Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Morality goes against human nature

IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
9,529
Morality as a concept is based on the idea of sacrificing self-interest for the greater good, but this is in defiance of NATURE where each living organism acts in self-interest in order to ensure it’s own survival.

From the moment a living organism begins its life to the moment it ceases to exist, its every action is catered to its own survival, which is its top priority above all else. This is an irrefutable fact which remains true for every form of life, from single-celled organisms to more complex biologically structured organisms (human beings). Self-sacrifice is not natural in the animal kingdom, every living creature looks out for itself first and foremost. Every species (humans included) engage in competition for resources in order to survive, and each specimen will go to extreme measures (including killing other lifeforms) in order to guarantee its own survival.

Like other species, human beings primarily act out of self-interest, selfishness is considered “bad” or “immoral” but the truth is that it’s part of nature to be selfish, every human being (by nature) will only care about living the best life possible for themselves while remaining ignorant of the pain/suffering of others

Billionaires are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on private jets, mansions and luxury yachts FOR THEMSELVES instead of donating it to charity or making an effort to eradicate global poverty.

People in the first world are happy to live under decent shelter with good food, clothes, running water, gas, electricity, having access to healthcare, surfing the internet on their smartphones and PCs etc. while not caring a single bit about those living in poverty in third world countries because it isn’t a problem which directly affect THEMSELVES.

So you see, selfishness is natural, it’s morality which is un-natural because morality requires a person to go against their nature by incurring a cost for themselves in order to benefit others.

It makes zero sense for anybody at all to be a moral person, but it makes even less sense for an incel. You are already disadvantaged in so many ways in life, not just your looks but you likely have autism or were raised in a hostile environment which is affecting your ability to make money (which is your only salvation from inceldom).

We were already cursed with the disadvantages of our genetics and environment, upholding morality will just handicap you even further and is an impediment to attaining success, be prepared to do what benefits yourself even if it comes at a cost to others, prioritize yourself over everybody else if you truly want to succeed, that’s not being immoral that’s just human nature.
 
Last edited:
I only care about myself irl,people could have a heart attack in front of me and i wouldn't give a fuck.
One thing i've learned through my experiences is that humanity is a joke.
''Humans are good,kind,altruistic,etc'' that's all the matrix's propaganda that's spread through ''education'' aka brainwashing in the school system,through media and other sources.
As a genetically inferior man that's not rich you're faced with the brutal reality: humans are ruthless,merciless savages.
 
Last edited:
The tiger that assails me is in the right, and I who strike him down am also in the right. I defend against him not my right, but myself.
 
I AM THE ONE DON'T WEIGH A TON DON'T NEED A GUN TO GET RESPECT UP ON THE STREET
Didnt read lol
 
I only care about acting morally to myself, my family, and my friends. Basically, if you treat me good, I'll treat you good.:feelshaha:
 
On top of that, when parents care for their child, they only see that child as an extension to themselves. This is not unconditional though, as infanctide/abortion exists in both humans and non-humans.
 
I only care about myself irl,people could have a heart attack in front of me and i wouldn't give a fuck.
One thing i've learned through my experiences is that humanity is a joke.
''Humans are good,kind,altruistic,etc'' that's all the matrix's propaganda that's spread through ''education'' aka brainwashing in the school system,through media and other sources.
As a genetically inferior man that's not rich you're faced with the brutal reality: humans are ruthless,merciless savages.

You say you wouldn’t give a fuck If somebody had a heart attack and died right in front of you, and IT will call you a bad person because of that.

But the truth is, if YOU were the one who had a heart attack and died, people would just walk right over your corpse and go about their day to day business without a single thought or care

So being unsympathetic towards others doesn’t make you a bad person, most people just act like they’re good people but they’re really no different to you
 
@the.oracle ”if it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me” - Joker
 
@the.oracle ”if it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me” - Joker
Moral stances are always defended by the ones gaining something from it (even if it means simply not sacrificing their own wellbeing/resources for someone else's benefit), or gaining something from the apppearance of defending such stance. Their hypocrisy shows when they're faced with having to act upon such morality, and then we see 100% of humans will only act "morally" if it means they're gaining something from it, if they're not, they'll do exactly the opposite of what they defend. Of all things I regret in life, trying to be "moral" is probably the one I despise the most. In this game, you only win if you are ready to go further than what your opponent is willing to do.

Real "morality" or lack thereof is what people actually do, not what people say. Nature is the only true, non-fake morality there is. It is open and honest about who wins and who loses according to the choices made. The only morality an incel should believe is: "moral" is whatever pleases his wishes.
 
Moral stances are always defended by the ones gaining something from it (even if it means simply not sacrificing their own wellbeing/resources for someone else's benefit), or gaining something from the apppearance of defending such stance. Their hypocrisy shows when they're faced with having to act upon such morality, and then we see 100% of humans will only act "morally" if it means they're gaining something from it, if they're not, they'll do exactly the opposite of what they defend. Of all things I regret in life, trying to be "moral" is probably the one I despise the most. In this game, you only win if you are ready to go further than what your opponent is willing to do.

Real "morality" or lack thereof is what people actually do, not what people say. Nature is the only true, non-fake morality there is. It is open and honest about who wins and who loses according to the choices made. The only morality an incel should believe is: "moral" is whatever pleases his wishes.
What if I feely pity for someone and want to help them?
 
All Things Are Nothing To Me

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

Let us look and see, then, how they manage their concerns -- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic.

You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years "searched the depths of the Godhead," and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to "God's cause," which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord's doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God's cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause." -- Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is -- a purely egoistic cause.

How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in gratitude. Is not mankind's cause -- a purely egoistic cause?

I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?

They all have an admirable time of it when they receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom"! The individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and -- has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism.

But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his people."

And will you not learn by these brilliant examples that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the egoist myself.

God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one.

If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my "emptiness." I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the "good cause" must be my concern? What's good, what's bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.

The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is -- unique, as I am unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself!
 
What if I feely pity for someone and want to help them?
You can be aiming underlying self-pleasure, feeling powerful over someone in worse conditions than your own, feeling like you're gaining social validation, social rewards for your action. The real question arises when you ask: at what price? What if helping the person meant giving them a large portion of your resources? What if it meant you'd have to donate one of your body organs? What if the person went on to backstab you? Then you probably wouldn't do it, because you are "losing" in this transaction. You might feel good by giving a few dollars to a homeless person, but you are not "helping" that person in any significant way, the pleasure you're gaining from giving so little is what's moving you. If you are sacrificing yourself that much, you're expecting bigger rewards, even if it's not from the person you're helping, but from society at large. If the person backstabs you, you will regret helping them, because you're not getting reciprocity.
 
You can be aiming underlying self-pleasure, feeling powerful over someone in worse conditions than your own, feeling like you're gaining social validation, social rewards for your action. The real question arises when you ask: at what price? What if helping the person meant giving them a large portion of your resources? What if it meant you'd have to donate one of your body organs? What if the person went on to backstab you? Then you probably wouldn't do it, because you are "losing" in this transaction. You might feel good by giving a few dollars to a homeless person, but you are not "helping" that person in any significant way, the pleasure you're gaining from giving so little is what's moving you. If you are sacrificing yourself that much, you're expecting bigger rewards, even if it's not from the person you're helping, but from society at large. If the person backstabs you, you will regret helping them, because you're not getting reciprocity.
Idk man. Sometimes I just feel sorry for people. But it's still influenced by looks. Like a small cute boy crying because he hurt his leg or something. Idk.
 
Moral stances are always defended by the ones gaining something from it (even if it means simply not sacrificing their own wellbeing/resources for someone else's benefit), or gaining something from the apppearance of defending such stance. Their hypocrisy shows when they're faced with having to act upon such morality, and then we see 100% of humans will only act "morally" if it means they're gaining something from it, if they're not, they'll do exactly the opposite of what they defend. Of all things I regret in life, trying to be "moral" is probably the one I despise the most. In this game, you only win if you are ready to go further than what your opponent is willing to do.

Real "morality" or lack thereof is what people actually do, not what people say. Nature is the only true, non-fake morality there is. It is open and honest about who wins and who loses according to the choices made. The only morality an incel should believe is: "moral" is whatever pleases his wishes.

Exactly right, morality is a tool used by the privileged (elite class) to cast judgement on and vilify those who are less privileged (slave class).

Of course it’s easy for a chad to say “rape is immoral”, he was born with good looks which means girls will always be willing to have sex with him, he will never have to resort to rape in the first place in order to get his needs fulfilled, so from his position of privilege it’s very easy for him to look down upon an incel as an immoral person for raping a woman after years of sexual starvation, when the truth is that the incel is no less moral or immoral than the chad, he is just a victim of the circumstances of his birth (genetics) and upbringing (environment) which has left him with no choice but to rape if he wants to experience sex.

Likewise it’s easy for a rich person to say “theft is immoral” when they are in such a position where they never have to resort to theft in order to get their basic needs met, so from this position of privilege they look down upon poor people who commit theft in order to survive, as “immoral” people, when once again those poor people are victims of their circumstances.

Morality is a luxury of the privileged, those who are less privileged don’t have the luxury of being moral because the best chance they have at fulfilling their needs/wants in life is to abandon morality, as a less privileged member of society doing what is considered “moral” may be beneficial for society and others, but it isn’t necessarily what’s most beneficial for YOURSELF, so being moral will just further handicap you from attaining what you need/want when you were already in a disadvantaged position to begin with.

I highly recommend reading this thread from @BlkPillPres

 
Last edited:
big truth. too bad many low IQs here won't accept
 
Exactly right, morality is a tool used by the privileged (elite class) to cast judgement on and vilify those who are less privileged (slave class).

Of course it’s easy for a chad to say “rape is immoral”, he was born with good looks which means girls will always be willing to have sex with him, he will never have to resort to rape in the first place in order to get his needs fulfilled, so from his position of privilege it’s very easy for him to look down upon an incel as an immoral person for raping a woman after years of sexual starvation, when the truth is that the incel is no less moral or immoral than the chad, he is just a victim of the circumstances of his birth (genetics) and upbringing (environment) which has left him with no choice but to rape if he wants to experience sex.

Likewise it’s easy for a rich person to say “theft is immoral” when they are in such a position where they never have to resort to theft in order to get their basic needs met, so from this position of privilege they look down upon poor people who commit theft in order to survive, as “immoral” people, when once again those poor people are victims of their circumstances.

Morality is a luxury of the privileged, those who are less privileged don’t have the luxury of being moral because the best chance they have at fulfilling their needs/wants in life is to abandon morality, as a less privileged member of society doing what is considered “moral” may be beneficial for society and others, but it isn’t necessarily what’s most beneficial for YOURSELF, so being moral will just further handicap you from attaining what you need/want when you were already in a disadvantaged position to begin with.

I highly recommend reading this thread from @BlkPillPres

excellent read as always, both of your threads. ty
 
high iq

but how come you guys on this forum willingly share so much knowledge though? why share?
 
Based. All Humans are nothing more than selfish filth at their core.
 
It's also part of foid nature to prefer men out of their league. Does it mean it's correct? no
 
High iq thread morality is against human nature but in the past and today man needed it to build civilizations without rules the world would be more messy than now :feelsaww: (but as an incel fuck this bullshit do what the fuck you want because this society doesnt care about you and would prefer to see you in a grave :feelsaww:)
 
Idiot wannabe high IQ post again
 

Similar threads

Efiliste
Replies
14
Views
264
Efiliste
Efiliste
Efiliste
Replies
33
Views
772
XDFLAMEBOY
XDFLAMEBOY
Flagellum_Dei
Replies
5
Views
265
Copexodius Maximus
Copexodius Maximus
Lifeisbullshit95
Replies
5
Views
309
CosmicJoke
CosmicJoke

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top