Recently I've been reading dozens of books and practicing my writing skills. I don't believe that the blackpill could ever go mainstream one day – history shows that humans like to be deluded about hard realities –, but my goal is to provide, eventually, some writings that could counteract the Game/PUA drivel that has become worryingly popular with clinically depressed virgin youth ever since the publication of Neil Strauss' The Game. (the same Strauss who later disavowed Game in an interview, saying that it can't build healthy relationships).
Starting small, with this forum as my only audience, I aim to define first and foremost what the blackpill is. Many people here have their own definition, and I don't agree with most of them. To me, the only blackpill that makes sense, real sense, evolutionary sense, is the fact that you can't impersonate a high status man.
What is a high status man/boy? You know. Everyone knows. He's the guy who stole your lunch at recess and made dick size jokes in front of hot girls at the cafeteria. He was a quarterback in the football team. He was the center of gravity of most relationship drama. He oozed confidence and low inhibition. Maybe he was nice. But that was only because he made the conscious choice to treat people kindly; in contrast to the vast majority of us who must be nice in order to acquire and keep friends. (A low-status man who isn't nice is either a psycho or a NEET, and in both cases absolutely repulsive to women).
The game industry was built on the notion that anyone can be this guy. It worked because hope works. Hope sells. At least for a while. Then reality starts to set in.
If you have more than two neurons in your brain, and have read some evolutionary biology, it doesn't take extremely long to figure out that women are not interested in this guy's behavior. What they are after is the set of attributes that allow his behavior. How can he act like a jerk, or with such low inhibition, and never get called out?
Among primates, it's usually because the guy is big and strong. An alpha silverback gorilla can afford to shit on everybody because he knows that he can rip apart those who object.
Among less primitive primates, ie humans, things have remained exactly the same. Women still are interested in the most high status males. The only things that have changed are the factors of this status. It has progressively been ever less based on physical strength and ever more based on physical beauty (an indicator of general health and unmutated genes) and occupation and skills (ability to hunt, ability to get obeyed and be wealthy, etc). All the things that contribute to survival, of oneself and of offspring.
This is where the confidence thing starts to set in. It has been observed among primates such as chimpanzees that confidence is always directly associated with status in the chimpanzee ingroup. The highest-ranking chimpanzees will display low inhibition, while the chandalas will show signs of fear and despondency. Now, is it confidence that leads to high rank, or the reverse? It seems that the relationship is dynamic. The more high-ranking, the more confident, the more willing to take risks to climb even further. And vice versa. Doesn't take a genius to see how it also applies to Homo Sapiens. Be confident indeed. Just pray that you won't encounter an authentically confident individual on your road to pussy slaying.
The industry of pick-up, Game and, to a lesser extent, therapy, is to pretend that high rank doesn't matter, that confidence is the only thing that matters, and that it can be "acted out". It is remarkable that none of these smartasses ever thought about the low status that liars, cheats and fakes always have in human societies when they get called out. Even if you manage a good performance, at the end of the day, you just can't bring back the girl of your dreams to a basement that smells of unemployment, Cheetos and dried semen.
Starting small, with this forum as my only audience, I aim to define first and foremost what the blackpill is. Many people here have their own definition, and I don't agree with most of them. To me, the only blackpill that makes sense, real sense, evolutionary sense, is the fact that you can't impersonate a high status man.
What is a high status man/boy? You know. Everyone knows. He's the guy who stole your lunch at recess and made dick size jokes in front of hot girls at the cafeteria. He was a quarterback in the football team. He was the center of gravity of most relationship drama. He oozed confidence and low inhibition. Maybe he was nice. But that was only because he made the conscious choice to treat people kindly; in contrast to the vast majority of us who must be nice in order to acquire and keep friends. (A low-status man who isn't nice is either a psycho or a NEET, and in both cases absolutely repulsive to women).
The game industry was built on the notion that anyone can be this guy. It worked because hope works. Hope sells. At least for a while. Then reality starts to set in.
If you have more than two neurons in your brain, and have read some evolutionary biology, it doesn't take extremely long to figure out that women are not interested in this guy's behavior. What they are after is the set of attributes that allow his behavior. How can he act like a jerk, or with such low inhibition, and never get called out?
Among primates, it's usually because the guy is big and strong. An alpha silverback gorilla can afford to shit on everybody because he knows that he can rip apart those who object.
Among less primitive primates, ie humans, things have remained exactly the same. Women still are interested in the most high status males. The only things that have changed are the factors of this status. It has progressively been ever less based on physical strength and ever more based on physical beauty (an indicator of general health and unmutated genes) and occupation and skills (ability to hunt, ability to get obeyed and be wealthy, etc). All the things that contribute to survival, of oneself and of offspring.
This is where the confidence thing starts to set in. It has been observed among primates such as chimpanzees that confidence is always directly associated with status in the chimpanzee ingroup. The highest-ranking chimpanzees will display low inhibition, while the chandalas will show signs of fear and despondency. Now, is it confidence that leads to high rank, or the reverse? It seems that the relationship is dynamic. The more high-ranking, the more confident, the more willing to take risks to climb even further. And vice versa. Doesn't take a genius to see how it also applies to Homo Sapiens. Be confident indeed. Just pray that you won't encounter an authentically confident individual on your road to pussy slaying.
The industry of pick-up, Game and, to a lesser extent, therapy, is to pretend that high rank doesn't matter, that confidence is the only thing that matters, and that it can be "acted out". It is remarkable that none of these smartasses ever thought about the low status that liars, cheats and fakes always have in human societies when they get called out. Even if you manage a good performance, at the end of the day, you just can't bring back the girl of your dreams to a basement that smells of unemployment, Cheetos and dried semen.
