Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

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.

Plato the republic and the lack of purpose in incel lives

  • Thread starter Deleted member 33893
  • Start date
Deleted member 33893

Deleted member 33893

Self-banned
-
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Posts
1,602
Online
26d 6h 28m

A builder, building a house, knows what he is setting out to do and​

how to do it; he can account for all his actions as contributing to​

his end. This knowledge and ability constitute the craft embodied​

in the builder and his special excellence or 'virtue' (arete), qua​

builder. Similarly a man can live well only if he knows clearly​

what is the end of life, what things are of real value, and how they​

are to be attained. This knowledge is the moral virtue of man, qua​

man, and constitutes the art of living.​



-Taken from: "The republic of Plato" book.

My take is that guys like us can't find a realistic ending that would be worth striving for. That demoralizes us and prevents us from any real attempt of self improvement or doing anything because we know the outcome. Normal people tend to leave everything to a chance and live carelessly. They are copers, dreamers and useless fools who never realize their goals because their goals are not realistic nor do they follow the steps required to realize them.





 
Angry_runt

Angry_runt

Cursed OGcel
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
9,504
Online
90d 18h 20m
Plato is the original inventor of communism and sucks balls overall.
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
Individualism -> lack of purpose -> nihilism
 
Benj-amin

Benj-amin

I am not Insane, Just one step ahead of the curve.
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Posts
1,905
Online
26d 11h 18m
BladingEagle said:

A builder, building a house, knows what he is setting out to do and​

how to do it; he can account for all his actions as contributing to​

his end. This knowledge and ability constitute the craft embodied​

in the builder and his special excellence or 'virtue' (arete), qua​

builder. Similarly a man can live well only if he knows clearly​

what is the end of life, what things are of real value, and how they​

are to be attained. This knowledge is the moral virtue of man, qua​

man, and constitutes the art of living.​



-Taken from: "The republic of Plato" book.

My take is that guys like us can't find a realistic ending that would be worth striving for. That demoralizes us and prevents us from any real attempt of self improvement or doing anything because we know the outcome. Normal people tend to leave everything to a chance and live carelessly. They are copers, dreamers and useless fools who never realize their goals because their goals are not realistic nor do they follow the steps required to realize them.





We Incels are no longer needed in Society, Machines, Abortion, Women's RIghts, Feminism, Eugenics, Lookism. Online Dating,
All these things made us no longer needed in society, And we are actively Shunned, outcasted, Demonized, by Society. What is left for us to do? Whats the point of Inventions, Innovations, """Self-Improvement""", If all I fucking have left to show for it is a lonely existance and death with nobody to give a fuck?
 
D

Deleted member 32888

Self-banned
-
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Posts
32
Online
2d 4h 58m
Individuals usually find purpose in the group; like-minded people working together to achieve a common goal against the singularity of society, which comprises opposing groups. The brotherhood, camaraderie, friendship, partnership, teamwork can only occur when members of a group share the same base values.

We made society up of groups; we make groups up of individuals.

Atomised individuals are those that cannot find a group because no group shares their values.

So I would disagree, it is not individualism. As varied as human beings are, they are more likely able to share base values. We may base those values on individuals' objectives, but it is mutually beneficial to work with others to achieve goals as you have more resources and effort to reach your goal.

My assessment is that modern society has destroyed the individual, we don't have any incentive to form groups because ultimately, our society doesn't share our values. In the past, pre the socialisation of government and the singular style of society, people could break out of and join groups that run parallel to society, break off civilisations.

When we adopted this r-selection strategy for breeding because the individual identity and motivation are dead.

You are not seen as the person "a" as a separate person from person "b", you are seen as employee #1735373637 or H:165 W: 78 R: A, etc.

There is no reason to invest in people, there is no investment in the future, no reason to invest in offspring, so why form groups? Why even have values? Everything and everyone is disposable. Society doesn't care when you can be replaced, from your job to your social setting, to the media and even your entertainment.

My theory is simple, we traded freedom for security.
  • That security then creates a false sense of reality.
  • In that false sense of reality, we threw away the engine of society; the ability for individuals to exercise their freedom.
  • We create social ideals that seek to overcome our biology by denying it and nature itself.
  • Humans adopt another breeding strategy that requires no investment in offspring, completely antithetical to our biology.
  • Low investment individuals are atomised and their only method of survival is "selfishness", so there is no need to form groups or share anything.
  • As society attempts to fix the issues of ignoring our biology, we become even more polarized as we argue how to fix these issues.
  • Ultimately, the family, the backbone of society, dies off as there is no reason for it (why invest in children if we don't invest in our partners) and we have these social problems.
We then need to import people from other cultures (because they breed) that don't share our "social" ideals, and this causes conflict.
Then there is only one way out, social collapse. We see it playing out now, in our media, in our personal lives.

It is doomed because we destroyed essential what it means to be human; we killed individuality because society cannot deal with the fact that people are inherently different in their capacity and ability, and to make things appear equal, we destroy incentive itself. That is the only thing that keeps society going, people do nothing without reason. Even a social reason is not sufficient, as it doesn't fulfil the base of Maslow's series of needs, where all social elements come second to survival.
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Major
★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
2,372
Online
57d 9h 34m
In traditional societies men were valued and respected if they brought some values to society. Were all great philosophers, writers, inventors, entrepreneurs of the past good-looking and successful with women? Of course, not. They still were valuable. Now, with the so called female empowerment only good-looking fuckboys are respected. If you aren't successful with women, everyone looks down at you even if you are talented in other areas. Would you work hard and really sacrifice for society if you're treated like trash by that society?
 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Individualism -> lack of purpose -> nihilism
All of postmodernism ends in nihilism, this is the nihilism era and thus creating nihilistic lives especially in regards for men when the rest of the world deems a majority of us no longer necessary, important, or crucial in society's development.

If transhumanism in the technological age advances even more this nihilism will increase tenfold with planned obsolescence for the majority of human beings, all by grand architectural design.
BladingEagle said:

A builder, building a house, knows what he is setting out to do and​

how to do it; he can account for all his actions as contributing to​

his end. This knowledge and ability constitute the craft embodied​

in the builder and his special excellence or 'virtue' (arete), qua​

builder. Similarly a man can live well only if he knows clearly​

what is the end of life, what things are of real value, and how they​

are to be attained. This knowledge is the moral virtue of man, qua​

man, and constitutes the art of living.​



-Taken from: "The republic of Plato" book.

My take is that guys like us can't find a realistic ending that would be worth striving for. That demoralizes us and prevents us from any real attempt of self improvement or doing anything because we know the outcome. Normal people tend to leave everything to a chance and live carelessly. They are copers, dreamers and useless fools who never realize their goals because their goals are not realistic nor do they follow the steps required to realize them.







Yes, we all know what's going to happen with a firm understanding of predetermination where there is very little free will left in the world if any at all, we can sense that, normies can't. Hard to be motivated with knowledge like that, we hope that random chance will afford us something pleasurable in this existence, but even that is a long shot.
Mordred2000 said:
Individuals usually find purpose in the group; like-minded people working together to achieve a common goal against the singularity of society, which comprises opposing groups. The brotherhood, camaraderie, friendship, partnership, teamwork can only occur when members of a group share the same base values.

We made society up of groups; we make groups up of individuals.

Atomised individuals are those that cannot find a group because no group shares their values.

So I would disagree, it is not individualism. As varied as human beings are, they are more likely able to share base values. We may base those values on individuals' objectives, but it is mutually beneficial to work with others to achieve goals as you have more resources and effort to reach your goal.

My assessment is that modern society has destroyed the individual, we don't have any incentive to form groups because ultimately, our society doesn't share our values. In the past, pre the socialisation of government and the singular style of society, people could break out of and join groups that run parallel to society, break off civilisations.

When we adopted this r-selection strategy for breeding because the individual identity and motivation are dead.

You are not seen as the person "a" as a separate person from person "b", you are seen as employee #1735373637 or H:165 W: 78 R: A, etc.

There is no reason to invest in people, there is no investment in the future, no reason to invest in offspring, so why form groups? Why even have values? Everything and everyone is disposable. Society doesn't care when you can be replaced, from your job to your social setting, to the media and even your entertainment.

My theory is simple, we traded freedom for security.
  • That security then creates a false sense of reality.
  • In that false sense of reality, we threw away the engine of society; the ability for individuals to exercise their freedom.
  • We create social ideals that seek to overcome our biology by denying it and nature itself.
  • Humans adopt another breeding strategy that requires no investment in offspring, completely antithetical to our biology.
  • Low investment individuals are atomised and their only method of survival is "selfishness", so there is no need to form groups or share anything.
  • As society attempts to fix the issues of ignoring our biology, we become even more polarized as we argue how to fix these issues.
  • Ultimately, the family, the backbone of society, dies off as there is no reason for it (why invest in children if we don't invest in our partners) and we have these social problems.
We then need to import people from other cultures (because they breed) that don't share our "social" ideals, and this causes conflict.
Then there is only one way out, social collapse. We see it playing out now, in our media, in our personal lives.

It is doomed because we destroyed essential what it means to be human; we killed individuality because society cannot deal with the fact that people are inherently different in their capacity and ability, and to make things appear equal, we destroy incentive itself. That is the only thing that keeps society going, people do nothing without reason. Even a social reason is not sufficient, as it doesn't fulfil the base of Maslow's series of needs, where all social elements come second to survival.
The entire world is Americanized, and global-homo just about exists everywhere now, it may be too late.

Even foreigners already possess disturbingly American attitudes on life in general. Importation solves nothing.
NorthernWind said:
In traditional societies men were valued and respected if they brought some values to society. Were all great philosophers, writers, inventors, entrepreneurs of the past good-looking and successful with women? Of course, not. They still were valuable. Now, with the so called female empowerment only good-looking fuckboys are respected. If you aren't successful with women, everyone looks down at you even if you are talented in other areas. Would you work hard and really sacrifice for society if you're treated like trash by that society?
Feminism utilized to usher in technological transhumanism by reducing a majority of males into nothing, to structurally change society you go after the mentally weaker gender that is females utilized to disintegrate societies into something else. Again, grand architectural design. Females are turbo social conformists thus easily molded, programmed, and psychologically manipulated versus men. Control females you control simping males, and those males that aren't easily persuaded by females merely linger in isolation until death. Cruelty of the postmodern age.
 
Last edited:
erenyeager

erenyeager

Destroy the world for inceldia
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Posts
6,173
Online
36d 4m
MarquisDeSade said:
All of postmodernism ends in nihilism, this is the nihilism era and thus creating nihilistic lives especially in regards for men when the rest of the world deems a majority of us no longer necessary, important, or crucial in society's development.

If transhumanism in the technological age advances even more this nihilism will increase tenfold with planned obsolescence for the majority of human beings, all by grand architectural design.



Yes, we all know what's going to happen with a firm understanding of predetermination where there is very little free will left in the world if any at all, we can sense that, normies can't. Hard to be motivated with knowledge like that, we hope that random chance will afford us something pleasurable in this existence, but even that is a long shot.

The entire world is Americanized, and global-homo just about exists everywhere now, it may be too late.

Even foreigners already possess disturbingly American attitudes on life in general. Importation solves nothing.

Feminism utilized to usher in technological transhumanism by reducing a majority of males into nothing, to structurally change society you go after the mentally weaker gender that is females utilized to disintegrate societies into something else. Again, grand architectural design. Females are turbo social conformists thus easily molded, programmed, and psychologically manipulated versus men. Control females you control simping males, and those males that aren't easily persuaded by females merely linger in isolation until death. Cruelty of the postmodern age.
Over
 
K9Otaku

K9Otaku

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
925
Online
17d 14h 8m
BladingEagle said:
My take is that guys like us can't find a realistic ends that would be worth striving for. That demoralizes us and prevents us from any real attempt of self improvement or doing anything because we know the outcome. Normal people tend to leave everything to a chance and live carelessly. They are copers, dreamers and useless fools who never realize their goals because their goals are not realistic nor do they follow the steps required to realize them.
I agree.

The problem we have is that trust has broken down for us. We do not trust people anymore because we have been made promises that have been broken too many times (you will find a girl eventually, if you do <insert bluepill advice here>, girls will be nice to you, etc.) Conversely people do not trust us (they reject us) because we say things that put their copes in jeopardy (in fact our very existence does that to them) and thus they hate us.

Nothing can be done without trust. No work, no project, no career. Everything requires at least some cooperation with others and therefore trust.

We must rebuild trust. It is that or we all rope.

Trusting bluepillers? Forget it. So we must rebuild trust entirely within our own community, so that we can at least have some realistic goals together.
Mordred2000 said:
It is doomed because we destroyed essential what it means to be human; we killed individuality because society cannot deal with the fact that people are inherently different in their capacity and ability, and to make things appear equal, we destroy incentive itself.
I agree, especially the last point.

However, I do not think that any solution can be found in political ideologies (any "-ism") or, for that matter, in any type of modern Academic thought. The rot has entered Western thinking way upstream of the moment these disciplines appeared in the 19th and 20th century and they are hopelessly flawed.

We must go further back in time and probe the foundations of what we usually call "religions". I am not saying that we should be religious. I, for one, do not believe in God or anything supernatural. I just think that traditional religious discourse, even when it is allegorized in supernatural terms, goes way deeper than what has passed for "thought" in the West since the so-called Enlightenment.

I have discovered this book on the internet a while ago:
and I think it summarizes better than I could the approach I have in mind.
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Individualism -> lack of purpose -> nihilism
That is sort of true but it is incomplete.

Just saying "let us stop being individualists" is wishful thinking. We have to find something that really makes us want to be dominated by it (something transcendent).

I know that you place great store in fascism but I do not believe that fascists have really succeeded in finding something convincingly transcendent. They have tried the Race (Nazis), the Nation (Italian Fascism, Mosley and others) or even Nature (Ecofascism) None of that works. Race is a fiction, nations are dead and nature is, well, too vague. Are we going to hug trees like bluepiller Greens?

We have to dig deeper in order to find what we can really feel transcends us, what really humbles us into no longer being tempted by the individualist pie in the sky.
 
Last edited:
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,599
Online
153d 22h 37m
erenyeager said:
There is no solution and that's part of the blackpill tbh
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
MarquisDeSade said:
All of postmodernism ends in nihilism, this is the nihilism era and thus creating nihilistic lives especially in regards for men when the rest of the world deems a majority of us no longer necessary, important, or crucial in society's development.
Exactly. The belief that everything is up for interpretation is one that Nietzsche held. And since that lies at the core of postmodernism, it's not surprising that it ends in nihilism. Men are not as necessary as they used to be, but the are still cogs in a machine. Men are the ones keeping society afloat. Getting rid of men will cause society to crumble.

MarquisDeSade said:
If transhumanism in the technological age advances even more this nihilism will increase tenfold with planned obsolescence for the majority of human beings, all by grand architectural design.
That's what I think that Kacyznski's position on this is a step in the right direction. We don't have to go as far as him and suggest that the system has to be eradicated completely. It just needs a reformation. Our goal should be going to the 1950s in terms human closeness. We no longer live in communities since the internet "connects" us. People nowadays have no problem moving to a new continent because they know the internet will help them find new people. Alas, it doesn't. I mean, it does if you're a foid. But as a man, your chances are practically 0. However, that's not the only issue we're facing. The system itself is obviously not the issue - the system is just a tool. The root cause, at least imo, is progressivism. Once we get rid of that, most societal problems will go away.
 
Honeypot

Honeypot

Wizard
★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
4,250
Online
21d 18h 44m
Benj-amin said:
We Incels are no longer needed in Society, Machines, Abortion, Women's RIghts, Feminism, Eugenics, Lookism. Online Dating,
All these things made us no longer needed in society, And we are actively Shunned, outcasted, Demonized, by Society. What is left for us to do? Whats the point of Inventions, Innovations, """Self-Improvement""", If all I fucking have left to show for it is a lonely existance and death with nobody to give a fuck?
I just want to moneymax get a degree on cloning and genetics, mass produce foids without hypergamy based on looks and sell them to people in incels.co. Do you want one?
 
lifeisbullshit95

lifeisbullshit95

Another day another mental breakdown.
★★
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Posts
3,142
Online
22d 20h 23m
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
K9Otaku said:
Just saying "let us stop being individualists" is wishful thinking. We have to find something that really makes us want to be dominated by it (something transcendent).
No, of course it isn't. I've talked about this in another thread, but I'll repeat it since you probably didn't see it (I mean we get dozens of threads here daily). The problem is that we live in a would that encourages us to be individualists. We have everything to function on our own. And as you know, hierarchies have always existed (they even exist in the animal kingdom, it's not just a human thing). Hierarchies can be divided into two types; either by genetics (alpha male rules the tribe and fucks all the females) or by authority (e.g. Hitler ruling Nazi Germany). Nowadays we are controlled by whatever the media shills (at least most of us are). The majority of people agree on almost everything. There are certain "truths" that we hold self evident and are indisputable. For example, to society racism is always bad - but that's bs. Racism is not inherently good or bad. Words like good and bad don't mean anything if they don't occur within a moral system. But here lies the crux of the whole problem; what moral system do we choose? -- i.e. what authority do we want to be controlled by?

IMO nature should be that authority. Meaning, let things flow naturally with minimal human interference. That includes not destroying forests, not killing animals unnecessarily (killing them for food in normal ways and not en mass will help keep balance in nature), etc.

Ultimately, we most conform to nature. One hurricane, or any other natural disaster can wipe us all out. So, in a way, nature is controlling us. And nature is not greedy. I know that most of what I've said so far is vague, so let me explain what I mean by "conforming to nature". Humans have evolved to live in tribes for billions of years. That's how they're hard wired. They're not used to be surrounded by bricks. Over time if we continue living the way do, a mutation might occur which will make that possible. But so far, that has not happened. The closer we get to hunter gatherer societies (with certain alterations ofc, I'm not suggesting a caveman lifestyle), the better our mental health becomes. Now, as we've seen, life is full of trade-offs. To gain something you have to sacrifice another. And to gain peace and serenity we have to sacrifice our current nihilistic coomer lifestyle. I am, however, fully aware that what I'm suggesting is somewhat hard to achieve and is not quite realistic for some of us who suffer from autism (like myself). But that's not the full image. Autists are still humans. And they are capable of being outside. The stigma that autistic people are all losers and shut-ins is not quite accurate. Anyway, I can go on for hours about this, but I think that should do it for now.

K9Otaku said:
I know that you place great store in fascism but I do not believe that fascists have really succeeded in finding something convincingly transcendent. They have tried the Race (Nazis), the Nation (Italian Fascism, Mosley and others) or even Nature (Ecofascism) None of that works. Race is a fiction, nations are dead and nature is, well, too vague. Are we going to hug trees like bluepiller Greens?
You know where I stand regarding this. I'm still working on a comprehensive "manifesto" regarding this. Nature in that case is just a place holder for a less technological lifestyle.
K9Otaku said:
We have to dig deeper in order to find what we can really feel transcends us, what really humbles us into no longer being tempted by the individualist pie in the sky.
I agree. As I said previously, I don't have all the answers myself. And trade-offs will always exist. Plus, no system is perfect.
your personality said:
There is no solution and that's part of the blackpill tbh
That's too pessimistic. I mean, yeah, reality is fucked up. And to be a bit pessimistic is healthy. However, I don't think that we're doomed to live like this. Look at Germany pre-WW2. They thought they were doomed. But for a couple of years before the war broke out, the Germans enjoyed their lives to the fullest. Most of the infrastructure that is currently used in German cities was built during Hitler's time. There is no perfect solution. But there is a solution. Things are susceptible to change. Albeit that change might be temporary as it was in Nazi Germany. All we need is a charismatic leader. Eve violence is permissible, since it's for the greater good. You might ask the greater good of whom? Well, for society as a whole. Our current system is fucked up and is obviously bound to collapse. It's just not sustainable. The more polarized we are the fast the collapse will come. As A. Lincoln once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". And our current society is the embodiment of that.
 
Last edited:
FlyFace

FlyFace

Memento Mori
Joined
May 3, 2018
Posts
4,524
Online
27d 17h 40m
Why is our species so deluded into believing that their existence matters? That anything matters at all and the continued existence of their puny lives means anything? We all die so morality does not matter.. it is all the same once you are dead. Those that believe in morality are morons who will allow others to abuse them.
 
J

JegErSkribent

Officer
★★
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
646
Online
44d 12h 31m
FlyFace said:
Why is our species so deluded into believing that their existence matters? That anything matters at all and the continued existence of their puny lives means anything? We all die so morality does not matter.. it is all the same once you are dead. Those that believe in morality are morons who will allow others to abuse them.
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,599
Online
153d 22h 37m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
That's too pessimistic. I mean, yeah, reality is fucked up. And to be a bit pessimistic is healthy. However, I don't think that we're doomed to live like this. Look at Germany pre-WW2. They thought they were doomed. But for a couple of years before the war broke out, the Germans enjoyed their lives to the fullest. Most of the infrastructure that is currently used in German cities was built during Hitler's time. There is no perfect solution. But there is a solution. Things are susceptible to change. Albeit that change might be temporary as it was in Nazi Germany. All we need is a charismatic leader. Eve violence is permissible, since it's for the greater good. You might ask the greater good of whom? Well, for society as a whole. Our current system is fucked up and is obviously bound to collapse. It's just not sustainable. The more polarized we are the fast the collapse will come. As A. Lincoln once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". And our current society is the embodiment of that.
Isn't there a saying though "the pessimist was right all along"? And tbh the blackpill is pessimistic in how it doesn't sugercoat things.
Agreed there is no perfect solution but looking to a charismatic leader to solve things isn't any better. And in any collapse it's low SMV guys that will lose out the most because they already have very little social connections and people aren't willing to cooperate with them. Also accelerationism is a cope. For all you know it could just keep getting worse and people will just adjust to that condition of lower living standards.
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
your personality said:
Isn't there a saying though "the pessimist was right all along"? And tbh the blackpill is pessimistic in how it doesn't sugercoat things.
The Blackpill is just realistic imo. But reality happens to be shitty and negative.

your personality said:
Also accelerationism is a cope. For all you know it could just keep getting worse and people will just adjust to that condition of lower living standards.
Yeah, I'm slowly distancing myself from that ideology. It's a huge cope, and it can make society more progressive.
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,599
Online
153d 22h 37m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
The Blackpill is just realistic imo. But reality happens to be shitty and negative.
Much of what society claims is pessimism is just unfortunate observations on reality by low SMV guys tbh
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Yeah, I'm slowly distancing myself from that ideology. It's a huge cope, and it can make society more progressive.
If politics and religion is your cope by all means go for it but don't get inadvertently sucked into fighting sexhaver's battles for them. That happened with a lot of single white males in the alt-right pre Charlottesville. Remember the incident where one of them was killed and RedIce TV viewers justified it as being for the greater good? If you want to see how single white males are viewed by people on the alt-right look at vox day's blog.
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
your personality said:
If politics and religion is your cope by all means go for it but don't get inadvertently sucked into fighting sexhaver's battles for them.
I mostly cope with far-right politics. I'm not religious (been an atheist for 10 years now). However, being apolitical isn't that productive either. Change comes from political movements. But Idk if change is even possible. BummerDrummer @BummerDrummer seems to thing that we can still reverse things. He claims that many men are starting to see through the bs of the left. I don't see it. If anything, men are becoming more progressive.

Anyway, I can't imagine myself being stuck in this incel hell at 40. I'd rather rope before reaching that age. It's just too much to handle tbh.
your personality said:
Remember the incident where one of them was killed and RedIce TV viewers justified it as being for the greater good?
Oh yea. To society we're even worst than Nazis. Ironically, to them incel is synonymous with Nazi. So yeah, they'll definitely label our deaths as being for the greater good - or as they say, one less terrorist to worry about.
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,599
Online
153d 22h 37m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
I mostly cope with far-right politics. I'm not religious (been an atheist for 10 years now). However, being apolitical isn't that productive either. Change comes from political movements. But Idk if change is even possible.
You don't have to spend all time on politics coping tbh
Being apolitical isn't bad but so many formerly neutral things are getting politicized now with the culture wars seeping into every form of entertainment.
GeneticTrashLoser said:
BummerDrummer @BummerDrummer seems to thing that we can still reverse things. He claims that many men are starting to see through the bs of the left. I don't see it. If anything, men are becoming more progressive.
Politics doesn't really matter when it comes to personal issues though tbh
Look at how people view love and relationships. They acknowledge it's unfair and far from ideal but they accept it. Even the people with the most egalitarian views. Sexual competition is just viewed as something that is inherently unfair but that everyone needs to do anyway (and if the fail, to fail with dignity and go sulk in some corner quietly).
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Anyway, I can't imagine myself being stuck in this incel hell at 40. I'd rather rope before reaching that age. It's just too much to handle tbh.
Understandable ngl
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Oh yea. To society we're even worst than Nazis. Ironically, to them incel is synonymous with Nazi. So yeah, they'll definitely label our deaths as being for the greater good - or as they say, one less terrorist to worry about.
RedIce TV are more on legit nazi side though. Was mentioning this as an example that even to nazis the death of low status men is considered to be for the greater good. This is despite their virtue signaling about how they supposedly care about white males left behind and want to give them a greater sense of purpose.
 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Exactly. The belief that everything is up for interpretation is one that Nietzsche held. And since that lies at the core of postmodernism, it's not surprising that it ends in nihilism. Men are not as necessary as they used to be, but the are still cogs in a machine. Men are the ones keeping society afloat. Getting rid of men will cause society to crumble.


That's what I think that Kacyznski's position on this is a step in the right direction. We don't have to go as far as him and suggest that the system has to be eradicated completely. It just needs a reformation. Our goal should be going to the 1950s in terms human closeness. We no longer live in communities since the internet "connects" us. People nowadays have no problem moving to a new continent because they know the internet will help them find new people. Alas, it doesn't. I mean, it does if you're a foid. But as a man, your chances are practically 0. However, that's not the only issue we're facing. The system itself is obviously not the issue - the system is just a tool. The root cause, at least imo, is progressivism. Once we get rid of that, most societal problems will go away.
Due to specialization it's a few men keeping society going while reducing a majority of men in population into irrelevancy or planned obsolescence, this is what specialization does overtime especially to a society that is technologically advanced heading towards total automation. [A.I. singularity and technological transhumanism objective future goal in their minds.]

The few that can cut it concerning technological specialization or skill-sets are predominantly men at the top of the social pyramid, yes, but in reality these same men could give a shit less what happens to a majority of the male population because they have all the social perks that come with society. [Chads]

For all intents or purposes those few men at the top of the social pyramid view a majority of the male population as being completely disposable, our lives are very much meaningless to them.

The system cannot be reformed, it's a constant mistake or error all kinds of political social reformists make in regards to post-modernism. No, only the complete destruction of this system will create any kind of meaningful long lasting change, but unlike the Kacyznski method really all we need to do is patiently wait for internal implosion of this construct which in my mind is an unavoidable inevitability for several reasons.

Progressivism as ideology or political idealism is flawed for several reasons but given the core of its entire belief structure it is entirely elitist or aristocratic viewing the majority of the population including men as being completely disposable fulfilling their future goals and ambitions, caring not of the lives they destroy in the process. For these progressives you see, everything is a means to an end, their end, and if they have to destroy billions of lives in the process they will.
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
10,493
Online
125d 18h 48m
Mordred2000 said:
Individuals usually find purpose in the group; like-minded people working together to achieve a common goal against the singularity of society, which comprises opposing groups. The brotherhood, camaraderie, friendship, partnership, teamwork can only occur when members of a group share the same base values.

We made society up of groups; we make groups up of individuals.

Atomised individuals are those that cannot find a group because no group shares their values.

So I would disagree, it is not individualism. As varied as human beings are, they are more likely able to share base values. We may base those values on individuals' objectives, but it is mutually beneficial to work with others to achieve goals as you have more resources and effort to reach your goal.

My assessment is that modern society has destroyed the individual, we don't have any incentive to form groups because ultimately, our society doesn't share our values. In the past, pre the socialisation of government and the singular style of society, people could break out of and join groups that run parallel to society, break off civilisations.

When we adopted this r-selection strategy for breeding because the individual identity and motivation are dead.

You are not seen as the person "a" as a separate person from person "b", you are seen as employee #1735373637 or H:165 W: 78 R: A, etc.

There is no reason to invest in people, there is no investment in the future, no reason to invest in offspring, so why form groups? Why even have values? Everything and everyone is disposable. Society doesn't care when you can be replaced, from your job to your social setting, to the media and even your entertainment.

My theory is simple, we traded freedom for security.
  • That security then creates a false sense of reality.
  • In that false sense of reality, we threw away the engine of society; the ability for individuals to exercise their freedom.
  • We create social ideals that seek to overcome our biology by denying it and nature itself.
  • Humans adopt another breeding strategy that requires no investment in offspring, completely antithetical to our biology.
  • Low investment individuals are atomised and their only method of survival is "selfishness", so there is no need to form groups or share anything.
  • As society attempts to fix the issues of ignoring our biology, we become even more polarized as we argue how to fix these issues.
  • Ultimately, the family, the backbone of society, dies off as there is no reason for it (why invest in children if we don't invest in our partners) and we have these social problems.
We then need to import people from other cultures (because they breed) that don't share our "social" ideals, and this causes conflict.
Then there is only one way out, social collapse. We see it playing out now, in our media, in our personal lives.

It is doomed because we destroyed essential what it means to be human; we killed individuality because society cannot deal with the fact that people are inherently different in their capacity and ability, and to make things appear equal, we destroy incentive itself. That is the only thing that keeps society going, people do nothing without reason. Even a social reason is not sufficient, as it doesn't fulfil the base of Maslow's series of needs, where all social elements come second to survival.
High IQ. You understand.
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
MarquisDeSade said:
The system cannot be reformed, it's a constant mistake or error all kinds of political social reformists make in regards to post-modernism. No, only the complete destruction of this system will create any kind of meaningful long lasting change, but unlike the Kacyznski method really all we need to do is patiently wait for internal implosion of this construct which in my mind is an unavoidable inevitability for several reasons.
I don't disagree, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime tbh. Accelerationism might make society more progressive. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love nothing more than to watch this depraved system go u in flames along with everyone that supports it. I just want a meaningful reformation. And I agree, a complete destruction is necessary. Conservatives are cucks these days, we're dominated by leftist, progressive ideologies. The majority of people are at the very least left leaning. We are outnumbered. It really pisses me off that most men support leftist ideologies like LGBTQ rights, but my hands are tied here. I can't do much about it.

MarquisDeSade said:
Progressivism as ideology or political idealism is flawed for several reasons but given the core of its entire belief structure it is entirely elitist or aristocratic viewing the majority of the population including men as being completely disposable fulfilling their future goals and ambitions, caring not of the lives they destroy in the process. For these progressives you see, everything is a means to an end, their end, and if they have to destroy billions of lives in the process they will.
Well, this is depressing. And it's sad because it's true. That's exactly what's happening. But again, what can we do about it? I literally have nothing left to lose. I hate my life, I hate society, and I hate the way things are. Each day I feel more and more alienated.
your personality said:
You don't have to spend all time on politics coping tbh
Being apolitical isn't bad but so many formerly neutral things are getting politicized now with the culture wars seeping into every form of entertainment.
I don't spend much on politics. I spend most of my time reading

your personality said:
Politics doesn't really matter when it comes to personal issues though tbh
Look at how people view love and relationships. They acknowledge it's unfair and far from ideal but they accept it. Even the people with the most egalitarian views. Sexual competition is just viewed as something that is inherently unfair but that everyone needs to do anyway (and if the fail, to fail with dignity and go sulk in some corner quietly).
That too, is depressing.

What can we do about it? I really hate the way the West is rn. I want to go back to the early 2000s. I've been LDARing for years. It's not fulfilling.
 
Last edited:
Linesnap99

Linesnap99

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Posts
5,542
Online
41d 12h 48m
NorthernWind said:
In traditional societies men were valued and respected if they brought some values to society. Were all great philosophers, writers, inventors, entrepreneurs of the past good-looking and successful with women? Of course, not. They still were valuable. Now, with the so called female empowerment only good-looking fuckboys are respected. If you aren't successful with women, everyone looks down at you even if you are talented in other areas. Would you work hard and really sacrifice for society if you're treated like trash by that society?
 
K9Otaku

K9Otaku

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
925
Online
17d 14h 8m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Hierarchies can be divided into two types; either by genetics (alpha male rules the tribe and fucks all the females) or by authority (e.g. Hitler ruling Nazi Germany).
I think that Authority-S (what you call "by genetics") vs. Authority-L is a better categorization of types of authority.

As you know, it is explained in detail, in this thread

One of the mistakes of Fascist leaders and ideologues was to fail to identify this second type of authority clearly. As a result, Fascist leaders were more on the Authority-S side than the Authority-L side. That made them weak and ineffective. This is one of the reasons Nazi administration was so chaotic, under a veneer of German organization.`
GeneticTrashLoser said:
For example, to society racism is always bad - but that's bs. Racism is not inherently good or bad. Words like good and bad don't mean anything if they don't occur within a moral system. But here lies the crux of the whole problem; what moral system do we choose? -- i.e. what authority do we want to be controlled by?
Yes
GeneticTrashLoser said:
IMO nature should be that authority. Meaning, let things flow naturally with minimal human interference. That includes not destroying forests, not killing animals unnecessarily (killing them for food in normal ways and not en mass will help keep balance in nature), etc.
That can't be done (see below)
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Ultimately, we most conform to nature.
What is "Nature". We are not separate from nature. Everything we do is part of nature. There is no way to decide what is acceptable in terms of agriculture/industry/road building/energy production. Everything is always a tradeoff and, worst of all, our scientific capabilities are not able to predict how the whole system of life on Earth (including us) if we do this or that. Climate science is unable to predict the climate and ecology is unable to predict anything.

All ecological scares of the past 50 years have been manufactured by the bluepill media and unscrupulous pseudo-scientists. There is no way we can trust any of what they say.

Nature cannot be our transcendent "god" because we have no idea about what it "wants"

GeneticTrashLoser said:
One hurricane, or any other natural disaster can wipe us all out.
No. Not a hurricane. It would take an event like when the Moon collided with Earth 4 billion years ago to wipe us all out. Even a dinosaur-extinction level event would not wipe us all out.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I know that most of what I've said so far is vague, so let me explain what I mean by "conforming to nature". Humans have evolved to live in tribes for billions of years. That's how they're hard wired. They're not used to be surrounded by bricks. Over time if we continue living the way do, a mutation might occur which will make that possible. But so far, that has not happened. The closer we get to hunter gatherer societies (with certain alterations ofc, I'm not suggesting a caveman lifestyle), the better our mental health becomes.
That is not possible. Either we completely stop repressing all of our instincts and then we are back to 100% caveman lifestyle within 2 or 3 generations. Or we have to pick and chose what instincts to let loose and which to repress. We do not know how to do that in any other way than we what we have been doing for the last 5000 years. The history of civilization is the only data we have on what works in terms of instincts picking and choosing. The only other way would be to divide a huge area into fenced-off squares of maybe 100 sq miles each and in each square put a group of humans who would try a different set of parameters in terms of instinct selection. Do you think that is feasible? Realistically?

We have to work with what we have. And the only thing we do have is the record of the last 5000 years; in other words, our tradition.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
And to gain peace and serenity we have to sacrifice our current nihilistic coomer lifestyle.
Yes. But the problem is not about what amount of technology we use. Technology is neutral. It does not affect the way we live. What does is our culture. And that depends on what we consider to be transcendent.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
A. Lincoln once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
Lincoln did not say that. Rather he did, but he was merely quoting the Bible.

The Bible is the basis of everything that worked in our culture before it started its present decline. I do not believe in God but I do recognize that The Bible and what Christians did with it is the only tested and validated cultural blend we have at our disposal. Every time we tried to invent something new (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot) it ended in horrors and nothing else. We have to recognize that our margin of improvisation is narrow. We have to build on what we have and stay as close as possible to it. Anything else is a waste of time
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
K9Otaku said:
One of the mistakes of Fascist leaders and ideologues was to fail to identify this second type of authority clearly. As a result, Fascist leaders were more on the Authority-S side than the Authority-L side. That made them weak and ineffective. This is one of the reasons Nazi administration was so chaotic, under a veneer of German organization.`
That's because Fascism is not a stand alone ideology. It needs an authority, a bigger cause. The ones we've tried so far were all colossal failures. We need to look for a. new cause. It's in our nature to want to be part of a group. Humans are not individualists, which is why any individualistic ideology leads to nihilism.

K9Otaku said:
What is "Nature". We are not separate from nature. Everything we do is part of nature. There is no way to decide what is acceptable in terms of agriculture/industry/road building/energy production. Everything is always a tradeoff and, worst of all, our scientific capabilities are not able to predict how the whole system of life on Earth (including us) if we do this or that. Climate science is unable to predict the climate and ecology is unable to predict anything.
Although you are right about us being part of nature, which is something we can never transcend, we are not in direct contact with nature. Sure, we might be breathing air, and walking next to a tree. But then again, that's not the way humans have evolved to live. Humans are not supposed to live like I (or you) do. That's not healthy. Depression is just our body's way of telling us there's something wrong. As for what's acceptable, there's no exact estimate, but we do have heuristics to at least set a red line.

K9Otaku said:
That is not possible. Either we completely stop repressing all of our instincts and then we are back to 100% caveman lifestyle within 2 or 3 generations. Or we have to pick and chose what instincts to let loose and which to repress
Is that even possible? Can we really control what we feel or want? I mean, that would imply that we have free will. Wouldn't it? And why would we regress to caveman lifestyle? I'm not saying repress all of our instincts. I mean, as incels, we are trying to repress many of our instincts, and we have not become more primitive. Repressing ALL of your instincts is not even possible. It'll lead to death before it leads to a caveman lifestyle.

K9Otaku said:
Do you think that is feasible? Realistically?
No, it's not. But that's not what I'm proposing. I just want the system to stop progressing. We've reach the optimal state in the 1950s. It was all downhill from there. We need to control certain things before even thinking about a more "primitive" lifestyle. Back in the 1950s you had the option to live in the woods without being bothered by the system. We weren't surrounded by bricks like we are today. I remember how the area where my parents live was in the early 2000s. It was just a small community of people living with little to no technology (we had internet and everything, but it wasn't heavily used). And we were happy. Technological and industrial development are making us miserable. Why would I want a dystopian future? Going back to nature only means removing ourselves from urban cities and moving into a community where we're not constantly bombarded by the news. The reason we can't escape our culture is because of technology.

K9Otaku said:
Yes. But the problem is not about what amount of technology we use. Technology is neutral. It does not affect the way we live. What does is our culture. And that depends on what we consider to be transcendent.
That's true, but we have to admit that it exacerbates the problem. 30 years ago if people were unhappy, they'd try to go out, talk to someone from their community. Nowadays, they go on the internet to look for support. And as you might expect, it's not fulfilling. Technology is rampant these days, and it can no longer be controlled. I'd be in favour of controlling it if possible. Alas, that's not the case. Therefore, I think getting rid of it altogether (or only leaving very primitive computers) can help us massively. Now ofc, the majority of people are going to object to that. But I do firmly believe that technology has ruined us; it fucked our attention span, it made us lazy, but more importantly it has made political polarisation easier.I don't think we can control the amount of technology we use. We're constantly impacted by it; it's everywhere. And soon, living in the mountains or woods will no longer be possible.

K9Otaku said:
The Bible is the basis of everything that worked in our culture before it started its present decline. I do not believe in God but I do recognize that The Bible and what Christians did with it is the only tested and validated cultural blend we have at our disposal. Every time we tried to invent something new (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot) it ended in horrors and nothing else. We have to recognize that our margin of improvisation is narrow. We have to build on what we have and stay as close as possible to it. Anything else is a waste of time
I agree. But again, Christianity didn't anticipate this huge technological advancement. We have to use what we have to come with a better system, and to move towards a more fulfilling lifestyle. I know that many disagree, but I think that most of our problems stem from individualism (and nihilism but nihilism is the end result of individualism) which is largely caused by technology.


Also, regrading how bad technological advancement can be, take a look at Asia. They're ahead of us in terms of development. Look at the suicide rates of South Korea. Look at the state of men in Japan. I know that feminism and other shit have a lot to do with that as well, but still, those countries are much more advanced than the West, and their advancement has made them slaves to the system. Are they happy? I've talked with a couple of Korean dudes, and all of them have invariably told me they're miserable.
 
Last edited:
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
I don't disagree, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime tbh. Accelerationism might make society more progressive. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love nothing more than to watch this depraved system go u in flames along with everyone that supports it. I just want a meaningful reformation. And I agree, a complete destruction is necessary. Conservatives are cucks these days, we're dominated by leftist, progressive ideologies. The majority of people are at the very least left leaning. We are outnumbered. It really pisses me off that most men support leftist ideologies like LGBTQ rights, but my hands are tied here. I can't do much about it.


Well, this is depressing. And it's sad because it's true. That's exactly what's happening. But again, what can we do about it? I literally have nothing left to lose. I hate my life, I hate society, and I hate the way things are. Each day I feel more and more alienated.

I don't spend much on politics. I spend most of my time reading


That too, is depressing.

What can we do about it? I really hate the way the West is rn. I want to go back to the early 2000s. I've been LDARing for years. It's not fulfilling.
It will happen in our lifetimes, hopefully by the time it does happen we're not weak old men by then.

Everybody thinks accelerationism is purely violence revolving around violent acts and insurrection, but this is only half the equation of the accelerationist model, there are things like economic or political accelerationism as well that tends to be more abstract than simple individual and group acts of violence. For those with eyes that can see one can witness that kind of accelerationism play out daily if you're obsessed with international current events as I am. Basically the west currently is collapsing economically, politically, financially, psychologically, geopolitically, and socially as organic biological organizations of society are breaking down all around us at a collective level, best of all is that when these things do collapse entirely the same impulse of radical environmental change within the accelerationist model will be much the same as any kind of violence could ever achieve, for me I truly believe this later existential inclination of accelerationism will be the fundamental thing that changes stuff for us as I see it as the more likely. I keep telling people just to be patient and wait, learning patience is key with trained watchful eyes.
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
MarquisDeSade said:
Everybody thinks accelerationism is purely violence revolving around violent acts and insurrection
Not necessarily. Only those who have a shallow understanding of accelerationism think that tbh. You can, for example, put up posters about Sharia Law to trigger the cuckservatives, and then a week after that you cover those posters with ones calling for the expulsion of immigrants. And you Repeat until conflict arises. The more polarized we are the better. I'm done taking sides. Both the right and the left are a bunch of hypocritical boomers who just want to live a luxurious life. They don't care about any of us, and therefore don't deserve our vote or support.

MarquisDeSade said:
For those with eyes that can see one can witness that kind of accelerationism play out daily if you're obsessed with international current events as I am
I am. Europe is currently in shambles. Germany keeps locking its people down in draconian ways, which gave rise to protests all over the country. Italy is struggling as well. The UK has opened everything but they still don't have a plan. People are slowly growing tired of this shit. Many have taken their lives, and others have gone crazy. But if this pandemic showed us anything, it's how resilient people are. They are not easy to break.

And while I'm at it, fuck the Kikes. They're behind all that shit.
 
Last edited:
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Not necessarily. Only those who have a shallow understanding of accelerationism think that tbh. You can, for example, put up posters about Sharia Law to trigger the cuckservatives, and then a week after that you cover those posters with ones calling for the expulsion of immigrants. And you Repeat until conflict arises. The more polarized we are the better. I'm done taking sides. Both the right and the left are a bunch of hypocritical boomers who just want to live a luxurious life. They don't care about any of us, and therefore don't deserve our vote or support.


I am. Europe is currently in shambles. Germany keeps locking its people down in draconian ways, which gave rise to protests all over the country. Italy is struggling as well. The UK has opened everything but they still don't have a plan. People are slowly growing tired of this shit. Many have taken their lives, and others have gone crazy. But if this pandemic showed us anything, it's how resilient people are. They are not easy to break.

And while I'm at it, fuck the Kikes. Their behind all that shit.
Without a doubt, neither political apparatuses of the left or right is worthy of supporting, I think these last few years has shown us that reality. Very true.

The polarization has only begun, eventually we're going to start watching very climatic conflicts arise spiraling everything out of control, the more general chaos the better things will accelerate of course. Yes, fuck the boomers, they've had their time and they're all about squandering everything until their death beds to reach the gates of heaven in their mind having us marooned at the gates of hell upon passing.

Yes, the resilience of normalcy bias is a fascinating thing and these few years have shown us what an insane resilience it really is, but don't fret fren, it has within itself a limit before breaking down completely into chaos, violence, confusion, hopelessness, and despair, it is at its limit now as I type this post. It's like a rubber band, stretch it too much and it will eventually break, we're at that breaking point now which is a very fine thing indeed.
 
K9Otaku

K9Otaku

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
925
Online
17d 14h 8m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
That's because Fascism is not a stand alone ideology. It needs an authority, a bigger cause. The ones we've tried so far were all colossal failures. We need to look for a. new cause. It's in our nature to want to be part of a group. Humans are not individualists, which is why any individualistic ideology leads to nihilism.
Ok, what you are doing here is that you are using the label "fascist" to encompass everything that is not individualism. I understand what you mean (and I share the view that individualism is a dead end), but the word "fascism" is not generally used as widely. I am not sure that using it that way is helping you get across what you want.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Although you are right about us being part of nature, which is something we can never transcend, we are not in direct contact with nature. Sure, we might be breathing air, and walking next to a tree. But then again, that's not the way humans have evolved to live. Humans are not supposed to live like I (or you) do. That's not healthy.
Absolutely, but what does it mean "like we do".

Humans have evolved initially like every animal species. Then, for some reason, we have developed the capacity for language and culture. Since that time, we have never lived according to our instincts anymore. Ever since farming began, we have invented ever more effective ways to suppress or reorient our instincts. That is what culture is.
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Depression is just our body's way of telling us there's something wrong.
Yes, Absolutely
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Is that even possible? Can we really control what we feel or want? I mean, that would imply that we have free will. Wouldn't it?
Yes, it is possible, and no, it is not related to free-will.

An individual cannot easily modify his own behavior. But a child can be trained in a way that will suppress some of his instincts and/or amplify others. That is what all cultures do. Indeed that is the very essence of culture. Beyond childhood, certain cultures have developed techniques for adult re-training which can result in some more instinct-bending at any age. These techniques correspond roughly to what we call "religions". In India, this is very clear. Each religious current has its own "yoga", which is what adult re-training is called in that context. In Christianity, it is less visible, but the same thing is there all right. It is particularly obvious among monks.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
And why would we regress to caveman lifestyle? I'm not saying repress all of our instincts.
We will not regress to caveman level if we repress our instincts. On the contrary, this regression will occur, if we stop repressing our instincts.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I mean, as incels, we are trying to repress many of our instincts, and we have not become more primitive. Repressing ALL of your instincts is not even possible. It'll lead to death before it leads to a caveman lifestyle.
I never said that. It is the other way around (see above)

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I just want the system to stop progressing.
I am not sure what you mean by that but it is quite clear that we cannot stop time or turn the clock back. Things will always move "forward" in that sense

GeneticTrashLoser said:
We've reach the optimal state in the 1950s. It was all downhill from there.
True. The question is why?

GeneticTrashLoser said:
We need to control certain things before even thinking about a more "primitive" lifestyle.
You have to keep in mind that there is very little we can "control". Beyond a small group of like-minded people, I do not see what we can realistically "control" at the moment.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Back in the 1950s you had the option to live in the woods without being bothered by the system. We weren't surrounded by bricks like we are today. I remember how the area where my parents live was in the early 2000s. It was just a small community of people living with little to no technology (we had internet and everything, but it wasn't heavily used). And we were happy. Technological and industrial development are making us miserable.
It is not the Technology or industry. It is how these are used according to the culture.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Why would I want a dystopian future? Going back to nature only means removing ourselves from urban cities and moving into a community where we're not constantly bombarded by the news. The reason we can't escape our culture is because of technology.
That is not correct. Technology does not prevent us from questioning our culture (which is a prerequisite for escaping it). Indeed, technology is helping us question our culture right now as we both write on this forum. Google, Twitter, Youtube and Reddit could be used to question our culture even more if these platforms were not controlled by bluepiller cucks. So it is bluepill cuck culture that is the problem, not technology.

Regarding going back to the countryside, here are two examples:
  • Pol Pot's Cambodia
  • The Puritan pilgrims in 17th century New England.
One was a huge failure, the other one a huge success. In each case, what caused the respective outcome was not "going back to the countryside" per se, it was the spirit in which it was done. In the case of Pol Pot, the ideology was a blend of Communism and Mao-inspired countryside romanticism. It was obviously not working. In the other case, the ideology was Christianity. It worked.

I do not deny that living in relative isolation, away from cities, might be a good idea at a certain stage. But you cannot hope that, by itself, this will just do the trick. First you have to have a set of guiding principles, crowned by an idea of the transcendent. The best way to call this is to use the word "religion". It is certainly not perfect but it is better than any of the alternatives ("ideology", "theory", "philosophy", ...) because it emphasized the fact that a certain practice must be part of the package, not just some ideas.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
That's true, but we have to admit that it exacerbates the problem.
Technology can work as an amplifier, it is true. But that is not necessarily bad. If a culture is bad, it is better if it burns itself out quickly rather than slowly.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Technology is rampant these days, and it can no longer be controlled. I'd be in favour of controlling it if possible. Alas, that's not the case. Therefore, I think getting rid of it altogether (or only leaving very primitive computers) can help us massively.
Not in and of itself.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Now ofc, the majority of people are going to object to that. But I do firmly believe that technology has ruined us; it fucked our attention span, it made us lazy,
It is not technology itself, it is the way we use it. And the way we use it is dictated by culture. Yes, social media is crap. But the underlying technology can be used to do things that are not crap, like Wikipedia (which is perfect regarding anything pre-dating 1950). The argument against technology is like saying: "iron can be used to make knives to murder people, so let us ban iron"

GeneticTrashLoser said:
but more importantly it has made political polarisation easier.
Not really. Political polarization was just as bad, if not worse, in the 1920s and 30s

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I agree. But again, Christianity didn't anticipate this huge technological advancement. We have to use what we have to come with a better system, and to move towards a more fulfilling lifestyle. I know that many disagree, but I think that most of our problems stem from individualism (and nihilism but nihilism is the end result of individualism) which is largely caused by technology.
Yes, individualism and nihilism are the problem. No, they are not caused by technology.

If you focus on the wrong cause, you have no chance to solve the problem.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Also, regrading how bad technological advancement can be, take a look at Asia. They're ahead of us in terms of development. Look at the suicide rates of South Korea. Look at the state of men in Japan. I know that feminism and other shit have a lot to do with that as well, but still, those countries are much more advanced than the West, and their advancement has made them slaves to the system. Are they happy? I've talked with a couple of Korean dudes, and all of them have invariably told me they're miserable.
Yes they are. Being Japanese, I know that quite well.

But it is not because of technology.

In singling out technology you are being influenced by materialism. Materialists think that material objects are the most important causes of all. Marxism is the best known of all materialist currents. It has been so popular that it influences us even if we do not realize it.

We are miserable, ok. We look around us and we see a lot of technology. Technology is material. We can touch it and see it. So, bingo, it must be the cause of our misery. This is materialist thinking ...

There are things that are far more consequential than what we can see our touch, it is what is going on in our heads. People from the past were far wiser than us in that respect. They felt, with good reason, that "what is going on in our heads", which they called "the spirit", was the most important thing in the world. We have to learn from them before we decide on a course of action.
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
K9Otaku said:
Ok, what you are doing here is that you are using the label "fascist" to encompass everything that is not individualism. I understand what you mean (and I share the view that individualism is a dead end), but the word "fascism" is not generally used as widely. I am not sure that using it that way is helping you get across what you want.
Why? Due to the stigma associated with it? I mean, I'm also anti-Marxism. I think the label fascist is the closest one to my beliefs. Sure, I might disagree with some fascist philosophers but my beliefs are, at their core, fascist (e.g. humans should sacrifice their own interest for the organic nature of the whole, anti-individualism, anti-Communism, etc.).

K9Otaku said:
Absolutely, but what does it mean "like we do".
Isolated with no human contact. I mean, I assume you lead the same life as me since you're here.

K9Otaku said:
An individual cannot easily modify his own behavior. But a child can be trained in a way that will suppress some of his instincts and/or amplify others. That is what all cultures do. Indeed that is the very essence of culture. Beyond childhood, certain cultures have developed techniques for adult re-training which can result in some more instinct-bending at any age. These techniques correspond roughly to what we call "religions". In India, this is very clear. Each religious current has its own "yoga", which is what adult re-training is called in that context. In Christianity, it is less visible, but the same thing is there all right. It is particularly obvious among monks.
Can you link any resources on those? I'm not quite familiar with Eastern philosophies. A child's brain is like a sponge. An adult's brain on the other hand, is already developed and his/her beliefs are set in stone to a certain extent. The only type of "re-training" I've seen is that of the refugees in the West. And it was a colossal failure. Most refugees have failed to assimilate to the standards of Western culture.


K9Otaku said:
Yes, individualism and nihilism are the problem. No, they are not caused by technology.
I didn't say they were. But technology worsens the problem. Nihilism existed back in the 19th century. Atm life is intolerable, why not at least try to mitigate the suffering which is being exacerbated by the technological system? Nihilism will always exist, it won't go away. Even if we burned all of Nietzsche's books and destroyed anything remotely related to nihilism. But we know that technology, or rather the misuse of it, are causing the problem. And since people will keep misusing it (unless you can fully re-train them as you've suggested), what other option do we have? You see my problem here?


K9Otaku said:
It is not technology itself, it is the way we use it. And the way we use it is dictated by culture. Yes, social media is crap. But the underlying technology can be used to do things that are not crap, like Wikipedia (which is perfect regarding anything pre-dating 1950). The argument against technology is like saying: "iron can be used to make knives to murder people, so let us ban iron"
The majority people will always pick an app like Tiktok over a Wikipedia article. It's as if it's in our nature. Like do you believe if our culture wasn't rotten, people would actually prefer listening to a math lecture (or any other topic) over watching a tiktok video of a foid rambling about some trivial shit like her nails? I disagree with the iron analogy. Technology can only be used in a good way in principle. In reality, it's only a small minority of people who used it "correctly". Are the masses using the internet to look up interesting stuff? I don't think so. Most of them are either looking at porn, or messaging models on IG, or doing stupid shit on tiktok. Just because something works in principle doesn't mean it'll work in practice.

K9Otaku said:
We will not regress to caveman level if we repress our instincts. On the contrary, this regression will occur, if we stop repressing our instincts.
My bad. I guess we both agree on this.

K9Otaku said:
That is not correct. Technology does not prevent us from questioning our culture (which is a prerequisite for escaping it). Indeed, technology is helping us question our culture right now as we both write on this forum. Google, Twitter, Youtube and Reddit could be used to question our culture even more if these platforms were not controlled by bluepiller cucks. So it is bluepill cuck culture that is the problem, not technology.
Same argument as above. Technology can be beneficial in theory, if used correctly. But that's not what's happening. Technology is currently used to brainwash the masses. It's only a small minority of humans that's compatible with technology. Moreover, I think that technological development is one of the main reason I'm incel. If it wasn't for tinder I would definitely have better chances with women. And so would you. Tinder is yet another byproduct of the technological development. Also, what do you mean when you say culture? Western culture? Because we have many people on here who aren't Western, yet they suffer from the same problem as us.

K9Otaku said:
Not really. Political polarization was just as bad, if not worse, in the 1920s and 30s
How so? People were more racist, and bigoted back then. Yeah, but within a homogeneous group of people there was little to no polarisation. Again, between countries, yes. But not between people who share the same race and culture. I mean, there was polarisation, but it wasn't as bad as it is now. Just take a look at the news. Both the right and left are constantly attacking each other, trying to arouse conflict. Many foids these days (at least American and European ones) don't date conservatives, and if you dare criticize minorities you're immediately called a racist, and that as you know, might cost you your job, etc.

K9Otaku said:
We are miserable, ok. We look around us and we see a lot of technology. Technology is material. We can touch it and see it. So, bingo, it must be the cause of our misery. This is materialist thinking ...
As you stated, we live in a materialistic world, so we're bound to be influenced by materialism.

K9Otaku said:
There are things that are far more consequential than what we can see our touch, it is what is going on in our heads. People from the past were far wiser than us in that respect. They felt, with good reason, that "what is going on in our heads", which they called "the spirit", was the most important thing in the world. We have to learn from them before we decide on a course of action.
Well, Nietzsche proposed that the best a man can strive for is to be an Ubermensch, but that's unrealistic, it's merely an ideal. Christianity on the other hand, provides a somewhat better solution, but also equally unrealistic (unless you believe in God). JP is currently trying to push the idea that the symbolism in Christianity can be integrated in our day to day life to make it more spiritually fulfilling. I don't know, I've been an atheist since I was a little kid, and I really never thought that spirituality is needed tbh. What do you mean by the spirit though? Is that a metaphor for our inner self? Or do you actually believe that humans posses an inner spirit of sorts? (I see the quotes I just don't know where you stand regrading this)
 
K9Otaku

K9Otaku

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
925
Online
17d 14h 8m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
Why? Due to the stigma associated with it? I mean, I'm also anti-Marxism. I think the label fascist is the closest one to my beliefs. Sure, I might disagree with some fascist philosophers but my beliefs are, at their core, fascist (e.g. humans should sacrifice their own interest for the organic nature of the whole, anti-individualism, anti-Communism, etc.).
For the sake of clarity. It is never a good idea to use a word outside of its meaning for the majority of people, if you want to be understood. I remember having to ask you quite a lot of questions before being able to understand what you meant.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Isolated with no human contact. I mean, I assume you lead the same life as me since you're here.
I am not isolated. I am communicating with the people of the past, through their books. And I am communicating with you and others through this forum.

When a society is in a decadence, this kind of lifestyle is always present. It is just a symptom of the period we live in. And it is not new. Many people in Alexandria and Antioch in the 3rd century AD felt the same as ourselves. Many became hermits, not all of them Christians ... Hermits lived caves and met on Sundays to discuss their teachings. This is pretty much what we are doing right now on this forum. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just what the situation requires.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Can you link any resources on those? I'm not quite familiar with Eastern philosophies. A child's brain is like a sponge. An adult's brain on the other hand, is already developed and his/her beliefs are set in stone to a certain extent. The only type of "re-training" I've seen is that of the refugees in the West. And it was a colossal failure. Most refugees have failed to assimilate to the standards of Western culture.
The reason we cannot re-train immigrants is because we have no religion to offer. The US was good at assimilating people until the 1940s because of Christianity.

Did you read the book we discussed here?

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I didn't say they were. But technology worsens the problem.
We have no evidence of that.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Nihilism existed back in the 19th century. Atm life is intolerable, why not at least try to mitigate the suffering
mitigate, yes, I am all for it

GeneticTrashLoser said:
which is being exacerbated by the technological system?
No. If you keep focusing on technology, you are painting yourself into a corner. Very few people identify technology as the problem. Uncle Ted was wrong on that count.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
But we know that technology, or rather the misuse of it, are causing the problem. And since people will keep misusing it (unless you can fully re-train them as you've suggested), what other option do we have? You see my problem here?
The solution has always been the same, since at least 2500 years. Create a community of like-minded individuals and walk away from society into some kind of "desert". Today, cities in low-cost countries (Nigeria, India, Myanmar, Cambodia, ...) seem to be a more realistic alternative to any "natural" area. When you are not in your own country, you do not suffer from your own culture's crap in the same way, and you can ignore the local kind of crap which does not concern you.

That would be my solution of choice.
GeneticTrashLoser said:
The majority people will always pick an app like Tiktok over a Wikipedia article.
Not true. If culture is strongly against it, they won't. Foids were kept in line by Christianity in the past for centuries. There is no reason to assume that the same kind of cultural ban cannot succeed with social media.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
It's as if it's in our nature.
Yes, it flatters our instincts. But instincts can be repressed.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Like do you believe if our culture wasn't rotten, people would actually prefer listening to a math lecture (or any other topic) over watching a tiktok video of a foid rambling about some trivial shit like her nails?
Yes because there would be such a stigma attached to the latter that no one would even be able to launch a social media website in the first place. It would be like child porn today. That is doable. Idolatry was banned by Christians at the end of the Roman Empire. Yet it was a huge industry and everyone was addicted to it. I am sure people were saying "how can people be weaned off offering sacrifice to this or that god. It is impossible". Yet it worked. Idolatry was the TikTok of that era.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I disagree with the iron analogy. Technology can only be used in a good way in principle. In reality, it's only a small minority of people who used it "correctly". Are the masses using the internet to look up interesting stuff? I don't think so. Most of them are either looking at porn, or messaging models on IG, or doing stupid shit on tiktok. Just because something works in principle doesn't mean it'll work in practice.
See above. Everyone was an idolator in 200 AD. In 500 AD, no one was anymore. Changes like that can happen

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Same argument as above. Technology can be beneficial in theory, if used correctly. But that's not what's happening. Technology is currently used to brainwash the masses.
Like all ancient technology (temple-building, etc) was used in support of Idolatry. Then it stopped

GeneticTrashLoser said:
It's only a small minority of humans that's compatible with technology.
Not so. Yes, a small minority has to lead the way. But everyone can eventually be made to follow the new culture

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Moreover, I think that technological development is one of the main reason I'm incel.
No. You are mistaken

GeneticTrashLoser said:
If it wasn't for tinder I would definitely have better chances with women. And so would you.
Tinder makes the problem more visible. But it did not create it. Media gynolatry is what caused our situation. Tinder is just a revealer.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Also, what do you mean when you say culture? Western culture? Because we have many people on here who aren't Western, yet they suffer from the same problem as us.
Everybody is "Western" today. It is like the Roman Empire. By 200 AD, everyone around the Mediterranean was Roman in culture. Today there is no formal Empire, but the effect is the same.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
How so? People were more racist, and bigoted back then. Yeah, but within a homogeneous group of people there was little to no polarisation.
Really? In the 1920s and 30s, polarization between the far left and the emerging Fascisms cut across every family or social group. People were torn apart from each other exactly like today. And people were ready to be more violent than they are today. Apart from BLM, there is no real political violence. Not like there was in Germany in the late 20s, early 30s

GeneticTrashLoser said:
But not between people who share the same race and culture.
In Germany, people who were Germans were Communists and others were Nazis. They were fighting each other in the streets on a daily basis. The same was true in Spain and in many other European countries.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I mean, there was polarisation, but it wasn't as bad as it is now.
It was worse. Have you read anything about the 1920s and 30s in Europe?

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Just take a look at the news. Both the right and left are constantly attacking each other, trying to arouse conflict.
It was exactly the same. The rhetoric was even more violent.

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Many foids these days (at least American and European ones) don't date conservatives, and if you dare criticize minorities you're immediately called a racist, and that as you know, might cost you your job, etc.
Same

GeneticTrashLoser said:
As you stated, we live in a materialistic world, so we're bound to be influenced by materialism.
Yes. That is why we should be careful not to be influenced unconsciously

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Well, Nietzsche proposed that the best a man can strive for is to be an Ubermensch, but that's unrealistic, it's merely an ideal.
Nietzche is the real creator of modern individualism. His "Ubermensch" is exactly what every individualist strives for (in vain of course). Nietzche's thought is way way way worse than any "technology". It is one of the main contributors to our misery

GeneticTrashLoser said:
Christianity on the other hand, provides a somewhat better solution, but also equally unrealistic
Why is it unrealistic?

GeneticTrashLoser said:
JP is currently trying to push the idea that the symbolism in Christianity can be integrated in our day to day life to make it more spiritually fulfilling.
JP is a Nitzchean in disguise. That is why his stuff is bogus. He is not honestly trying to follow Christianity's spirit because he cannot let go of the Nitzchean pie in the sky (what he calls a "heroic" life)

GeneticTrashLoser said:
I don't know, I've been an atheist since I was a little kid, and I really never thought that spirituality is needed tbh. What do you mean by the spirit though? Is that a metaphor for our inner self? Or do you actually believe that humans posses an inner spirit of sorts? (I see the quotes I just don't know where you stand regrading this)
I do not believe in anything supernatural; never have.

"spirit" is just a generic term for "what you have in your head". Spirit comes from a word that meant "wind". "What you have in your head" is like the wind. It cannot be seen or touched but its effects can be enormous, for good or ill.

"What you have in your head" is a mix of:
  1. your instincts (genetics)
  2. Your culture (the automatic reflexes you have been trained to have in childhood, mostly)
  3. Your personal experience
1. Cannot be changed, but 2. can. With a lot of effort and patience, a new culture can be born. In other words, the bad spirit of our present rotten culture can be replaced by a better one. This is what Christianity has done from 0 AD to around 1800 AD. And that is the reason why the West was so superior at the end of that period. It had been molded by the best spirit available.

If you want to know more, read the book:
 
Last edited:
R

randomguy1235

Captain
★★
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Posts
1,672
Online
40d 22h 59m
Mordred2000 said:
Individuals usually find purpose in the group; like-minded people working together to achieve a common goal against the singularity of society, which comprises opposing groups. The brotherhood, camaraderie, friendship, partnership, teamwork can only occur when members of a group share the same base values.

We made society up of groups; we make groups up of individuals.

Atomised individuals are those that cannot find a group because no group shares their values.

So I would disagree, it is not individualism. As varied as human beings are, they are more likely able to share base values. We may base those values on individuals' objectives, but it is mutually beneficial to work with others to achieve goals as you have more resources and effort to reach your goal.

My assessment is that modern society has destroyed the individual, we don't have any incentive to form groups because ultimately, our society doesn't share our values. In the past, pre the socialisation of government and the singular style of society, people could break out of and join groups that run parallel to society, break off civilisations.

When we adopted this r-selection strategy for breeding because the individual identity and motivation are dead.

You are not seen as the person "a" as a separate person from person "b", you are seen as employee #1735373637 or H:165 W: 78 R: A, etc.

There is no reason to invest in people, there is no investment in the future, no reason to invest in offspring, so why form groups? Why even have values? Everything and everyone is disposable. Society doesn't care when you can be replaced, from your job to your social setting, to the media and even your entertainment.

My theory is simple, we traded freedom for security.
  • That security then creates a false sense of reality.
  • In that false sense of reality, we threw away the engine of society; the ability for individuals to exercise their freedom.
  • We create social ideals that seek to overcome our biology by denying it and nature itself.
  • Humans adopt another breeding strategy that requires no investment in offspring, completely antithetical to our biology.
  • Low investment individuals are atomised and their only method of survival is "selfishness", so there is no need to form groups or share anything.
  • As society attempts to fix the issues of ignoring our biology, we become even more polarized as we argue how to fix these issues.
  • Ultimately, the family, the backbone of society, dies off as there is no reason for it (why invest in children if we don't invest in our partners) and we have these social problems.
We then need to import people from other cultures (because they breed) that don't share our "social" ideals, and this causes conflict.
Then there is only one way out, social collapse. We see it playing out now, in our media, in our personal lives.

It is doomed because we destroyed essential what it means to be human; we killed individuality because society cannot deal with the fact that people are inherently different in their capacity and ability, and to make things appear equal, we destroy incentive itself. That is the only thing that keeps society going, people do nothing without reason. Even a social reason is not sufficient, as it doesn't fulfil the base of Maslow's series of needs, where all social elements come second to survival.
Extremely intelligent and cogent post. 100% truth
NorthernWind said:
In traditional societies men were valued and respected if they brought some values to society. Were all great philosophers, writers, inventors, entrepreneurs of the past good-looking and successful with women? Of course, not. They still were valuable. Now, with the so called female empowerment only good-looking fuckboys are respected. If you aren't successful with women, everyone looks down at you even if you are talented in other areas. Would you work hard and really sacrifice for society if you're treated like trash by that society?
 
Deleted member 33216

Deleted member 33216

Every cope has an end
-
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Posts
2,141
Online
19d 23h 13m
K9Otaku said:
For the sake of clarity. It is never a good idea to use a word outside of its meaning for the majority of people, if you want to be understood. I remember having to ask you quite a lot of questions before being able to understand what you meant.
Maybe that particular idea is only loosely related to Fascism, but it is still inspired by it. I agree however, that it might be misleading when I lump it in with Eco-Fascism. Even though there are a lot of similarities.

K9Otaku said:
I am not isolated. I am communicating with the people of the past, through their books. And I am communicating with you and others through this forum.

When a society is in a decadence, this kind of lifestyle is always present. It is just a symptom of the period we live in. And it is not new. Many people in Alexandria and Antioch in the 3rd century AD felt the same as ourselves. Many became hermits, not all of them Christians ... Hermits lived caves and met on Sundays to discuss their teachings. This is pretty much what we are doing right now on this forum. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just what the situation requires.
I meant physically isolated. And as you know, that’s unhealthy. Coping with books and online forums is helpful, and it has helped me immensely. However, we still are, physically isolated. At least I am.

K9Otaku said:
The reason we cannot re-train immigrants is because we have no religion to offer. The US was good at assimilating people until the 1940s because of Christianity.
Yeah, sure, but you can always find an example where it worked, and one where it didn’t. It’s more than just religion. Take a look at the Middle East. There’s lost of Arab immigrants who immigrated from one country to the other, and they’ve been the target of hatred ever since. They’ve failed to assimilate. Bear in mind, those are people who speak the same language as the natives and look more or less like the natives. Yet, they’ve failed to integrate themselves in the environment despite adhering to the same religion as the natives. I think culture has a lot to do with it. Humans are inherently xenophobic. Unless we re-train them like you suggested.

K9Otaku said:
See above. Everyone was an idolator in 200 AD. In 500 AD, no one was anymore. Changes like that can happen
Changes can happen. Everything is susceptible to change, but what we have to ask ourselves is what are the chances of a change happening? Even when we label a plan as unrealistic, it almost never means that the plan has 0% chance of working. People back in the 18-19th century were predominantly Christian, and almost one has doubted the Christian faith. These days we are taught to doubt everything. So that has to be factored into the equation. Which lowers the chances.


K9Otaku said:
No. If you keep focusing on technology, you are painting yourself into a corner. Very few people identify technology as the problem. Uncle Ted was wrong on that count.
I am focusing on it because it's one of the main problems. It's not by any means the sole problem our society faces. Nor is it the root cause of inceldom, though it has played a huge role in it an increased the threshold of what women find attractive.

K9Otaku said:
Did you read the book we discussed here?
No, still haven’t gotten to it yet due to school work.

K9Otaku said:
We have no evidence of that.
Technology gives us the illusion that we’re connected to a community even though we aren’t. Don’t you think that is just individualism in disguise?
K9Otaku said:
Not true. If culture is strongly against it, they won't. Foids were kept in line by Christianity in the past for centuries. There is no reason to assume that the same kind of cultural ban cannot succeed with social media.
Not necessarily. In many Muslims countries honour killing is still thing. Yet, many foids choose to take the risk for chad’s chock. It will however, mitigate it. I don’t think foids can transcend their nature. Even the short-called tradcon Christian house wives still cheat on their bfs and husbands. What kept foids I life is not Christianity but harsh punishment. It’s necessarily the belief that they’ll go to hell that kept them from riding the first chad they see, albeit for some of them that was the reason, it is the fear of what the Church might do to them.

K9Otaku said:
No. You are mistaken
I disagree. Things like OF have facilitated the independence of women. They no longer need rich men since they can make more money than us from the comfort of their ow home. Moreover, OF has inflated their ego. Foids are entitled because of the validation they get, but also because of the knowledge that they can always find a better guy. If there’s no chad in your area. No problem. Purchase tinder plus, and boom you have access to and endless amount of chads from all over the world. Back before technology foids were restricted to local guys and maybe guys who live a few hours away. So if you were living close to a foid you had better chances than you do now. Now she can easily replace you by the swipe of a finger. And not only that, you are no longer needed as a provider since they can make money off of twitch streaming and OF. The biggest issue is still hypergamy, but it was somewhat under control before tinder and OF since foids were kind of forced to date guys who lived near them. I’m not saying you’d beat the local chad to anything, no. But you’d have better chances. And even ascend if there’s no chads in your area.

K9Otaku said:
Really? In the 1920s and 30s, polarization between the far left and the emerging Fascisms cut across every family or social group. People were torn apart from each other exactly like today. And people were ready to be more violent than they are today. Apart from BLM, there is no real political violence. Not like there was in Germany in the late 20s, early 30s
K9Otaku said:
In Germany, people who were Germans were Communists and others were Nazis. They were fighting each other in the streets on a daily basis. The same was true in Spain and in many other European countries.
K9Otaku said:
It was worse. Have you read anything about the 1920s and 30s in Europe?
As much as I hate to admit that our modern society is better than the one from the 20th century, I have to admit that people are more civil nowadays. Not every conflict ends in violence these days. People are more tame. Furthermore, back in the 20th and 30th people were living in extreme poverty while the elites were enjoyed their luxurious life. There are many other things you need to account for before comparing the situation of the 1930s to ours. Today people are polarised, there’s no middle. It’s either extreme woke SJW or an alt-right Nazi. Everyone just tries to put you into either one of these categories. Sure, Nazism was an extreme political ideology, but as I said nations themselves were as not as polarised. They were more violent, definitely. There’s not denying that. But the violence didn’t arise from political polarisation. It arose from poverty, harsh living conditions, and the fact that Europe had just gotten out of a war. Europe itself was polarised. I didn’t say it wasn’t. And Europe today, as a whole is less polarised. But I was talking about nations themselves. Yes, you are right in saying that both communists and Nazis were German, but we have that today as well. And we have both the left and the right fighting about the most trivial shit (e.g. trans bathroom). The thing is that we are more civil today. We’re are not violent. We have learned from history. It’s really hard to make an accurate assessment without analysing all the other external factors like poverty and economic collapse. Just because people are less violence doesn’t mean their views are not extreme. Extremism is not necessarily synonymous with violence. People are pussies today.

K9Otaku said:
It was exactly the same. The rhetoric was even more violent.
More violent for other reasons. The news reporters were themselves not as “happy” as we are today. The whole atmosphere was shitty. Yet, they managed to pull themselves out of it, and build armies and fight wars. We are doing exactly that, but again we are more peaceful. European countries are extreme leftists, and islamic countries are full religious extremists. There is violence, it is just more tame. But that doesn’t imply that people’s beliefs are less extreme now.
K9Otaku said:
Tinder makes the problem more visible. But it did not create it. Media gynolatry is what caused our situation. Tinder is just a revealer.
It’s both imo (see above)
K9Otaku said:
Why is it unrealistic?
For people to believe in Christianity, you need a supernatural entity — a God. Without God the entire belief system crumbles. And since people are less likely to believe in a God these days, it’s a Herculean task to convince them of the validity of Christian values. Especially since many of them are considered morally responsible by society.
K9Otaku said:
I do not believe in anything supernatural; never have.

"spirit" is just a generic term for "what you have in your head". Spirit comes from a word that meant "wind". "What you have in your head" is like the wind. It cannot be seen or touched but its effects can be enormous, for good or ill.

"What you have in your head" is a mix of:
  1. your instincts (genetics)
  2. Your culture (the automatic reflexes you have been trained to have in childhood, mostly)
  3. Your personal experience
1. Cannot be changed, but 2. can. With a lot of effort and patience, a new culture can be born. In other words, the bad spirit of our present rotten culture can be replaced by a better one. This is what Christianity has done from 0 AD to around 1800 AD. And that is the reason why the West was so superior at the end of that period. It had been molded by the best spirit available.

If you want to know more, read the book:
I have a feeling that you got this from the book you linked. And since I haven’t read it it, I’ll stay mute on that for now. I’ll be a week or so before I get to it since I’m currently studying for an exam.
 
K9Otaku

K9Otaku

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
925
Online
17d 14h 8m
GeneticTrashLoser said:
I have a feeling that you got this from the book you linked. And since I haven’t read it it, I’ll stay mute on that for now. I’ll be a week or so before I get to it since I’m currently studying for an exam.
DM me when you have read it. We can resume the discussion then. Good luck for your exams
 
Copexodius Maximus

Copexodius Maximus

Supreme Incel Commander in Chief
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Posts
19,020
Online
73d 59m
Angry_runt said:
Plato is the original inventor of communism and sucks balls overall.
Tbf, back in the day people were just throwing out ideas, there were examples of what he was talking about to see if it works or not.
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Major
★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
2,372
Online
57d 9h 34m
K9Otaku said:
Foids were kept in line by Christianity in the past for centuries.
That was only a facade. Women always preferred violent criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordie_Bourne He repented before his death. Imagine he is now in heaven and some ascetic monk - in hell. "But why Lord, I have never slept with women, I don't even looked at them"? Well, do you remember that in xv chapter of your iii book "Works of early Church fathers" you mentioned some heretical authors?". I really believe God ( if he exists ) adores Chads and hates genetic trash losers.
 
Detro

Detro

Blackcel
★★★★
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Posts
823
Online
11d 35m
MarquisDeSade said:
The few that can cut it concerning technological specialization or skill-sets are predominantly men at the top of the social pyramid, yes, but in reality these same men could give a shit less what happens to a majority of the male population because they have all the social perks that come with society. [Chads]
Hard disagree. Look at the faces of all the big name scientists. Einstein, Tesla, etc. None of them are Chads. They are almost all a bunch of careermaxxing would-be incels if they were born in modern times.
 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
Detro said:
Hard disagree. Look at the faces of all the big name scientists. Einstein, Tesla, etc. None of them are Chads. They are almost all a bunch of careermaxxing would-be incels if they were born in modern times.
We live in a world that ever so despises critical thinkers, philosophers, and skeptics, mindless conformity or blind obedience is the only thing that is rewarded anymore. We're going from a world of independent critical thinkers to pure hive or herd mentality.
 
The Cagot

The Cagot

French Horror
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 6, 2020
Posts
904
Online
9d 19h 51m
Maybe the house we need to build is the Incel community itself ; maybe here, as brothers we can be a social group supporting ourselves and being here forever for each other.

Because, that's the only thing we can do. We have nothing else than this forum.
 
Deleted member 15615

Deleted member 15615

Self-banned
-
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Posts
48
Online
17h 0m
MarquisDeSade said:
We live in a world that ever so despises critical thinkers, philosophers, and skeptics, mindless conformity or blind obedience is the only thing that is rewarded anymore. We're going from a world of independent critical thinkers to pure hive or herd mentality.
Yep
 
suigin

suigin

schizoidcel
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Posts
2,029
Online
41d 18h 15m
K9Otaku said:
Nietzche is the real creator of modern individualism. His "Ubermensch" is exactly what every individualist strives for (in vain of course). Nietzche's thought is way way way worse than any "technology". It is one of the main contributors to our misery
Not strictly an individualist. He was a hierarchicalist who criticized both the atomization of the individual and the conformism of the normie herd. Insofar as his observations and some of his ideas have led to our present state of suffering (no thanks to having been cherry-picked, contorted and amplified by Frankfurt School scholars), the real fault is to be found in Christianity itself. It's own spitefulness and contempt for human nature was its ultimate undoing. Nietzsche was merely describing what was already happening within The Church, seeing its inevitable collapse. You're coping if you think otherwise. Furthermore, his notion of the overman was more abstract and symbolic, a process that will occur with or without our conscious participation, but that could nonetheless be levied to give meaning to one's life.

Now, Nietzsche was far more fond of Buddhism, for at least it could act as a wave that would raise the boats for all, rather than officiating on sophistry that masqueraded over an artificial handicapping of vast swaths of Brads, Chads, Beckey's and Stacey's--save those who become royalty or live in the shadows of a royal court. If he was aware of the purpose and symbolism of accepting Christ's gift as a purifying ritual--that, let's be honest, has outlived its original purpose--one could imagine he would at least be understanding of this aspect of it. Nonetheless, if there's a modern dual for the target demographic that would best be served by such sin-purifying yogic liturgy, it's not incels. It's the masses of midwit, woke sycophants running around destroying the last vestiges of the Western tradition, because they're worried they will be seen as less woke than their peers. They deeply need a release valve for all of the "ism"s they're deathly afraid of being accused of.

Incels, on the other hand, need a release valve for their lack of looks. And it is human nature to see physical ugliness as a sin or karmic punishment. Hence the desire to suppress such nature so as to stack the deck in one's favor. But this is only dooming one to the cycle of history and tragedy. Meanwhile, the overman peers back through time, searching... oh my, satori looks like *that*?!
 
Last edited:
M

Mystic

Major
★★★★
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Posts
2,340
Online
23d 10h 1m
Mordred2000 said:
Individuals usually find purpose in the group; like-minded people working together to achieve a common goal against the singularity of society, which comprises opposing groups. The brotherhood, camaraderie, friendship, partnership, teamwork can only occur when members of a group share the same base values.

We made society up of groups; we make groups up of individuals.

Atomised individuals are those that cannot find a group because no group shares their values.

So I would disagree, it is not individualism. As varied as human beings are, they are more likely able to share base values. We may base those values on individuals' objectives, but it is mutually beneficial to work with others to achieve goals as you have more resources and effort to reach your goal.

My assessment is that modern society has destroyed the individual, we don't have any incentive to form groups because ultimately, our society doesn't share our values. In the past, pre the socialisation of government and the singular style of society, people could break out of and join groups that run parallel to society, break off civilisations.

When we adopted this r-selection strategy for breeding because the individual identity and motivation are dead.

You are not seen as the person "a" as a separate person from person "b", you are seen as employee #1735373637 or H:165 W: 78 R: A, etc.

There is no reason to invest in people, there is no investment in the future, no reason to invest in offspring, so why form groups? Why even have values? Everything and everyone is disposable. Society doesn't care when you can be replaced, from your job to your social setting, to the media and even your entertainment.

My theory is simple, we traded freedom for security.
Exactly!
 
Deleted member 33829

Deleted member 33829

Self-banned
-
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Posts
217
Online
5d 5h 56m
FlyFace said:
Why is our species so deluded into believing that their existence matters? That anything matters at all and the continued existence of their puny lives means anything? We all die so morality does not matter.. it is all the same once you are dead. Those that believe in morality are morons who will allow others to abuse them.
 
RisingWarrior

RisingWarrior

Banned
-
Joined
Apr 17, 2021
Posts
12
Online
7h 11m
MarquisDeSade said:
All of postmodernism ends in nihilism, this is the nihilism era and thus creating nihilistic lives especially in regards for men when the rest of the world deems a majority of us no longer necessary, important, or crucial in society's development.

If transhumanism in the technological age advances even more this nihilism will increase tenfold with planned obsolescence for the majority of human beings, all by grand architectural design.



Yes, we all know what's going to happen with a firm understanding of predetermination where there is very little free will left in the world if any at all, we can sense that, normies can't. Hard to be motivated with knowledge like that, we hope that random chance will afford us something pleasurable in this existence, but even that is a long shot.

The entire world is Americanized, and global-homo just about exists everywhere now, it may be too late.

Even foreigners already possess disturbingly American attitudes on life in general. Importation solves nothing.

Feminism utilized to usher in technological transhumanism by reducing a majority of males into nothing, to structurally change society you go after the mentally weaker gender that is females utilized to disintegrate societies into something else. Again, grand architectural design. Females are turbo social conformists thus easily molded, programmed, and psychologically manipulated versus men. Control females you control simping males, and those males that aren't easily persuaded by females merely linger in isolation until death. Cruelty of the postmodern age.
beautifully said man...wow
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
10,493
Online
125d 18h 48m
MarquisDeSade said:
All of postmodernism ends in nihilism, this is the nihilism era and thus creating nihilistic lives especially in regards for men when the rest of the world deems a majority of us no longer necessary, important, or crucial in society's development.

If transhumanism in the technological age advances even more this nihilism will increase tenfold with planned obsolescence for the majority of human beings, all by grand architectural design.



Yes, we all know what's going to happen with a firm understanding of predetermination where there is very little free will left in the world if any at all, we can sense that, normies can't. Hard to be motivated with knowledge like that, we hope that random chance will afford us something pleasurable in this existence, but even that is a long shot.

The entire world is Americanized, and global-homo just about exists everywhere now, it may be too late.

Even foreigners already possess disturbingly American attitudes on life in general. Importation solves nothing.

Feminism utilized to usher in technological transhumanism by reducing a majority of males into nothing, to structurally change society you go after the mentally weaker gender that is females utilized to disintegrate societies into something else. Again, grand architectural design. Females are turbo social conformists thus easily molded, programmed, and psychologically manipulated versus men. Control females you control simping males, and those males that aren't easily persuaded by females merely linger in isolation until death. Cruelty of the postmodern age.
RisingWarrior said:
beautifully said man...wow



 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

$The Price For Pussy Is Too Damn High$
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
5,456
Online
53d 23h 29m
Aww, shucks, thank you guys.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top