reasons.
Or, for another example, I made a thread some time ago about how all non-white man/white woman couples have higher fertility than their genderswapped counterparts, despite white men usually being taller than non-white ones.
Interesting:feelsstudy::feelsjuice:. Racial Pairings and Fertility: Do Interracial Couples Have Fewer Children? These data also indicate substantial variation in fertility across different racial-gender pairings (Table 2, off-diagonal cells). Of these racial pairings, fertility was lowest...
Quite the interesting find, but don't forget "muh JBW is law all Whites can ascend with a Noodle Stacy & have Elliot Rodger-tier kids!" Or "muh great replacement isn't real! And if it is, just let your foids(likely your looksmatch, since I admit its usually lower-tier white women I see with ethnics) get used to breed Inkwells who will have it 10x worse"
Honestly, I think people on here associate in absolutes too much: For example, if I were to point this fact out, or the fact that immigration & multicultural societies tend to make things worse in most wats for everyone, people would spurge out about "muh protecting foids & normies" when in reality, they are the ones who actually tend to encourage this:
(sorry for the blur, had to SS)
I'm a general misanthrope, but the reason why I despise certain races more, is due to the fact that to normies of my race, I may be ugly & autistic, but that's it. However, to Blacks or Hispanics, I am ugly, autistic, and White.
Noticing patterns in the various "happenings" of the world tends to prove the blackpill a lot: Also, this has partially inspired me to make a thread on this theory I have as to how only Autists can be truly blackpilled.
via blackpill theory, foids are steadily going after more and more attractive men. Do you reckon this results from the subhuman foids being allowed to reproduce?
Because the men they choose to reproduce with are all high-tier in society regardless due to the inflation of women's SMV. Let's say half of the offspring inherits the subhuman genes and they either die off if they're male or continue to reproduce if female. Then everyone has a 50% chance of being either a chad/stacy or a subhuman/becky, and since beckies are allowed to reproduce the pattern continues, with the male subhumans dying alone each time. But this still guarantees a sizeable number of the population being Chads and stacies, they may be low IQ retards but they're physically gifted so i dont see how this is an overall degeneration at least not physically.
This is similar to what various other users have stated: A bottleneck is opening up, and it will continue to widen until effectively the population are either dysgenic Incels or ugly foids, with a few low-IQ Chad & Stacy tier individuals.
Anyways, traits like intelligence and cognitive ability being selected against is a huge degeneration for society. But what can you expect from whores that only care about what you're born with.
Thank you. Female mate choice is dysgenic. It selects for men who were valuable back when we were banging rocks and chucking spears at mammoths, but are no longer valuable. Female mate choice niggerizes a population.
Thank you. Female mate choice is dysgenic. It selects for men who were valuable back when we were banging rocks and chucking spears at mammoths, but are no longer valuable. Female mate choice niggerizes a population.
Ironically, our ancestors actually were smarter than us: They relied less on the crutch of technology, lived in more interconnected communities, had better cognitive function & memorization, etc.
Ultimately, this shows just how far humanity has fallen.
It's typical of illiterate people to have photographic memories. This is not superior cognition, it's just unused capacity. What's better, having access to all the knowledge we do today, or remembering the fine details of a fucking leaf you looked at for a split-second?
Now of course, the broader Socio-Cultural consequences of this will extend beyond just "male loneliness" & the broader Inceldom phenomena: Ultimately, it will correlate heavily with that of behavioral sink & various other phenomenas, which in turn will contribute to inceldom. The two are mutually exclusive; one phenomena cannot exist without the presence of another.
Did you mean to say, "are NOT mutually exclusive"? Mutual exclusivity in this context means that behavioral sink etc. and inceldom cannot exist simultaneously.
Btw, I noticed that you used the term "selection bias" when speaking about female mate selection. The term is a defined as a research sample that is non-randomly selected. You could simply call female sexual selection "dysgenic selection," but it wouldn't technically be biased.
Though, one could argue that human female sexual selection is in fact natural selection, since females are selecting for traits of high survivability in the environment that they're in. The 666, pretty boy thotstagram selection means in that environment, where status through social media followers signals fitness and resource availability, the selection is merely adaptive, even if culturally influenced. After all, cultural adaption directly means survival fitness in the given environment.
This was all UK data. I'd be curious to see how these finding stack up against populations that aren't Western indoctrinated i.e., countries where feminism hasn't taken firm root and have maintained more classical - though not necessarily patriarchal - societal structures. In other words countries that haven't been brainwashed by progressivism and feminism, but also also have freedom of female mate selection in their cultures and societies. Is there even such a country in existence today? JFL
Honestly, I think people on here associate in absolutes too much: For example, if I were to point this fact out, or the fact that immigration & multicultural societies tend to make things worse in most wats for everyone, people would spurge out about "muh protecting foids & normies" when in reality, they are the ones who actually tend to encourage this:
I'm a general misanthrope, but the reason why I despise certain races more, is due to the fact that to normies of my race, I may be ugly & autistic, but that's it. However, to Blacks or Hispanics, I am ugly, autistic, and White.
This was all UK data. I'd be curious to see how these finding stack up against populations that aren't Western indoctrinated i.e., countries where feminism hasn't taken firm root and have maintained more classical - though not necessarily patriarchal - societal structures. In other words countries that haven't been brainwashed by progressivism and feminism, but also also have freedom of female mate selection in their cultures and societies. Is there even such a country in existence today? JFL
Same. Also, I'd love to see this being done with data from other Western countries as well as those non-Western ones, just to be completely sure and maybe even look at where this dysgenic devolution is happening faster or slower than in the UK, and whether any traits are going the other way than they do in the UK.
Furthermore, it highlights that men -ideally those educated in genetics, eugenics, the blackpill, etc.- should have control over mating & reproduction.
Did you mean to say, "are NOT mutually exclusive"? Mutual exclusivity in this context means that behavioral sink etc. and inceldom cannot exist simultaneously.
I meant it in the context that the two are tied in, mutually dependent on one another's existence as a phenomena, and in order to solve one we must solve the other.
But if I made a mistake in my grammar, which I would be utmost disappointed in, I appreciate the correction.
Btw, I noticed that you used the term "selection bias" when speaking about female mate selection. The term is a defined as a research sample that is non-randomly selected. You could simply call female sexual selection "dysgenic selection," but it wouldn't technically be biased.
Though, one could argue that human female sexual selection is in fact natural selection, since females are selecting for traits of high survivability in the environment that they're in. The 666, pretty boy thotstagram selection means in that environment, where status through social media followers signals fitness and resource availability, the selection is merely adaptive, even if culturally influenced. After all, cultural adaption directly means survival fitness in the given environment.
In a way, this is true, and quite a good take: Foids simply exist to live a life in which they are able to consistently "climb the ladder" so to speak, in order to merely acquise what they consider as beneficial towards them.
And in this context, you are correct: These Shit-Tok prettyboy faggots clearly bear all the influence on social media, so therefore foids will flock to them.
This was all UK data. I'd be curious to see how these finding stack up against populations that aren't Western indoctrinated i.e., countries where feminism hasn't taken firm root and have maintained more classical - though not necessarily patriarchal - societal structures. In other words countries that haven't been brainwashed by progressivism and feminism, but also also have freedom of female mate selection in their cultures and societies. Is there even such a country in existence today? JFL
Same. Also, I'd love to see this being done with data from other Western countries as well as those non-Western ones, just to be completely sure and maybe even look at where this dysgenic devolution is happening faster or slower than in the UK, and whether any traits are going the other way than they do in the UK.
I think the UK is in one of the worst cases for this tbh- I plan on making a "diet pill" thread concerning how our food, products, etc have contributed to various psychological & physical disorders that in turn, have contributed to Inceldom. Based on what I have seen so far, the diets in the UK are some of the worst, so ofc it would correlate heavily with dysgenics & thus the general Incel crisis.
Natural selection has been documented in contemporary humans, but little is known about the mechanisms behind it. We test for natural selection through the association between 33 polygenic scores and fertility, across two generations, using data from UK Biobank (N = 409,629 British subjects with...
link.springer.com
For quite some time, I have been considering the broader impacts of behavioral sink & the general decline in civilization: What other factors are at play? Who else could be a driving force behind it? And many, many other such thoughts.
However, one thing that should definitely be considered within this, is whom the primary harbingers of inheriting traits which contribute to this(and thus, Inceldom) lies within that of the primary selectors of sexual decisions; foids.
Modern day foids globally, but particuallrty within the West, control the dating market; water for all of us but some lurkers need to be reminded.
Now of course, the broader Socio-Cultural consequences of this will extend beyond just "male loneliness" & the broader Inceldom phenomena: Ultimately, it will correlate heavily with that of behavioral sink & various other phenomenas, which in turn will contribute to inceldom. The two are mutually exclusive; one phenomena cannot exist without the presence of another.
So how exactly do foid sexual choices have anything to do with this? Well, let's thoroughly examine the findings of the article linked:
The statement about higher earnings, education, health, etc. predicting lower-levels of fertility does correlate heavily with that of theories concerning k-selection & r-selection.
It was also done over two generations, which indicates that it would serve as a good reflection of modern foids.
Clearly, modern day "natural selection" does not follow the traditional paths of nature, which would dictate for males to be the primary sexual-selectors: Think as to how virtually every civilization we had was clearly a patriarchal one, and dictated that the senior males should decide whom marries whom.
Foids being granted the right to determine whom they can sleep around with & eventually establish a relationship, in which reproduction occurs, has served only to broaden the wider selection of undesirable traits.
The correlations here frankly are astronomical to make a note of: The clear selection-bias which foids have when it comes to sexual reproduction exclusively is weeding out traits which are cognitively beneficial, and instead serving to promote ones which will create offspring more likely to bear these heavily undesirable traits. It is also a commonly accepted fact that various dysgenic traits are on the rise, as well as the overall increase in mental health, which is at the very least partially determined by genetic history.
And before any lurker here wants to think ": Correlation doesn't equal causation!" Well, here's what I would like to say in regards to that.
Yes, it doesn't imply directly "x causes y" that's not what anyone here is trying to state: Instead, we simply have noticed that these two things tend to "associate well together" if you will, and are trying to understand what kind of undercurrent perhaps raises the tides on each phenomena.
I almost caged when reading this: So they state multiple scientists, geneticists, researchers, etc. all ended up analyzing the contemporary history of humans & mating within it, yet can't identify any reasons leading to it?
To simply put it, it seems to me as if they failed to even address the mechanisms utilized throughout various civilizations, societies, etc. for mating, and then wish to just address it in this manner: ": We have known about & extensively documented upon this specific process & phenomena which has determined offspring for generations, yet are failing to even identify a single factor throughout history that has impacted it!"
I think this is them saying the quiet part out loud again: Clearly, the majority of us here -and Incels in general- are a byproduct of this state of foid-controlled sexual selection, and more is yet to come. Again, correlating with increases in hypergamy, degeneracy, behavioral sink, etc.
Truly, it is worrying to think what the substantive effects of this dysgenic behavior will manifest to in the future.
This theory of fertility seems to have been manifested back when things were quite different for our society: Hypergamy was quite low, most jobs paid a living wage which was sustainable, and fertility-rates were very different.
However, I find it quite interesting that this theory offers two opposite effects: One which increases, and then one which decreases.
Ah yes, good old personality.
However, what will be interesting to examine, is that the traits they designated under personality tend to be considered the personality traits bluepillers & even redpill shills tend to claim will lead to us attaining more attraction: Highly educated, cognitive abilities, etc. all actually correlate with lower desirability, whereas traits which are objectively undesirable are quite sought after, according to the graphs detailed.
So in a way, they did seem to prove that personality does matter, just not in the way they think it does.
I find this quite interesting, and it
When I look through articles such as these, I often find tons of subtle blackpills: Right here, they are basically admitting what Incels, Blackpillers, MGTOW, etc. have been stating for years.
Here, they more or less state that a massive genetic gape is widening, which will leave many disadvantaged, whilst some will benefit from this: I wish that they had elaborated upon which groups will be impacted more harsher by this, It would have been interesting to see to say the very least.
Here is how they worked out all the math for it:
Clearly, quite a large sample: Thus, indicating that this is quite comprehensive & exhibits many traits now expressed within the population.
Figure 2:
This graph is where the brutality of it all begins; emphasizing the evidence that foids simply make choices which are dysgenic.
As you can see here, traits which would be deemed as "good": Consciousness, smoking cessation, cognitive ability, and educational attainment all seem to be selected against.
In contrast, certain traits which will be classified as "bad" seemingly are selected for: Physical traits such as coronary artery disease(runs in my family sadly) seems to be somehow quite valuable to foids, and extraversion seems to hold quite a strong affinity.
Furthermore, this highlights how over things are for us Autismcels: Clearly, it is a trait selected against, and this correlates with the fact that extraversion is being heavily selected for.
However, what seemingly interests me is that height seems to be selected against.
Whilst I firmly believe face>height matters more, it does seem quite odd this is the case: Clearly, it could very likely be them selecting against shorter, males, but the possibility of them also selecting against it may be possible.
I found the one discerning the average age to be quite fascinating; highlighting how foids tend to seemingly look for the actual "desirable" traits which we get fed to by bluepillers & redpillers simply when they wish to finally settle down.
Again, this serves to prove the whole theory of foids chasing after the dumb Jock, thug, etc. only looking for the actual "good men" when it comes time for them to settle down.
Here's what we can take away from these two graphs:
-Foids whom are more promiscuous tend to seemingly associate more with spreading undesirable traits.
-However, even those whom have had less sexual relations & associate with having a partner tend to still favor these dysgenic traits.
In other words, this proves that AWALT.
To simply summarize it, foids will only consider any reasonable traits for reproduction when they are older.
How is this problematic? Well, for many reasons, it is quite obvious that when foids have children later, it simply will just contribute to inheriting more dysgenic traits. Many on here state that their parents had them quite late, which is another thing I relate to many on here with.
ion-based study of all women in Nova Scotia, Canada, who delivered a singleton fetus between 1988 and 2002 (N = 157,445). Family income of women who delivered between 1988 and 1995 was obtained through a confidential linkage with tax records (n = 76,300). The primary outcome was perinatal death...
areer. This article highlights the effects of delayed childbearing on fertility and obstetric and perinatal outcome. Recent findings Demographic studies indicate that fertility rates are falling in many countries, Europe being the continent with lowest total fertility rate. Female employment...
To simply put it, we are fucked either way: Foids whom have kids younger will almost always select dysgenic traits, whilst those whom will select more beneficial traits tend to almost always be late birthers, as was my case.
The consensus which we can arrive to here, is that to be born nowadays falls under one of two camps:
-Your mother had you much later, which increases the chance of various mental & physical birth issues.
-Your mother chased some dumbass Jock or thug around, which of course correlates to not only having more children, but also with inheriting more dysgenic traits due to foids sexual preferences.
In other words, the sexual choices of foids are dysgenic: They are unable to succinctly seek out desirable traits & correlate it with an adequate time to become pregnant & birth children.
This will further contribute towards not only Inceldom & hypergamy, but also the broader aspect of behavioral sink which will further plunge civilization into the dark age which it already is in. This is done by design, as (((they))) wish for a dumbed-down, mentally ill, physically weaker, and overall more dysgenic population, as it will be far easier to control to advance their narrative.
Furthermore, it highlights that men -ideally those educated in genetics, eugenics, the blackpill, etc.- should have control over mating & reproduction.
This is already getting quite long, so I want to wrap things up: Feel free to check-out the rest of the article, as a lot of it relates to human capital, whereas I primarily wanted to touch upon the dysgenic consequences of this. Perhaps I will touch more on the capital side, or someone else can.
>inb4 "dnr" what else would I expect from .is at this point?
nigger all this wall of text just to say that low iq cracker trash, nigger trash and sand nigger trash are breeding and sucking the life force of the working higher iq people in form of welfare to pay for all those low iq trash children. Then thge higher iq's dont breed that much because they are taxed half to death
nigger all this wall of text just to say that low iq cracker trash, nigger trash and sand nigger trash are breeding and sucking the life force of the working higher iq people in form of welfare to pay for all those low iq trash children. Then thge higher iq's dont breed that much because they are taxed half to death
Femininity at it´s core, is founded in Evil.
This is why jews and women are one and the same!
They get along just fine all to spite and genocide against jites on their path to supER sayan.
Fuxk off this is women fault they only want 999999/10. 6ft chads in their own because that’s only thing what makes their rotten vaginas wet I’m rotting here with you guys
nigger all this wall of text just to say that low iq cracker trash, nigger trash and sand nigger trash are breeding and sucking the life force of the working higher iq people in form of welfare to pay for all those low iq trash children. Then thge higher iq's dont breed that much because they are taxed half to death
Fuxk off this is women fault they only want 999999/10. 6ft chads in their own because that’s only thing what makes their rotten vaginas wet I’m rotting here with you guys
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
true jiTe effort
link.springer.com
journals.lww.com
