If all faggots were given the death penalty, there'd be no male on male rape.
Blackpill Male Rape - The Real Rape Culture + 5 out of 6 men should not be in Prison
how do you accsess with your phone@Rapist
THE KING IS HERE
@smegma producer
Absolutely correct. There is also giga anti-male propaganda in media, but I didn't want to bloat this thread even more. I put some links to shit on how men are portrait as evil and deserving of punishment in media here:
Joker gets raped and gaped in Joker 2, Hollywood made this movie to demoralize incels
They butchered the character What:dafuckfeels: This pepemoji is a good sum up of what the hell this guy just said :feelswhat::dafuckfeels:
@VideoGameCoper
Interesting, I made exactly the same experience. I gave a correct reply to a female teacher, she reprimanded me hard. Then she asks a girl, and the girl said exactly what I said verbatim. Then the teacher began praising her super hard lmao. The same teacher openly told me she deducted points and gave me a lower grade, because she didn't like how I spelled a street name in a fictional story we had to write.
There is also research on teachers downgrading boys on average, so this is no just anecdotal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/91qfu8/middle_school_teachers_favor_girls_when_they/
More often than not, your intuition is right. When you feel that people are hostile towards you, they probably are. Therapists would gaslight you, but I say, trust your instincts. I almost went schizo trying to explain away my bullying and how shit I was treated, by telling myself over and over it was just in my head, just my personality.
I've been kissed by drunk guys in public, like, I was sitting out on bench early in the morning. I was doing a first aid course for my drivers license, and two drunk dudes came down the road and one of them kissed me and fucked with my backpack. If I told to someone else they wold just say I am gay. Another time, in the homeless shelter, this literal faggot was following me into the basement to the washing machine and dryer. I only wore a towel. Thank God another dude from shelter staff was there.
That gay dudes laptop was in the local WiFi unlocked, I went in it with my phone and it was full of gay porn. Fml.
NICE!
And of course feminist faggots will just blame the "patriarchy" for this. Which makes no sense because why would a society supposedly not only ruled by men but built for men to rule over women punish it's males worse then it's females. The logic just doesn't add up which makes sense because these womeme feminists can't do basic math.
VLC media player on my phone, it detected an open device in the wifi network and started indexing the shit on this dudes laptop. I could go into his laptop using VLC media player app. It was gay porn and him filming a foid in a really weird place, like she was sitting on a chair. Just awkward af idk.
They always find a way to go from neutral premises to "men at fault" or "women most affected." They always prove our point while trying to disprove it. They constantly larp that you should take a balanced view and consider both sides in every argument etc, but then never consider the male side and instead attack men and not women. Idk how they are so fucking retarded that they cant see this, but yeah. I swear, I have never ever in five years of browsing .is and knowing about the blackpill seen anyone debate us without immediately taking foids side kek.
They don't even entertain the possibility we could be right, they just dismiss it by calling our communities echo chambers and shit. It is astonishing. And when their made-up shit contradicts the data, they scramble to make up new bullshit. Like in this video, where "a shield for men" shows a study where they couldnt explain how incels are not violent:
View: https://youtu.be/KgwR7IxhtfM
Notice, throughout the entire thing he shows, they never considered even once the possibility that, you know, maybe their starting assumption is wrong and sexless men are just not as violent as they want to believe. Instead they try to save their bias by inventing rescue-excuses for their initial hypothesis, aka "maybe these men were pacified by video games or smn idk."
Meanwhile we have provided actual data showing that it is in fact chads and sexually successful men that pose the greatest threat to women:
[STUDY] Most violence, misogyny, and hostility toward women is done by chads, NOT virgins. Yet virgins and sub5 men are blamed for it all.
Women are raped, or victims of domestic violence, and some men are misogynistic or are angry toward women. Bluepilled cucks think that most men who hate women are virgins who can't get laid and believe that chads/chick magnets respect women. Nope. Not at all. Very opposite actually. And many...
incels.is
But they ignore that in favor of their beliefs that women only pick good men, because women are good, kind and incapable of wanting fucked up shit, like violent men and rape fantasies. And sexless men are just frustrated loosers who lash out at the world cuz they cant get the holy vagina.
Rape: ugly autist teen says "hi" to adult foid.
Not rape: psychopath lesbians mutilate the genitalia of a young boy, torture him for year, and then murder him, dismember him, stuff his body parts in a bag while living on state- enforced child support from the boy's father.
Case in point:
www.metropoles.com
Not rape: psychopath lesbians mutilate the genitalia of a young boy, torture him for year, and then murder him, dismember him, stuff his body parts in a bag while living on state- enforced child support from the boy's father.
Case in point:
Esquartejado, o suplício de Rhuan começou há 1 ano, quando teve o pênis mutilado pela própria mãe
A mulher e a companheira, cúmplice do homicídio, confessaram o crime e a emasculação do garoto, sob a justificativa de que "ele queria ser menina". Criança não frequentava a escola e era vítima de maus-tratos
www.metropoles.com
Last edited:
JFL
Me waking up every morning:
Me 15 miliseconds after logging into steam account and launching pinball:
Btw I remember having educational lesson in high school (about 6-8 years ago) about how video games are violent and shit and they played "hitman cool kills montage" as an example
Agent 47 just can't catch a break.
tf why was i not tagged?! im a fucking israeli jew
JFL
Me waking up every morning:
View attachment 1296067
Me 15 miliseconds after logging into steam account and launching pinball:
View attachment 1296068
Btw I remember having educational lesson in high school (about 6-8 years ago) about how video games are violent and shit and they played "hitman cool kills montage" as an example
Great thread saar Gecko. Soyciety really is full of crap with it's fake narratives and "men bad women good" is the worst of them all because racism or fag oppression used to be very real at least, while women never had it worse than men.
I think we underestimate the impact all this smearing, defaming garbage of a whole gender has on men's collective SMV. A woman can hardly have a positive view of you the moment you're not backed by a strong social background (comprised of normie assholes), vetted by other women or, in a more indirect way, insanely compensate by looks or money, for her to "take the risk". If you carefully listen to modern commentary about dating, be it from a redpill or bluepill perspective, they always evoke this "risk" aspect for women in an evo-psych way, and they imply the wellbeing of future children just as much as the safety of the woman. To me this is rooted in this fake narrative that we're inherently dangerous pieces of shit be it through direct violence or weaponized incompetence, and the implicit consequence of it is that we need to be perfect before a woman even considers us like a normal human being. Fuck this bullshit.
Really, i don't think women always hated or suspected men to that point historically. I know some guys might not agree with me on this but this is my intuition. I do believe something in the female psychology make them ressent men or even look down on them which might have culminated into feminism and today's out of control hypergamy, but for the average woman back in the day this must've been something lurking in the shadows of their psyche and countered by then still very present positive male archetypes. Today there's none of these : you're either the bad guy or the good guy. The loser or the winner. And this has nothing to do with men being better or worse than before, more or less masculine than before, but everything with this smearing and defaming crap.
I think we underestimate the impact all this smearing, defaming garbage of a whole gender has on men's collective SMV. A woman can hardly have a positive view of you the moment you're not backed by a strong social background (comprised of normie assholes), vetted by other women or, in a more indirect way, insanely compensate by looks or money, for her to "take the risk". If you carefully listen to modern commentary about dating, be it from a redpill or bluepill perspective, they always evoke this "risk" aspect for women in an evo-psych way, and they imply the wellbeing of future children just as much as the safety of the woman. To me this is rooted in this fake narrative that we're inherently dangerous pieces of shit be it through direct violence or weaponized incompetence, and the implicit consequence of it is that we need to be perfect before a woman even considers us like a normal human being. Fuck this bullshit.
Really, i don't think women always hated or suspected men to that point historically. I know some guys might not agree with me on this but this is my intuition. I do believe something in the female psychology make them ressent men or even look down on them which might have culminated into feminism and today's out of control hypergamy, but for the average woman back in the day this must've been something lurking in the shadows of their psyche and countered by then still very present positive male archetypes. Today there's none of these : you're either the bad guy or the good guy. The loser or the winner. And this has nothing to do with men being better or worse than before, more or less masculine than before, but everything with this smearing and defaming crap.
Last edited:
Great reply, you are a good writer, very nice, mogs 99% of the replies I read
I have noticed this as well, how the grifter crowed introduces their evo-psych narratives into the mix. It is very odd how they do that. They often use it to excuse female behavior as "natural" while simultaneously using the same narrative as a call to action for men. For example, they keep saying that men should not be mad at women, since women are just "dumb" and not aware of their own behavior. Female behavior is "natural." This is often underscored with analogies like the story of the scorpion stabbing the frog, wherein the scorpion loudly declares, "I could not help but stab you, it is in my nature."
Besides this being fallacious reasoning (is/ought problem, appeal to nature fallacy), they do not apply the same logic to men, who's behavior somehow becomes "unnatural" and thus needs to be altered to fit the "natural" behavior of women. So women are the standard for male behavior. I have even seen these people openly say things to the liking of, "there is no greater indicator of a mans success other than how much women like him." Literally idol worship. Whom the god's love, they reward.
The old saying "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" would be more fitting. I think the evo-psych arguments are used to re-introduce morality into the mix, some kind of ethical grounding to activate the victim group (men) into action through shaming language. Evolution can not provide purpose or anything, so the grifter invents non-sensical terminology like "biological imperative" and speaks of "fitness" and how the "weak" died in the olden times. Of course the term "biological imperative" is an oxymoron, as biology and morality are wholly distinct categories. To mix the two is a non-sequitur, category error, is/ought fallacy - whatever you want to call it.
They are basically trying to guilt trip their audience into feeling inadequate about themselves and responsible for societies woes. Much could be written about this but it is just male on male exploitation, with women as the bait - which is why women are never put into question by these people. No matter how much they attack women, they never give them responsibility or diminish their value. They call the grapes sour but keep coming back to the vine, something women are aware off more than men.
For example, in this clip, starting at 16:34, two women talk about how these "trad" grifters use hot women as bait in their thumbnails and how women make money from interacting with the "misogyinist" crowd online, since they all secretly simp for these girls they supposedly hate so much. Since Women control the "supply" part of the SMV "demand-supply" equation in society, they have superior market knowledge than men. Just like a supermarket owner knows his customers better than they do themselves, women know men and women better than men know themselves and women. Women know men are just coping. Men are in denial about their own behavior.
I have noticed this as well, how the grifter crowed introduces their evo-psych narratives into the mix. It is very odd how they do that. They often use it to excuse female behavior as "natural" while simultaneously using the same narrative as a call to action for men. For example, they keep saying that men should not be mad at women, since women are just "dumb" and not aware of their own behavior. Female behavior is "natural." This is often underscored with analogies like the story of the scorpion stabbing the frog, wherein the scorpion loudly declares, "I could not help but stab you, it is in my nature."
Besides this being fallacious reasoning (is/ought problem, appeal to nature fallacy), they do not apply the same logic to men, who's behavior somehow becomes "unnatural" and thus needs to be altered to fit the "natural" behavior of women. So women are the standard for male behavior. I have even seen these people openly say things to the liking of, "there is no greater indicator of a mans success other than how much women like him." Literally idol worship. Whom the god's love, they reward.
The old saying "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" would be more fitting. I think the evo-psych arguments are used to re-introduce morality into the mix, some kind of ethical grounding to activate the victim group (men) into action through shaming language. Evolution can not provide purpose or anything, so the grifter invents non-sensical terminology like "biological imperative" and speaks of "fitness" and how the "weak" died in the olden times. Of course the term "biological imperative" is an oxymoron, as biology and morality are wholly distinct categories. To mix the two is a non-sequitur, category error, is/ought fallacy - whatever you want to call it.
They are basically trying to guilt trip their audience into feeling inadequate about themselves and responsible for societies woes. Much could be written about this but it is just male on male exploitation, with women as the bait - which is why women are never put into question by these people. No matter how much they attack women, they never give them responsibility or diminish their value. They call the grapes sour but keep coming back to the vine, something women are aware off more than men.
For example, in this clip, starting at 16:34, two women talk about how these "trad" grifters use hot women as bait in their thumbnails and how women make money from interacting with the "misogyinist" crowd online, since they all secretly simp for these girls they supposedly hate so much. Since Women control the "supply" part of the SMV "demand-supply" equation in society, they have superior market knowledge than men. Just like a supermarket owner knows his customers better than they do themselves, women know men and women better than men know themselves and women. Women know men are just coping. Men are in denial about their own behavior.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mygPV1gtbw&t=994s
I now want to address your final paragraph:
I actually agree with you here. For most of history, people had a much more realistic view of human nature and things like sexuality. Their beliefs in many ways closer to our "blackpill" views than we think. For instance, they viewed peoples lot in life as largely pre-determined by higher forces. Just consider the book of Job in the bible for a classic example. Job gains and looses everything, for no reason at all. The story ends with God explaining that humans are simply incapable of judging why something happens to them. Job's friends, who blamed him for his misfortunes in the most vile manner - "surely you must have done something wrong to deserve this" - are also chastized.
People back then viewed the entire universe as hiearchical and fundamentally un-egalitarian. Our modern beliefs of extreme social mobility, where a commoner can become a king by applying themselves and such, would have been ridiculous or even treacherous to them. It would have been an affront against the natural order to assert that a low-born man can wrestle the gods into granting him nobility in the eyes of men.
The blackpill just re-introduces this view. We view society as a looks-based caste system, we acknowledge hierachy, that people end up where they end up not because of a fault of character or due to superior ability, but rather through sheer luck. To us, it is equally as offensive to say that someone achieved status and sucess among men through merit, as it would have been to pre-enlightenment people.
Since they were aware of this and other human biases that are largely suppressed or ignored in our time, they took active measures against these. Religion, in particular christianity, puts a huge emphasis on controlling yourself, on maintaining watch on your thoughts and desires. As you said, a woman back then may very well have had that intrinsic abhorrence of men, but her culture would have also trained her since childhood to recognize that abhorrence as wrong, even demonic, like what we would now call an "intrusive thought." A demon inspired whisper, a hallucination. Look no further than the orthodox christian teachings on thoughts for this. Thoughts are seen as dangerous and not to be identified with by default.
To bluntly identify with your own cravings, thoughts and feelings would have been seen as madness. In the bible it says "take every thought captive for Christ." It also says in the first pages of the book of Genesis, about the corruption of the woman, "your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you." This has been interpreted at times to mean that women will desire to rule men, or despise men, but ultimately men will remain superior to them. This holds true even today, see for example this thread about how women are financially dependend on men for survival and contribute nothing to society, even today:
People back then viewed the entire universe as hiearchical and fundamentally un-egalitarian. Our modern beliefs of extreme social mobility, where a commoner can become a king by applying themselves and such, would have been ridiculous or even treacherous to them. It would have been an affront against the natural order to assert that a low-born man can wrestle the gods into granting him nobility in the eyes of men.
The blackpill just re-introduces this view. We view society as a looks-based caste system, we acknowledge hierachy, that people end up where they end up not because of a fault of character or due to superior ability, but rather through sheer luck. To us, it is equally as offensive to say that someone achieved status and sucess among men through merit, as it would have been to pre-enlightenment people.
Since they were aware of this and other human biases that are largely suppressed or ignored in our time, they took active measures against these. Religion, in particular christianity, puts a huge emphasis on controlling yourself, on maintaining watch on your thoughts and desires. As you said, a woman back then may very well have had that intrinsic abhorrence of men, but her culture would have also trained her since childhood to recognize that abhorrence as wrong, even demonic, like what we would now call an "intrusive thought." A demon inspired whisper, a hallucination. Look no further than the orthodox christian teachings on thoughts for this. Thoughts are seen as dangerous and not to be identified with by default.
To bluntly identify with your own cravings, thoughts and feelings would have been seen as madness. In the bible it says "take every thought captive for Christ." It also says in the first pages of the book of Genesis, about the corruption of the woman, "your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you." This has been interpreted at times to mean that women will desire to rule men, or despise men, but ultimately men will remain superior to them. This holds true even today, see for example this thread about how women are financially dependend on men for survival and contribute nothing to society, even today:
The average woman has a net negative impact on society of 150k
View: https://x.com/frogNscorpion/status/1844845890647064607
incels.is
People knew of the biases humans have and they took measures to counter them. If you had negative thoughts, thoughts of violence, urges, you were trained to fight them through prayer, meditation or confession. In our time, we have taken a ridiculously idealistic view of human nature, where desires are seen as "natural" and everything we desire is good. We take our own experiences to be supreme indicators of what we need, of what we should want, of what is good for us. This is also an underlying theme in all bluepill thinking, that your experience reflects reality, that your desires reflect reality. Often times we see this even on this forum, where people ignore statistics on racial biases in dating in favor of their own immediate experience, i.e. "I saw an ethnic man with a white woman on a bus, therefore all ethnics slay."
If people thought in terms of worldviews and stopped seeing themselves as isolated units (individualism is at fault for this), then many things would be much clearer. We are all part of larger systems. Like plankton in the ocean, we are shuffled around by currents and waves, while mistaking these larger-than-us shifts as changes in ourselves. Usually everything is just a systematic reaction to some other large scale event. After the 1970s cultural shift in favor of women, almost immediately we saw the first mans-rights organizations appear and books like "The Manipulated Man" took off instantly.
I also want to address what you said about masculinity. It is true that the word has just become another rethorical device used by grifters to shame young men. As I adressed in other threads, no one accuses women of lacking "femininity" or "not being a real woman." Historically, being a man had nothing to do with strength or power. In christianity, a man is simply defined as someone who loves God with all his strength. This standard of course also applies women in that context. One God, one standard for both genders.
When pressed, none of these people can define what masculinity even means anyway. They just fall back to the classic logical trilemma of circular reasoning, fideism or question begging. Since they know this, their final cop out is ad-hominems, as I said, they guilt trip young men through shaming language thinly veiled behind evo-psych babble, to legitimize the emotional abuse they are dishing out.
This would never work on women btw, just lol. Imagine something like this but gender swapped:
"Bullshit! You could have done better today girl! Someone forgot shes her families last hope! She needs to get back on track before its too late!
Does she want to remain a loser!? A lazy bitch, who can't even stand to raise her own kids?! You wanna tell your daughter, mommy didnt make it, cuz she quit and was too lazy!?"
This type of message only works on men, because men have been conditioned to view themselves and their own value as conditional. Man have to work to maintain their value. This is also the result of a cultural shift. In the past, your value was not determined by people or society. As I said, pre-enlightment socities believed in soft-determinism through God as the ultimate authority determining your life. God gave you value, not people. People were not the highest authority. By being made man in the image of God, you were man, you were masculine. This mitigates what we see today, where a man can be called effeminate or his man-hood can be called into question.
Calling someones man-hood or masculinity into question is not possible under a christian framework. It would be like calling God into question, since God made and defined man, not vice versa. Our culture has actually regressed into pre-christian thought, such as the views of the hellenic world, where indeed, a man was measured by his looks, his achievements and his "masculinity." In the story of Heracles, for a time he is described as becoming effeminate and even knitting clothes after a woman takes away his weapons and lions fur. Our culture is primitive, we have returned to bronze age tribal thinking, where one god is tested against another through battle. Whichever idol triumphs, is declared the strongest and true god.
You mention archetypes, role models. This too was a huge part of christian culture. Look at things like the Synaxarion. Christians believed that the human desire to be interested in other people was given to humanity by God, so that we might emulate the best among us. They did not shun human sexuality or urges altogether like in Buddhism, where desire is evil in itself. Instead they throught all desires, all creation was ultimately good, but unfortunately corrupted in the fall of man. To restore the old order was the goal of spiritual practise. To that end, the desire for gossip, slander and so forth was seen as a corrupted version of what I described: The drive to emulate good archetypes.
The ultimate archetypes for men and women were Christ and Mary, and lower archetypes were the Saints, whose lifes were studies all year round through daily readings of the "synaxarion," a collection of biographies detailing the lifes and struggles of saintly men and women. As I mentioned already, the final goal was always "theosis," lower-case "g" godhood. There was one standard for behavior, for life, and that was God. To be a man or woman was to worship God. Hence they wrote manuals entitled such as "the life in christ," or "the imitation of christ."
What we experience in our time is, as I said, a return to pagan thinking. We worship a pantheon of idols, we wrestle not with double, triple or even quadruple but infidesmal standards for human behavior. Just look at the amount of political systems beliefs, sub-groups. Even this forum just represents another cultish little trible, doing their thing in some bronze age valley. Our achetypes are chad and stacy, forums like looksmax.org are just little cults dedicated to "the imitation of chad," the life in chad." Society has fragmented and turned away from belief in one unifying principle, and our culture reflects that.
It is so ironic how people say the ancients worshipped mere representations of the awe they felt in the face of a world they could not understand. The god of storms, the god of winter, water and so on. But in our time, people act no different. What people value or fear becomes the idol. Scientific institutions are errected to the glory of beliefs, mere ideals. People arbitarily identify their own shortcomings and fears with societal woes, which may or may not exist. For this person it is "capitalism" that needs to be stopped, for that person "systemic racism," for another it is somehting else. These beliefs most often come from a place of personal inadequacy. People that are not incel, do not care about being incel. People that profit from capitalism, do not care to alter or abolish it.
Again, the bible speaks of this, in Isaiah 44:14-20. Man fashions himself an idol, not realizing he is the source of his own idolatry. Instead he assumes his own beliefs, his hubris is obvious and somehow mind-indepdently true. Of course capitalism is behind all the worlds woes! Of course it is the patriarchy! Of course incels are wrong and have no point, it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise! Of course this or that behavior is "masculine" and this other behavior is "femmine!" How could anyone question that?
As I said, people take their own feelings as an obvious standard for reality and then seek out people that share their opinion, and research to that matter and so on, which gives them the illusion they are right. Incels are unique as a group in this, because they are one of the few groups, outside of some christians, I have encountered, that is extremely self critical, to the point of even denying they have a self, in the case of some hardcore determinists here LOL. Incels are more consistent with their views than most people in current society, and closer to how people thought for most of human history too. I previously mentioned the similarities between the blackpill and christian beliefs.
Both lead to a form of self-denial, denying agency, denying your own wishes, what you want to be true, in favor of what is actually true. In Christianity they would say, you become a slave to Christ, the truth incarnate, instead of being a slave to another master, which is the ever changing deceptive flux of this world, your thoughts, feelings and desires.
If men and women were again taught to think like that, maybe we could see some improvements in society. Of course gender issues would not disappear, but at least there would be awareness again of human nature, and people would be more forgiving, more trusting and solution orientated, instead of engaging in permanet tribal warfare.
Does she want to remain a loser!? A lazy bitch, who can't even stand to raise her own kids?! You wanna tell your daughter, mommy didnt make it, cuz she quit and was too lazy!?"
This type of message only works on men, because men have been conditioned to view themselves and their own value as conditional. Man have to work to maintain their value. This is also the result of a cultural shift. In the past, your value was not determined by people or society. As I said, pre-enlightment socities believed in soft-determinism through God as the ultimate authority determining your life. God gave you value, not people. People were not the highest authority. By being made man in the image of God, you were man, you were masculine. This mitigates what we see today, where a man can be called effeminate or his man-hood can be called into question.
Calling someones man-hood or masculinity into question is not possible under a christian framework. It would be like calling God into question, since God made and defined man, not vice versa. Our culture has actually regressed into pre-christian thought, such as the views of the hellenic world, where indeed, a man was measured by his looks, his achievements and his "masculinity." In the story of Heracles, for a time he is described as becoming effeminate and even knitting clothes after a woman takes away his weapons and lions fur. Our culture is primitive, we have returned to bronze age tribal thinking, where one god is tested against another through battle. Whichever idol triumphs, is declared the strongest and true god.
You mention archetypes, role models. This too was a huge part of christian culture. Look at things like the Synaxarion. Christians believed that the human desire to be interested in other people was given to humanity by God, so that we might emulate the best among us. They did not shun human sexuality or urges altogether like in Buddhism, where desire is evil in itself. Instead they throught all desires, all creation was ultimately good, but unfortunately corrupted in the fall of man. To restore the old order was the goal of spiritual practise. To that end, the desire for gossip, slander and so forth was seen as a corrupted version of what I described: The drive to emulate good archetypes.
The ultimate archetypes for men and women were Christ and Mary, and lower archetypes were the Saints, whose lifes were studies all year round through daily readings of the "synaxarion," a collection of biographies detailing the lifes and struggles of saintly men and women. As I mentioned already, the final goal was always "theosis," lower-case "g" godhood. There was one standard for behavior, for life, and that was God. To be a man or woman was to worship God. Hence they wrote manuals entitled such as "the life in christ," or "the imitation of christ."
What we experience in our time is, as I said, a return to pagan thinking. We worship a pantheon of idols, we wrestle not with double, triple or even quadruple but infidesmal standards for human behavior. Just look at the amount of political systems beliefs, sub-groups. Even this forum just represents another cultish little trible, doing their thing in some bronze age valley. Our achetypes are chad and stacy, forums like looksmax.org are just little cults dedicated to "the imitation of chad," the life in chad." Society has fragmented and turned away from belief in one unifying principle, and our culture reflects that.
It is so ironic how people say the ancients worshipped mere representations of the awe they felt in the face of a world they could not understand. The god of storms, the god of winter, water and so on. But in our time, people act no different. What people value or fear becomes the idol. Scientific institutions are errected to the glory of beliefs, mere ideals. People arbitarily identify their own shortcomings and fears with societal woes, which may or may not exist. For this person it is "capitalism" that needs to be stopped, for that person "systemic racism," for another it is somehting else. These beliefs most often come from a place of personal inadequacy. People that are not incel, do not care about being incel. People that profit from capitalism, do not care to alter or abolish it.
Again, the bible speaks of this, in Isaiah 44:14-20. Man fashions himself an idol, not realizing he is the source of his own idolatry. Instead he assumes his own beliefs, his hubris is obvious and somehow mind-indepdently true. Of course capitalism is behind all the worlds woes! Of course it is the patriarchy! Of course incels are wrong and have no point, it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise! Of course this or that behavior is "masculine" and this other behavior is "femmine!" How could anyone question that?
As I said, people take their own feelings as an obvious standard for reality and then seek out people that share their opinion, and research to that matter and so on, which gives them the illusion they are right. Incels are unique as a group in this, because they are one of the few groups, outside of some christians, I have encountered, that is extremely self critical, to the point of even denying they have a self, in the case of some hardcore determinists here LOL. Incels are more consistent with their views than most people in current society, and closer to how people thought for most of human history too. I previously mentioned the similarities between the blackpill and christian beliefs.
Both lead to a form of self-denial, denying agency, denying your own wishes, what you want to be true, in favor of what is actually true. In Christianity they would say, you become a slave to Christ, the truth incarnate, instead of being a slave to another master, which is the ever changing deceptive flux of this world, your thoughts, feelings and desires.
If men and women were again taught to think like that, maybe we could see some improvements in society. Of course gender issues would not disappear, but at least there would be awareness again of human nature, and people would be more forgiving, more trusting and solution orientated, instead of engaging in permanet tribal warfare.
Last edited:
E
tbh paragraphed and appropriately formatted with links.
I tried to do better this time massa
Usually I follow the cluster-bomb method when making threads, but this time I was working on request made by someone else. So I tried being more readable, which was exhausting. I lost my draft once, since my ThinkPad natively comes with "page foward-backward" keys, which I hit accidentally and incels.is didn't save the draft. On my second attempt I drafted the thread in obsidian markdown and then imported it here to format it. The whole process took six hours, round about.
Usually I follow the cluster-bomb method when making threads, but this time I was working on request made by someone else. So I tried being more readable, which was exhausting. I lost my draft once, since my ThinkPad natively comes with "page foward-backward" keys, which I hit accidentally and incels.is didn't save the draft. On my second attempt I drafted the thread in obsidian markdown and then imported it here to format it. The whole process took six hours, round about.
man i've seen it all but reading this really depressed meRape: ugly autist teen says "hi" to adult foid.
Not rape: psychopath lesbians mutilate the genitalia of a young boy, torture him for year, and then murder him, dismember him, stuff his body parts in a bag while living on state- enforced child support from the boy's father.
Case in point:
Esquartejado, o suplício de Rhuan começou há 1 ano, quando teve o pênis mutilado pela própria mãe
A mulher e a companheira, cúmplice do homicídio, confessaram o crime e a emasculação do garoto, sob a justificativa de que "ele queria ser menina". Criança não frequentava a escola e era vítima de maus-tratos
its horrible, imagine the hatred they harbored for this poor kid
Last edited:
You nailed it on the evo-psych stuff. It might be prevalent in manosphere spaces but it still promotes a gynocentric, anti-male rhetoric by being a one way street veiled moral injunction without any basis in reasoning effectively putting the male sex at the mercy of the female sex, which sounds about right in that female worshipping zeitgeist. Yeah those scapegoats foids in tradcons shows taking advantage of the situation is like an inexorable consequence of a reality those held by the balls copers want to deny. Women are definitely calling the shots but men love to cope instead of facing reality. They try to convince themselves that those concepts that just so happen to be very convenient to women are some deep unalterable facts of nature. If anything, it's their nature but at it's worst and needs to be called out like we do on here.
Your next development reads almost like a manifesto against a post-christian society. I agree that the main defining characteristic of it is a subtle but deep anthropological rift with the way people used to be in the past even at a very macro, intimate level, i think you do a great job at explaining it in details. It's an enormous game changer when humanity sees itself as the beginning and the end of everything, this is how moral rot and other type of strife like, as you mentionned, excessive identity politics, a never ending number of ideologies and victim olympics, dividing people even further, entered western society at large but especially everyone's mind and heart, although at varying degrees. But those are only very strong manifestations of something that's already there at the core of the modern individual, something that makes it hard for people to relate to each other : i'm pretty sure the concept of "personality" was not so common before and people would rather talk about temper, favoring the one dimensional over the infinitesimal. If i remember correctly, Dutton touched on an adjacent subject and noticed how, even in the 90's USA, people still had some semblance of a common culture and references - same shows, food products, hobbies etc, transcending all races and social classes, but it eroded with time and society got atomized. This was social cohesion on life support following the fall of christianity, then inevitably dying, a logical conclusion accelerated by improving technology. It's funny to think that some sociologist out there is probably brazen enough to deny that a smartphone full of ideological garbage and narcissistic competition and self-gratification in the form of social media replacing the Imitation of Jesus-Christ on the average person's bedtable could have had some sort of shitty effect on society and people.
Your blackpill-christianity syncretism is very interesting. I'd say that the key to it is the acknowledgement, as human beings, of humanity's therefore of our own twisted, evil nature. It's being humble and resigned at a very ontological level... which is what leads, as you said, to place the truth in front of self-interest. Humility, not only in christianity but in a lot of religions, is the cornerstone of spirituality and holiness but also social cohesion. It all ultimately comes down to the concept of the original sin, which could be seen as a sane distrust of humanity's darker side. I think this is what you meant by saying that the majority of humanity used to think like us not too long ago. It's not a coincidence at all that the original sin, whether as a concept or felt in the depths of one's heart, happens to be extremely antithetical to modern individualism/empowered narcissism that really took off after the 70's.
Regarding masculinity, i'd say some measure of it always existed, even from a woman's hypergamic perspective like let's say some village girls competing for the tallest peasant, cause it's something rooted in sexual dimorphism, and i guess men on their part could, for example, be impressing each other and competing through feats of strength, be it warfare related or not, but all those people, at the end of the day, could listen to a feeble man of the church and treat his words as if it was gold and worship a weakened, emaciated man on a cross, and a woman whose virtues were all about kindness, nurturing and modesty. So what was different is the treshold for demeaning a guy over being not masculine enough. Being always one step away from not "being a real man" and emasculated is certainly something that's much more prevalent in modern society due to the factors you mentionned : a less pronounced sense of essentialism coupled with this new hyper competitive paradigm. But i think there's one more important factor here and it's misandry. I find it quite funny that the more feministic society gets, supposedly challenging "toxic masculinity" at every turn, the more guys somehow feel forced to perform their gender role in a stereotypical way hence the type of cringe and abusive man up content like the one you posted being normalized.
To me this is the consequence of "masculinity" (englobing fatherhood of course) being disrespected and demeaned to the point of collapse. But, as the saying goes, nature hates vacuums, so it returns in a deformed, monstrous form due to being disfigured prior. To illustrate this ill-treatment, this is part of a recent cartoon from a french far-left feminist woman being in an "open relationship" with a wimpy, not too sexually active husband (they also have two children lmao).
Notice the BVLL in the images. She's even saying to him "YOU'RE SO IMMENSE" refering to his height before he fucks her brains out. Stereotypically masculine tall alpha Chad of course. Who wants to be that guy (the husband) ??!! I think guys are scared of this (not necessarily of this exact same situation, but more generally on a holistic level given than being considered "less than" as a man is very easy now and women largely go along with it) which is understandable. Women and society at large NEVER ditched gender roles but rather toxically tip-toe around it which is often the real reason for "toxic masculinity". I mean have you ever been around leftist or some cheeky promiscuous modern women ? They are the ones who will question your "masculinity" over the slightest shit the most as soon as you're not the top dog. But, simultaneously, they will show total acceptance for hyperbolic expressions of masculine gender fluidity, like being a fag with a pink feather up your ass, and here's the hocus-pocus : due to it, they'll be deemed the good, accepting and progressive ones that are fighting the good fight against "toxic masculinity" cause they'd allow you to be a fag when in reality they just don't want to deal with a man's complexity and ambiguity (in short your humanity), finding fags or over the top voluntarily effeminated male feminist allies to be a comforting archetype for their misandry, a deconstructed, disarticulated puppet that can't pretend to anything. This makes me think of the Disney feminist classic "Mulan" where, at the end of the movie, those poor guys symbolizing the "average guy" of society, embody this very idea by implicitly "accepting their feminine side"... of course by being completely demasculinized.
Like there's no humanity and pride in his own gender for a man if he either didn't completely won (socially dominant man, financially or lookswise) or completely accepted defeat (cuck or fag). This is very often the modern woman's mindset to the other sex. So masculinity as a concept that by definition can't be totally independant from the other sex is just a shadow of it's former self because women are not gracious at all regarding men.
That's why "patriarchy hurts men too !" or "feminism helps men" are such abusive, slimy bullshit statements.
effectively putting the male sex at the mercy of the female sex, which sounds about right in that female worshipping zeitgeist. Yeah those scapegoats foids in tradcons shows taking advantage of the situation is like an inexorable consequence of a reality those held by the balls copers want to deny. Women are definitely calling the shots but men love to cope instead of facing reality. They try to convince themselves that those concepts that just so happen to be very convenient to women are some deep unalterable facts of nature. If anything, it's their nature but at it's worst and needs to be called out like we do on here.Your next development reads almost like a manifesto against a post-christian society. I agree that the main defining characteristic of it is a subtle but deep anthropological rift with the way people used to be in the past even at a very macro, intimate level, i think you do a great job at explaining it in details. It's an enormous game changer when humanity sees itself as the beginning and the end of everything, this is how moral rot and other type of strife like, as you mentionned, excessive identity politics, a never ending number of ideologies and victim olympics, dividing people even further, entered western society at large but especially everyone's mind and heart, although at varying degrees. But those are only very strong manifestations of something that's already there at the core of the modern individual, something that makes it hard for people to relate to each other : i'm pretty sure the concept of "personality" was not so common before and people would rather talk about temper, favoring the one dimensional over the infinitesimal. If i remember correctly, Dutton touched on an adjacent subject and noticed how, even in the 90's USA, people still had some semblance of a common culture and references - same shows, food products, hobbies etc, transcending all races and social classes, but it eroded with time and society got atomized. This was social cohesion on life support following the fall of christianity, then inevitably dying, a logical conclusion accelerated by improving technology. It's funny to think that some sociologist out there is probably brazen enough to deny that a smartphone full of ideological garbage and narcissistic competition and self-gratification in the form of social media replacing the Imitation of Jesus-Christ on the average person's bedtable could have had some sort of shitty effect on society and people.
Your blackpill-christianity syncretism is very interesting. I'd say that the key to it is the acknowledgement, as human beings, of humanity's therefore of our own twisted, evil nature. It's being humble and resigned at a very ontological level... which is what leads, as you said, to place the truth in front of self-interest. Humility, not only in christianity but in a lot of religions, is the cornerstone of spirituality and holiness but also social cohesion. It all ultimately comes down to the concept of the original sin, which could be seen as a sane distrust of humanity's darker side. I think this is what you meant by saying that the majority of humanity used to think like us not too long ago. It's not a coincidence at all that the original sin, whether as a concept or felt in the depths of one's heart, happens to be extremely antithetical to modern individualism/empowered narcissism that really took off after the 70's.
Regarding masculinity, i'd say some measure of it always existed, even from a woman's hypergamic perspective like let's say some village girls competing for the tallest peasant, cause it's something rooted in sexual dimorphism, and i guess men on their part could, for example, be impressing each other and competing through feats of strength, be it warfare related or not, but all those people, at the end of the day, could listen to a feeble man of the church and treat his words as if it was gold and worship a weakened, emaciated man on a cross, and a woman whose virtues were all about kindness, nurturing and modesty. So what was different is the treshold for demeaning a guy over being not masculine enough. Being always one step away from not "being a real man" and emasculated is certainly something that's much more prevalent in modern society due to the factors you mentionned : a less pronounced sense of essentialism coupled with this new hyper competitive paradigm. But i think there's one more important factor here and it's misandry. I find it quite funny that the more feministic society gets, supposedly challenging "toxic masculinity" at every turn, the more guys somehow feel forced to perform their gender role in a stereotypical way hence the type of cringe and abusive man up content like the one you posted being normalized.
To me this is the consequence of "masculinity" (englobing fatherhood of course) being disrespected and demeaned to the point of collapse. But, as the saying goes, nature hates vacuums, so it returns in a deformed, monstrous form due to being disfigured prior. To illustrate this ill-treatment, this is part of a recent cartoon from a french far-left feminist woman being in an "open relationship" with a wimpy, not too sexually active husband (they also have two children lmao).
Notice the BVLL in the images. She's even saying to him "YOU'RE SO IMMENSE" refering to his height before he fucks her brains out. Stereotypically masculine tall alpha Chad of course. Who wants to be that guy (the husband) ??!! I think guys are scared of this (not necessarily of this exact same situation, but more generally on a holistic level given than being considered "less than" as a man is very easy now and women largely go along with it) which is understandable. Women and society at large NEVER ditched gender roles but rather toxically tip-toe around it which is often the real reason for "toxic masculinity". I mean have you ever been around leftist or some cheeky promiscuous modern women ? They are the ones who will question your "masculinity" over the slightest shit the most as soon as you're not the top dog. But, simultaneously, they will show total acceptance for hyperbolic expressions of masculine gender fluidity, like being a fag with a pink feather up your ass, and here's the hocus-pocus : due to it, they'll be deemed the good, accepting and progressive ones that are fighting the good fight against "toxic masculinity" cause they'd allow you to be a fag when in reality they just don't want to deal with a man's complexity and ambiguity (in short your humanity), finding fags or over the top voluntarily effeminated male feminist allies to be a comforting archetype for their misandry, a deconstructed, disarticulated puppet that can't pretend to anything. This makes me think of the Disney feminist classic "Mulan" where, at the end of the movie, those poor guys symbolizing the "average guy" of society, embody this very idea by implicitly "accepting their feminine side"... of course by being completely demasculinized.
Like there's no humanity and pride in his own gender for a man if he either didn't completely won (socially dominant man, financially or lookswise) or completely accepted defeat (cuck or fag). This is very often the modern woman's mindset to the other sex. So masculinity as a concept that by definition can't be totally independant from the other sex is just a shadow of it's former self because women are not gracious at all regarding men.
That's why "patriarchy hurts men too !" or "feminism helps men" are such abusive, slimy bullshit statements.
Attachments
Last edited:
Lol thanks i'm kinda kicking the shit here, alongside shitposting or laughing at other posts it's also fun to write down some thoughts sometimesGreat reply, you are a good writer, very nice, mogs 99% of the replies I read
like an exercise in futility but exercise nonetheless and exchanging some reflections won't hurt nobody. Btw i feel like my level in english improved since i made my account on here so that's pretty cool
every foid has that amount of hatred for any sub-Chad male, some are better than others at controlling their hateful impulses though.
B
Great reply, you are a good writer, very nice, mogs 99% of the replies I read
I have noticed this as well, how the grifter crowed introduces their evo-psych narratives into the mix. It is very odd how they do that. They often use it to excuse female behavior as "natural" while simultaneously using the same narrative as a call to action for men. For example, they keep saying that men should not be mad at women, since women are just "dumb" and not aware of their own behavior. Female behavior is "natural." This is often underscored with analogies like the story of the scorpion stabbing the frog, wherein the scorpion loudly declares, "I could not help but stab you, it is in my nature."
Besides this being fallacious reasoning (is/ought problem, appeal to nature fallacy), they do not apply the same logic to men, who's behavior somehow becomes "unnatural" and thus needs to be altered to fit the "natural" behavior of women. So women are the standard for male behavior. I have even seen these people openly say things to the liking of, "there is no greater indicator of a mans success other than how much women like him." Literally idol worship. Whom the god's love, they reward.
The old saying "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" would be more fitting. I think the evo-psych arguments are used to re-introduce morality into the mix, some kind of ethical grounding to activate the victim group (men) into action through shaming language. Evolution can not provide purpose or anything, so the grifter invents non-sensical terminology like "biological imperative" and speaks of "fitness" and how the "weak" died in the olden times. Of course the term "biological imperative" is an oxymoron, as biology and morality are wholly distinct categories. To mix the two is a non-sequitur, category error, is/ought fallacy - whatever you want to call it.
They are basically trying to guilt trip their audience into feeling inadequate about themselves and responsible for societies woes. Much could be written about this but it is just male on male exploitation, with women as the bait - which is why women are never put into question by these people. No matter how much they attack women, they never give them responsibility or diminish their value. They call the grapes sour but keep coming back to the vine, something women are aware off more than men.
For example, in this clip, starting at 16:34, two women talk about how these "trad" grifters use hot women as bait in their thumbnails and how women make money from interacting with the "misogyinist" crowd online, since they all secretly simp for these girls they supposedly hate so much. Since Women control the "supply" part of the SMV "demand-supply" equation in society, they have superior market knowledge than men. Just like a supermarket owner knows his customers better than they do themselves, women know men and women better than men know themselves and women. Women know men are just coping. Men are in denial about their own behavior.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mygPV1gtbw&t=994s
I now want to address your final paragraph:
I actually agree with you here. For most of history, people had a much more realistic view of human nature and things like sexuality. Their beliefs in many ways closer to our "blackpill" views than we think. For instance, they viewed peoples lot in life as largely pre-determined by higher forces. Just consider the book of Job in the bible for a classic example. Job gains and looses everything, for no reason at all. The story ends with God explaining that humans are simply incapable of judging why something happens to them. Job's friends, who blamed him for his misfortunes in the most vile manner - "surely you must have done something wrong to deserve this" - are also chastized.
People back then viewed the entire universe as hiearchical and fundamentally un-egalitarian. Our modern beliefs of extreme social mobility, where a commoner can become a king by applying themselves and such, would have been ridiculous or even treacherous to them. It would have been an affront against the natural order to assert that a low-born man can wrestle the gods into granting him nobility in the eyes of men.
The blackpill just re-introduces this view. We view society as a looks-based caste system, we acknowledge hierachy, that people end up where they end up not because of a fault of character or due to superior ability, but rather through sheer luck. To us, it is equally as offensive to say that someone achieved status and sucess among men through merit, as it would have been to pre-enlightenment people.
Since they were aware of this and other human biases that are largely suppressed or ignored in our time, they took active measures against these. Religion, in particular christianity, puts a huge emphasis on controlling yourself, on maintaining watch on your thoughts and desires. As you said, a woman back then may very well have had that intrinsic abhorrence of men, but her culture would have also trained her since childhood to recognize that abhorrence as wrong, even demonic, like what we would now call an "intrusive thought." A demon inspired whisper, a hallucination. Look no further than the orthodox christian teachings on thoughts for this. Thoughts are seen as dangerous and not to be identified with by default.
To bluntly identify with your own cravings, thoughts and feelings would have been seen as madness. In the bible it says "take every thought captive for Christ." It also says in the first pages of the book of Genesis, about the corruption of the woman, "your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you." This has been interpreted at times to mean that women will desire to rule men, or despise men, but ultimately men will remain superior to them. This holds true even today, see for example this thread about how women are financially dependend on men for survival and contribute nothing to society, even today:
The average woman has a net negative impact on society of 150k
View: https://x.com/frogNscorpion/status/1844845890647064607
People knew of the biases humans have and they took measures to counter them. If you had negative thoughts, thoughts of violence, urges, you were trained to fight them through prayer, meditation or confession. In our time, we have taken a ridiculously idealistic view of human nature, where desires are seen as "natural" and everything we desire is good. We take our own experiences to be supreme indicators of what we need, of what we should want, of what is good for us. This is also an underlying theme in all bluepill thinking, that your experience reflects reality, that your desires reflect reality. Often times we see this even on this forum, where people ignore statistics on racial biases in dating in favor of their own immediate experience, i.e. "I saw an ethnic man with a white woman on a bus, therefore all ethnics slay."
If people thought in terms of worldviews and stopped seeing themselves as isolated units (individualism is at fault for this), then many things would be much clearer. We are all part of larger systems. Like plankton in the ocean, we are shuffled around by currents and waves, while mistaking these larger-than-us shifts as changes in ourselves. Usually everything is just a systematic reaction to some other large scale event. After the 1970s cultural shift in favor of women, almost immediately we saw the first mans-rights organizations appear and books like "The Manipulated Man" took off instantly.
I also want to address what you said about masculinity. It is true that the word has just become another rethorical device used by grifters to shame young men. As I adressed in other threads, no one accuses women of lacking "femininity" or "not being a real woman." Historically, being a man had nothing to do with strength or power. In christianity, a man is simply defined as someone who loves God with all his strength. This standard of course also applies women in that context. One God, one standard for both genders.
When pressed, none of these people can define what masculinity even means anyway. They just fall back to the classic logical trilemma of circular reasoning, fideism or question begging. Since they know this, their final cop out is ad-hominems, as I said, they guilt trip young men through shaming language thinly veiled behind evo-psych babble, to legitimize the emotional abuse they are dishing out.
This would never work on women btw, just lol. Imagine something like this but gender swapped:
View attachment 1297334
"Bullshit! You could have done better today girl! Someone forgot shes her families last hope! She needs to get back on track before its too late!
Does she want to remain a loser!? A lazy bitch, who can't even stand to raise her own kids?! You wanna tell your daughter, mommy didnt make it, cuz she quit and was too lazy!?"
This type of message only works on men, because men have been conditioned to view themselves and their own value as conditional. Man have to work to maintain their value. This is also the result of a cultural shift. In the past, your value was not determined by people or society. As I said, pre-enlightment socities believed in soft-determinism through God as the ultimate authority determining your life. God gave you value, not people. People were not the highest authority. By being made man in the image of God, you were man, you were masculine. This mitigates what we see today, where a man can be called effeminate or his man-hood can be called into question.
Calling someones man-hood or masculinity into question is not possible under a christian framework. It would be like calling God into question, since God made and defined man, not vice versa. Our culture has actually regressed into pre-christian thought, such as the views of the hellenic world, where indeed, a man was measured by his looks, his achievements and his "masculinity." In the story of Heracles, for a time he is described as becoming effeminate and even knitting clothes after a woman takes away his weapons and lions fur. Our culture is primitive, we have returned to bronze age tribal thinking, where one god is tested against another through battle. Whichever idol triumphs, is declared the strongest and true god.
You mention archetypes, role models. This too was a huge part of christian culture. Look at things like the Synaxarion. Christians believed that the human desire to be interested in other people was given to humanity by God, so that we might emulate the best among us. They did not shun human sexuality or urges altogether like in Buddhism, where desire is evil in itself. Instead they throught all desires, all creation was ultimately good, but unfortunately corrupted in the fall of man. To restore the old order was the goal of spiritual practise. To that end, the desire for gossip, slander and so forth was seen as a corrupted version of what I described: The drive to emulate good archetypes.
The ultimate archetypes for men and women were Christ and Mary, and lower archetypes were the Saints, whose lifes were studies all year round through daily readings of the "synaxarion," a collection of biographies detailing the lifes and struggles of saintly men and women. As I mentioned already, the final goal was always "theosis," lower-case "g" godhood. There was one standard for behavior, for life, and that was God. To be a man or woman was to worship God. Hence they wrote manuals entitled such as "the life in christ," or "the imitation of christ."
What we experience in our time is, as I said, a return to pagan thinking. We worship a pantheon of idols, we wrestle not with double, triple or even quadruple but infidesmal standards for human behavior. Just look at the amount of political systems beliefs, sub-groups. Even this forum just represents another cultish little trible, doing their thing in some bronze age valley. Our achetypes are chad and stacy, forums like looksmax.org are just little cults dedicated to "the imitation of chad," the life in chad." Society has fragmented and turned away from belief in one unifying principle, and our culture reflects that.
It is so ironic how people say the ancients worshipped mere representations of the awe they felt in the face of a world they could not understand. The god of storms, the god of winter, water and so on. But in our time, people act no different. What people value or fear becomes the idol. Scientific institutions are errected to the glory of beliefs, mere ideals. People arbitarily identify their own shortcomings and fears with societal woes, which may or may not exist. For this person it is "capitalism" that needs to be stopped, for that person "systemic racism," for another it is somehting else. These beliefs most often come from a place of personal inadequacy. People that are not incel, do not care about being incel. People that profit from capitalism, do not care to alter or abolish it.
Again, the bible speaks of this, in Isaiah 44:14-20. Man fashions himself an idol, not realizing he is the source of his own idolatry. Instead he assumes his own beliefs, his hubris is obvious and somehow mind-indepdently true. Of course capitalism is behind all the worlds woes! Of course it is the patriarchy! Of course incels are wrong and have no point, it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise! Of course this or that behavior is "masculine" and this other behavior is "femmine!" How could anyone question that?
As I said, people take their own feelings as an obvious standard for reality and then seek out people that share their opinion, and research to that matter and so on, which gives them the illusion they are right. Incels are unique as a group in this, because they are one of the few groups, outside of some christians, I have encountered, that is extremely self critical, to the point of even denying they have a self, in the case of some hardcore determinists here LOL. Incels are more consistent with their views than most people in current society, and closer to how people thought for most of human history too. I previously mentioned the similarities between the blackpill and christian beliefs.
Both lead to a form of self-denial, denying agency, denying your own wishes, what you want to be true, in favor of what is actually true. In Christianity they would say, you become a slave to Christ, the truth incarnate, instead of being a slave to another master, which is the ever changing deceptive flux of this world, your thoughts, feelings and desires.
If men and women were again taught to think like that, maybe we could see some improvements in society. Of course gender issues would not disappear, but at least there would be awareness again of human nature, and people would be more forgiving, more trusting and solution orientated, instead of engaging in permanet tribal warfare.
How do I start to think like you? What did you read? Bro show me the light.
You nailed it on the evo-psych stuff. It might be prevalent in manosphere spaces but it still promotes a gynocentric, anti-male rhetoric by being a one way street veiled moral injunction without any basis in reasoning
Remember, in our time we literally deny that there is such a thing as inherent "evil nature" in people. We operate on a really schizo view of people being born blank-slate, like empty hard-drives to be filled with data, but people also having inherent characteristics. So the modern human is 24/7 confronted with conflicting experiences. On one hand they tell you not to generalize, how everyone is good bla bla, on the other you see Meeks fucking stacies and making 10 gazillion dollarinos after beating a teenager half to death.
Just think about how retarded common headlines of our time are: "Innocents died" - how would you know they were innocent? "It was a senseless tragedy." - How can it be a tragedy if it is was senseless? If you believe in a purposeless universe, how can anything be good or bad? This is full on schizo shit. This also neatly lines up with something you mentioned in your next paragraph: Anthropology and how it has been weaponized against people.
Just think about how retarded common headlines of our time are: "Innocents died" - how would you know they were innocent? "It was a senseless tragedy." - How can it be a tragedy if it is was senseless? If you believe in a purposeless universe, how can anything be good or bad? This is full on schizo shit. This also neatly lines up with something you mentioned in your next paragraph: Anthropology and how it has been weaponized against people.
819.5 KB file on MEGA
There is a book called "weaponized anthropology." Basically by altering how people see themselves, you completely change peoples worldview. It is funny how say religions beliefs are indoctrination of children but then tell children they are descendants of monkeys and strawberries, like that's a better image of man and has no consequences on society. Just compare this to the christian view where man is God's crown jewel, the high priest and steward of creation, even above the angels. It gives humans divinity, alongside divine responsibilities towards each other and creation.
Everything we take for granted is build on this view, not the more common modern "you are pond-scum" view. Our justice system, property rights, education, even the search for truth as a good in of itself. God is the truth incarnate - "I am the truth, the way and the light (John 4:16)"
and so within a Christian view, there is a reason to pursue science and philosophy, as the search for truth is identical with the striving for God.
The elite running our society has abandoned these old ideals. There is no basis for human rights, personhood, property rights, the justice system or the search for truth anymore. However, we on the lower rungs of the societal ladder have not felt the effect of this yet. While the majority of people in academia are basically atheist materalists now, we still live a sort of pretend-christianity for the moment. However, as time progresses, we start to feel the trickle down effects.
It's like a building collapsing in slow motion from the top down. The floors above us have already caved in and are slowly crushing the floors beneath. We are on floor four, the academics are on floor six or so. Floor ten to seven are already done. The collapse is coming for us, but for now we only notice some vibration in the floor and a little dust coming of the ceiling. Ultimately, only force will sustain this structure which is no longer build on ideals but on pure make-belief. Maybe society will become more totalitarian to cope with this and maintain functional order.
Everything we take for granted is build on this view, not the more common modern "you are pond-scum" view. Our justice system, property rights, education, even the search for truth as a good in of itself. God is the truth incarnate - "I am the truth, the way and the light (John 4:16)"
and so within a Christian view, there is a reason to pursue science and philosophy, as the search for truth is identical with the striving for God.
The elite running our society has abandoned these old ideals. There is no basis for human rights, personhood, property rights, the justice system or the search for truth anymore. However, we on the lower rungs of the societal ladder have not felt the effect of this yet. While the majority of people in academia are basically atheist materalists now, we still live a sort of pretend-christianity for the moment. However, as time progresses, we start to feel the trickle down effects.
It's like a building collapsing in slow motion from the top down. The floors above us have already caved in and are slowly crushing the floors beneath. We are on floor four, the academics are on floor six or so. Floor ten to seven are already done. The collapse is coming for us, but for now we only notice some vibration in the floor and a little dust coming of the ceiling. Ultimately, only force will sustain this structure which is no longer build on ideals but on pure make-belief. Maybe society will become more totalitarian to cope with this and maintain functional order.
Yes exactly. For example, I saw a livestream where someone reiterated on what you describe. In the past, your name was based on your group-identity. For example you were "John Smith" which meant, you where the Smith named John in that local community. The name indicated your role in the group. I also read an interesting take where someone said, the nuclear family was actually a pre-cursor to modern hyper-individualism and a degenerated form of the multi-generational family.
Timestamp 59:20 - They talk about this as well, how in Asia, you are still seen as part of the whole, rather than an individual. This is why we tend to refer to them as robots in the west.
View: https://youtu.be/MKyzqVcfU7M?t=3561
This was social cohesion on life support following the fall of christianity, then inevitably dying, a logical conclusion accelerated by improving technology. It's funny to think that some sociologist out there is probably brazen enough to deny that a smartphone full of ideological garbage and narcissistic competition and self-gratification in the form of social media replacing the Imitation of Jesus-Christ on the average person's bedtable could have had some sort of shitty effect on society and people.
Oh, they glorify it, 100%. But they can not justify why it is good. Total atomization of society benefits the economy as well. Atomized units are more quantifiable and you can predict them easier, which helps in making promises to investors in a debt based society where secure promise of future returns is crucial. Society and the free market has an incentive to turn people into individuals, since these are more manageable. Over time market forces melt into one with politics, thus creating a cycle of reinforcing hyper-individualist worldviews through the media, academia and politics. The market begins defining the image of man, human anthropology.
We are no longer seen as sons of God but as sons of Nike, Puma, Apple. Hey there citizen! Here I am, made in the image and likeness of Microsoft! - notice how people even imitate the "greats" of our time in dress and style, manner of speaking etc.
We are no longer seen as sons of God but as sons of Nike, Puma, Apple. Hey there citizen! Here I am, made in the image and likeness of Microsoft! - notice how people even imitate the "greats" of our time in dress and style, manner of speaking etc.
I agree 100%. I would stress here, there is a fundamental difference between original sin and guilt. For example orthodox christians believe in original sin, but on a cosmic level. The entire cosmos is corrupted, not just man. However, man is not born guilty of this. In other christian denominations, you are born guilty, hence they are giga anal about baptism for babies, since they literally believe babies are punished if they die after birth. This is of course retarded.
This again is a difference in human anthropology. Just think about how much the idea that people are born guilty and deserving of punishment has influenced western culture. Even psychology - Freud has a weirdly similar view too, of man being victim to these inherent animalistic forces that he needed to be punished out of.
Also yes, you understood perfectly what I meant. When you acknowledge people are fucked up, that something is wrong with the world and we are all part of the problem but not guilty of it, then you take a much kinder view of the world and people around you. It also removes the basis for utopian ideals such as communism, since the solution for the worlds problems is not found in this world, but in the next. They did not think humans were born as blank slates that could be fixed just by "educating" them to be "good people." That's an ancient hellenic idea and has blatantly failed. Nowhere in history have people had more access to free education than in our time, and it changed nothing. People are still shitheads.
I also want to stress that the orthodox christian view of sin is more like sin is a disease you are not ashamed of, just like we are not ashamed of undressing at the doctors. They do not have a legalistic view of sin, where sin is a law you break and reparations have to be made. In western christian traditions, the opposite is the case. You break the law, you pay the price. Some say this stems from feudal customs of post-roman culture merging with christian ethics. In feudal times, you had these up-down relationships of servitude and debt to the local lord.
I also want to stress that the orthodox christian view of sin is more like sin is a disease you are not ashamed of, just like we are not ashamed of undressing at the doctors. They do not have a legalistic view of sin, where sin is a law you break and reparations have to be made. In western christian traditions, the opposite is the case. You break the law, you pay the price. Some say this stems from feudal customs of post-roman culture merging with christian ethics. In feudal times, you had these up-down relationships of servitude and debt to the local lord.
I agree. It has always existed. People were always inclined to do degnerate shit of course. Like if you look at witch orgies, drug abuse in the middle ages, or how they would often portray the devil as a handsome chad who would cuck unwitting husbands or have orgies with foids in the fields - they clearly knew what was up. But unlike us, they did not shy away from these realizations at all but instead directly confronted them.
You also touch on misandry and how the more women are empowered, the fiercer the battle between men becomes. This is 100% true. Women have much more control over men than vice versa, male behavior is basically downstream from female behavior. There is an old proverb that says, "a man chases a woman until she catches him." I don't want to go on a giga rant here, but I have a pet peeve for people that pretend women are powerless in society, or were in the past. This is blatantly wrong and I have put at ton of sources to that end in the bottom of my OP in this thread.
Women largely define gender norms now, they do the majority of the child rearing, they raise men and women into their respective gender roles etc. It is no surprise to me that so many criminals come from single-mother households, as it is mothers, not fathers, that raise men into hyper-competitive bastard sons of bitches. Men are much more egalitarian with their children, which is why we often see men training their daughters to do "male" activities such as boxing, MMA, shooting guns, while we never see mothers teaching their daughters shit.
Yes, there is an underlying structure to the universe that can not be changed. Whether you beleive in perenialism, or the "logos spermatikos" of ancient christianity, it does not matter. What we see in peoples behavior is always a weird twisted version of old archetypes, never something new. As cliche as it sounds, evil can only corrrupt what is already there, never create. Btw I also knew this guy at a job long ago, who had two kids on this table in photos that were not his, just fucking lol.
Yes, it is total schizophrenia, denial of what they want while simultaneously craving it. They can not escape reality, it always comes back to collect. Very nicely written btw, I have nothing to add.Yes exactly, women actually have a control fetish are dominating men, not the other way around. I would argue that women are more dominant than men even. Socities image of men now is mostly based on what women project on men: Men are sex-crazed violent brutes that need to be reinged in for the betterment of society. All of this is projection from women, who obsess over sex, looks, social status and so forth. Like I said, single-mothes are psychopath factories for a reason.
It's really good, I like it. Also, writing is cathartic too. I basically learned english through the internet, school taught me nothing.Lol thanks i'm kinda kicking the shit here, alongside shitposting or laughing at other posts it's also fun to write down some thoughts sometimes
Nigga lmao I literally put like 9 gazillion sources and other shit to read at bottom of the OP in this thread
.
Remember, in our time we literally deny that there is such a thing as inherent "evil nature" in people. We operate on a really schizo view of people being born blank-slate, like empty hard-drives to be filled with data, but people also having inherent characteristics. So the modern human is 24/7 confronted with conflicting experiences. On one hand they tell you not to generalize, how everyone is good bla bla, on the other you see Meeks fucking stacies and making 10 gazillion dollarinos after beating a teenager half to death.
Just think about how retarded common headlines of our time are: "Innocents died" - how would you know they were innocent? "It was a senseless tragedy." - How can it be a tragedy if it is was senseless? If you believe in a purposeless universe, how can anything be good or bad? This is full on schizo shit. This also neatly lines up with something you mentioned in your next paragraph: Anthropology and how it has been weaponized against people.
819.5 KB file on MEGA
mega.nz
There is a book called "weaponized anthropology." Basically by altering how people see themselves, you completely change peoples worldview. It is funny how say religions beliefs are indoctrination of children but then tell children they are descendants of monkeys and strawberries, like that's a better image of man and has no consequences on society. Just compare this to the christian view where man is God's crown jewel, the high priest and steward of creation, even above the angels. It gives humans divinity, alongside divine responsibilities towards each other and creation.
Everything we take for granted is build on this view, not the more common modern "you are pond-scum" view. Our justice system, property rights, education, even the search for truth as a good in of itself. God is the truth incarnate - "I am the truth, the way and the light (John 4:16)"
and so within a Christian view, there is a reason to pursue science and philosophy, as the search for truth is identical with the striving for God.
The elite running our society has abandoned these old ideals. There is no basis for human rights, personhood, property rights, the justice system or the search for truth anymore. However, we on the lower rungs of the societal ladder have not felt the effect of this yet. While the majority of people in academia are basically atheist materalists now, we still live a sort of pretend-christianity for the moment. However, as time progresses, we start to feel the trickle down effects.
It's like a building collapsing in slow motion from the top down. The floors above us have already caved in and are slowly crushing the floors beneath. We are on floor four, the academics are on floor six or so. Floor ten to seven are already done. The collapse is coming for us, but for now we only notice some vibration in the floor and a little dust coming of the ceiling. Ultimately, only force will sustain this structure which is no longer build on ideals but on pure make-belief. Maybe society will become more totalitarian to cope with this and maintain functional order.
Yes exactly. For example, I saw a livestream where someone reiterated on what you describe. In the past, your name was based on your group-identity. For example you were "John Smith" which meant, you where the Smith named John in that local community. The name indicated your role in the group. I also read an interesting take where someone said, the nuclear family was actually a pre-cursor to modern hyper-individualism and a degenerated form of the multi-generational family.
Timestamp 59:20 - They talk about this as well, how in Asia, you are still seen as part of the whole, rather than an individual. This is why we tend to refer to them as robots in the west.
View: https://youtu.be/MKyzqVcfU7M?t=3561
Oh, they glorify it, 100%. But they can not justify why it is good. Total atomization of society benefits the economy as well. Atomized units are more quantifiable and you can predict them easier, which helps in making promises to investors in a debt based society where secure promise of future returns is crucial. Society and the free market has an incentive to turn people into individuals, since these are more manageable. Over time market forces melt into one with politics, thus creating a cycle of reinforcing hyper-individualist worldviews through the media, academia and politics. The market begins defining the image of man, human anthropology.
We are no longer seen as sons of God but as sons of Nike, Puma, Apple. Hey there citizen! Here I am, made in the image and likeness of Microsoft! - notice how people even imitate the "greats" of our time in dress and style, manner of speaking etc.
I agree 100%. I would stress here, there is a fundamental difference between original sin and guilt. For example orthodox christians believe in original sin, but on a cosmic level. The entire cosmos is corrupted, not just man. However, man is not born guilty of this. In other christian denominations, you are born guilty, hence they are giga anal about baptism for babies, since they literally believe babies are punished if they die after birth. This is of course retarded.
This again is a difference in human anthropology. Just think about how much the idea that people are born guilty and deserving of punishment has influenced western culture. Even psychology - Freud has a weirdly similar view too, of man being victim to these inherent animalistic forces that he needed to be punished out of.
Also yes, you understood perfectly what I meant. When you acknowledge people are fucked up, that something is wrong with the world and we are all part of the problem but not guilty of it, then you take a much kinder view of the world and people around you. It also removes the basis for utopian ideals such as communism, since the solution for the worlds problems is not found in this world, but in the next. They did not think humans were born as blank slates that could be fixed just by "educating" them to be "good people." That's an ancient hellenic idea and has blatantly failed. Nowhere in history have people had more access to free education than in our time, and it changed nothing. People are still shitheads.
I also want to stress that the orthodox christian view of sin is more like sin is a disease you are not ashamed of, just like we are not ashamed of undressing at the doctors. They do not have a legalistic view of sin, where sin is a law you break and reparations have to be made. In western christian traditions, the opposite is the case. You break the law, you pay the price. Some say this stems from feudal customs of post-roman culture merging with christian ethics. In feudal times, you had these up-down relationships of servitude and debt to the local lord.
I agree. It has always existed. People were always inclined to do degnerate shit of course. Like if you look at witch orgies, drug abuse in the middle ages, or how they would often portray the devil as a handsome chad who would cuck unwitting husbands or have orgies with foids in the fields - they clearly knew what was up. But unlike us, they did not shy away from these realizations at all but instead directly confronted them.
You also touch on misandry and how the more women are empowered, the fiercer the battle between men becomes. This is 100% true. Women have much more control over men than vice versa, male behavior is basically downstream from female behavior. There is an old proverb that says, "a man chases a woman until she catches him." I don't want to go on a giga rant here, but I have a pet peeve for people that pretend women are powerless in society, or were in the past. This is blatantly wrong and I have put at ton of sources to that end in the bottom of my OP in this thread.
Women largely define gender norms now, they do the majority of the child rearing, they raise men and women into their respective gender roles etc. It is no surprise to me that so many criminals come from single-mother households, as it is mothers, not fathers, that raise men into hyper-competitive bastard sons of bitches. Men are much more egalitarian with their children, which is why we often see men training their daughters to do "male" activities such as boxing, MMA, shooting guns, while we never see mothers teaching their daughters shit.
Yes, there is an underlying structure to the universe that can not be changed. Whether you beleive in perenialism, or the "logos spermatikos" of ancient christianity, it does not matter. What we see in peoples behavior is always a weird twisted version of old archetypes, never something new. As cliche as it sounds, evil can only corrrupt what is already there, never create. Btw I also knew this guy at a job long ago, who had two kids on this table in photos that were not his, just fucking lol.
Yes exactly, women actually have a control fetish are dominating men, not the other way around. I would argue that women are more dominant than men even. Socities image of men now is mostly based on what women project on men: Men are sex-crazed violent brutes that need to be reinged in for the betterment of society. All of this is projection from women, who obsess over sex, looks, social status and so forth. Like I said, single-mothes are psychopath factories for a reason.
It's really good, I like it. Also, writing is cathartic too. I basically learned english through the internet, school taught me nothing.
Great development again boyo
i think we've come full circle on the main talking points. But i'll ask you this : do you really believe in a collapse ? I sometimes call it the cope-lapse but, on the other hand, this world do feel like it's going to crash in the upcoming decades. But then i put it into perspective and interpret it as a depressive pessimistic bias... despite my surroundings really, objectively giving me the impression of a weird, sad and lifeless wasteland where only a specific type of people get to have purpose, meaning and a sense of security while the rest live quite abject lives and scrap the barrel. This is how it feels, and it doesn’t seem sustainable in the long run.Well you did mention a possible authoritarian turn. But i don't think they'll even need to do that. I'm afraid us peasants will just die off without a bang.
Maybe the rich and dominant will manifest that Bronze Age you talked about on a material level. Low population countries with everything at their disposal, a never ending vital space kinda like when the ancient greeks were colonizing Europe left and right (I know this is kinda schizo talk lmao
or maybe not totally ? Give me your two cents ).
Last edited:
Great development again boyo
I don't think there will be this giant collapse no. People always bring up comparative examples like the fall of the roman empire, but that shit didnt fall over night either, if you can even call it a fall. Things just changed for a while. In our lifetime, if we live that long, there will for sure be massive societal changes, but it will not be this extinction even tier shit like people imagine. We wont be walking around cradling cut-off shotguns in fingerless leather gloves, as we cruise through wasted cities on our motorcycles.
Take the long term perspective, what is this age compared to a 1000 years? Does anyone think of the middle ages in terms of this or that decade? It all becomes a blob, we casually lump together centuries. For most of history, nobody chose their fate, most people lived impoverished lives out of straw hovels. Our time offers us a modicum more prosperity, but really, only relative to how the general standard of living has risen. Nothing has changed, proportionally. Even in the greatest empires, the majority of the population were always slaves.
Based on that, I think that your view that it can not go on like this is not justified really. People have always dreamt of "the great collapse" or alternatively "the great awakening." In the middle ages, various movements thought the world would end in the year 1000 or some other specific date. Just think from their perspective. They suffered under systemic oppression and many things worse than what we experience now. They had more reason to believe in a collapse than us. Yet nothing happened. On this forum, they have been saying "the blackpill will be mainstream in a few years" since 2017. The world will steam on without us. There is always new coal to fuel the boiler.
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
Take the long term perspective, what is this age compared to a 1000 years? Does anyone think of the middle ages in terms of this or that decade? It all becomes a blob, we casually lump together centuries. For most of history, nobody chose their fate, most people lived impoverished lives out of straw hovels. Our time offers us a modicum more prosperity, but really, only relative to how the general standard of living has risen. Nothing has changed, proportionally. Even in the greatest empires, the majority of the population were always slaves.
Based on that, I think that your view that it can not go on like this is not justified really. People have always dreamt of "the great collapse" or alternatively "the great awakening." In the middle ages, various movements thought the world would end in the year 1000 or some other specific date. Just think from their perspective. They suffered under systemic oppression and many things worse than what we experience now. They had more reason to believe in a collapse than us. Yet nothing happened. On this forum, they have been saying "the blackpill will be mainstream in a few years" since 2017. The world will steam on without us. There is always new coal to fuel the boiler.
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Tbh, there's been countless violent uprisings and civil wars throughout the history. I think our idea of collapse is centered around the collapse of gynocracy rather than the fall of so-called 'elites'. There's an uneasy feeling of reaching a boiling point with gynocracy and feminism which is different from the Wokism.
With wokism there's the cathartic feeling in the failure of woke works and humiliating firings of these woke artists and activists.
Foids, on the other hand, have turned the gender relation into a political warfare. In this echo-chamber where there's open advocacy for genocide against men, advocacy and existence of anti-male laws, systemic corruption geared towards reducing more agency of men, open and unabashed display of their (sexual) power to dominate the political landscape etc. forget retribution, there's not even good enough outlet for men to cope into delusion anymore.
There's no common ground to be had with these horrible creatures. Like you can reform some laws to hold foids accountable, but you can't reform the biology. Their mistreatment, bias, shaming, and them abusing their sexual advantage would only get more severe. Or in an improvished and harsh society where it benefits from foids' 'masculine' contributions, I bet the men would retroactively be shamed and labelled as coward leeches. Any foid's 'masculine' triumph would be seen as a collective failure of men. Modern relation between men and foids is more political than most political affairs. It's the inaction of men which makes it seem not so.
Last edited:
Very capital point you make here. The "collapse" doesn't even has to be some full blown Mad Max shit. With the system being such an efficiently oppressive and seemingly perennial evil structure, it's total or even partial destruction in the most important areas could already be seen as a collapse. I feel dumb for kinda missing this, too absorbed in the general declinist definition.
Yeah it's also capital to make the distinction between woke and feminist (i mean the later in a VERY broad sense as it goes way beyond blue haired whales). Woke could be defeated tomorrow but the problem we talk about on here would still exist. I'd argue that, given how biology (and foid's weaponization of it), therefore gender relations are the most important factor driving humanity, this problem can be seen as being totally independent from everything else, and even, more importantly, on having primacy over everything else. Even /pol coomer simp chuds subliminaly agree on this primacy when they compare white men's with white women's vote and come to the conclusion that women's voting rights were a mistake. Even in the case of women turning completely anti woke or die hard nationalists or whatever and defeating wokeness alongside men, it wouldn't change anything at all in the first place, as anti-woke or else doesn't necessarily mean pro-male at a fundamental level, and in the second place, it would just be another operation under Femiurgic powers anyway, an illusion from the matrix :
Look at this video. This dude's intent was not to even dunk on women, quite the opposite in fact, but if you listen carefully, this is blackpill and misogyny on steroids. In short : foids are becoming increasingly anti-woke because 1) it's safer and more socially accepted than it used to be, 2) it's the up and coming thing (social opportunism), 3) it's getting increasingly associated with high social status, and foids are sexually attracted to social status. In turn, due to male biological subservience, women's presence give status therefore power to the movement, so foid's presence is a solid indicator of it's future success.
So even when foids get "anti woke", it's the toxic side of their nature and self-interest that moves their being, and men follow along. So if there's ever a great woke backlash, it will be done under the already achieved social control by pussy in society anyway. Brutal. As you said, even coping into delusion is not an option. On a sidenote, one could easily argue how this is, generally speaking, a modern phenomenon. If you read history books you'll see that women very rarely held such power, especially when it's based on something as base as their sexual power, and most of history happened without their consultation. This is another manifestation of a gynocentric society.
But what makes all of this even more insulting to men is the background of women and their relation to wokeness. Towards the end, he justifies women's propensity to support wokeness in the past by evoking their supposedly deep-seated desire for equality due to being biologically weaker and all that evo-psych jazz... but it's seems like such a stretch, because notice how women just so happen to get increasingly anti-woke the moment it starts to take the fight to them, be it through violent and ressentful minorities or trannies in women's sports. What a coincidence right ? When it was all about annoying men they were totally fine with it. Those last few years, you could barely see women, even republicans, being outraged at the disgusting and hateful misandric rhetoric surrounding the US female/male soccer teams. But trans in women's sports ? It's the only thing they talk about now. Men are such little shits for never acknowledging how vile, self-centered and self-serving women are despite the writing being on the wall.
Totally agree and also a very capital point. That's something MRA's don't seem to grasp. House husbands to achieve "real equality" ? Drafting everyone ? Make women construction workers ? This will be used against men, be it symbolically (stripping men of their essence, rendering them even more useless while women retain their own, very powerful one) or practically (the woman would be officially rulling the household, or competing with men for even more jobs). Even if this is done at a marginal level (but attaining critical mass) it will have tragic consequences. Now, this leads me to the deepest corners of the mind buddy boyos. I myself don't really know how to handle this. It's when reflection meets an impass and pushes you into the chilling embrace of cold rationalization.
Taking their rights away is the only solution.
Not only in the legal way but every way possible by also being really strict on what is socially acceptable. I feel weird for seriously thinking this as a conditionned western modern man but it does seem like the only solution. Unfair and Immoral ? Would be if women didn't so blatantly prove to be the ennemy class of men at every fucking turn since their "liberation". Taking a dangerous object from a child is not unfair and immoral even if he throws a gigantic tantrum. Examples of women's wickedness are countless by now (personally, they even extend into my private life to an insane degree) and our own incel condition is part of this "something larger" obviously related to the general male condition, in a contemporary world that's looking more and more like the one predicted by Tesla.
Taking their rights away would be an exercise in majestic arbitrary pettiness, like the lion claiming it's share without asking, just because he can. There's a reason why the most ontological factor in the power dynamic between the sexes is physical strenght and ability. God made us this way for a reason just as he made the lion the king of the jungle. (Okay i know they dont live in jungles but whatever
). But that's the thing : men, as you said, standing in abject inaction, is imo because they are afraid and ashamed to come across as arbitrary and petty or genuinely don't want to be because they actually are the "bigger person" and like women more than women like them.The second reason for their inaction which overlaps with the first one in a paradoxal way is them being actually psychologically beaten into submission and paralyzed by women's emancipation and achievements. I'm sure many a feminist male cuck would be pro patriarchy back in the day but just doesn't have the choice now so pretends to be fine with everything. "How could i think of stripping this competent foid that IQ-mogs me from her right to work ? Didn't she prove her ability and earned her right to be there ? Wouldn't that be immoral, making me into a monster, and unfair, making me into a disgusting sore loser ?" Men would do better to throw those type of considerations in the fucking trash. Women have no shame using their achievements to attack men, i already mentionned this but we can see this with the "invented by women, stolen by men" fake propaganda.
Btw, the "you're doubting my ability, then you're being forced to recognize it" is a fake feministic dialectic forcing men into their frame and the whole modern feminine ethos gorges itself on it in it's hubris. Their supposed lack of competency (even if it's true that geniuses tend to be men) was not the reason wise men of the past kept them in check. Men should just see the bullshit women do on an ontological level regardless if they can be good lawyers, doctors, glorified paper pushers or whatever, even fucking cancer researchers, because it doesn't matter for the greater good and also our own in the end, it's a net loss no matter what, everything is preferable to this and men are only coping, always on shacky foundations. Imagine a world where they're encouraged to be good wives and good mothers, a support for men instead of a fucking thorn in their side. Little girls uplifting their boy peers instead of callously treating them like trash and calling them ugly and stupid. Young adult women entering the marital life instead of being ravaged by psychopaths until they're 30 and pursuing some degree for the perverse satisfaction of looking down on someone who could've been her future loving husband. All of it would be repaid a hundredfold with love but no we can't have that.
Anyway guys i'll take a pause from this forum. Well, from the whole internet. I'm sick of this world and don't want to think about those witches no more nor anythinge else, i'm burned out. I'll try nofap and Christmaxxing again maybe this time i'll be more resolute.
Last edited:
N
My life would be a lot better if I was a woman
certainly seems to be the case
America is very, very gay
As it does the notion of men being much more sexual/visual/careless creatures than women. They don't enjoy the sexual encounter and in fact are more damaged by it than a woman, who many times admit that they enjoyed the experience.
It's all upside down, everything women parrot about men is projection.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
