They are basically a higher caste.
If you disrespect m'lady all dudes in the area will jump you.
If you disrespect m'lady all dudes in the area will jump you.
Last edited:
The game is rigged, if you interact with them as a non-chad (and even then, mood swings in foids are unpredictable) you are a creep and get ganged on by normies for the honor (lmao) of m'lady. And if you ignore them, you get fucked.
Either way you are fucked but don't get to do any fucking !
I still think mstow is the best for most incels who can't ascend. No point in trying or getting in trouble.
Either way you are fucked but don't get to do any fucking !
I still think mstow is the best for most incels who can't ascend. No point in trying or getting in trouble.
Simps gonna simp boy
No idea. They get instant respect just for laying on their back and getting creampied. It's insanity, but
Only the cucks will try to do that, this is why more men need to be blackpilled to jump in and get a free opportunity to beat up soys.
You can't be a real mgtow if your tax money still goes to fund whoredom. Real mgtow evade taxes.
Last edited:
Because the sacred feminine is the only from of religion left standing.
This religion started with the goddess Inanna in Uruk in the mid 4th millennium BC. Since then it has spread everywhere and never disappeared.
Its modern avatars are Durga, in Hinduism and the many "girls with guns" in Anime, comics, etc.
These are just the visible avatars. In fact, now every woman has become both a priestess and an idol of the great foid-goddess.
Christianity did a lot to fight this kind of religion, which it called "the whore of Babylon" (a transparent allusion to Ishtar, the Akkadian version of Inanna) Now that Christianity is dead, it has become all powerful.
In order to understand why it is so powerful, we have to see what this kind of religious metaphor refers to within our instincts. In fact, Ishtar is not "a woman", she is an allegory of the alpha-male instinct. She is sexy, because she represents the prize that males fight for, but she is also violent (she wields weapons and spreads discord) because she represents the contest between males.
As a result, the sacred feminine is irresistibly attractive both to males and to females as well, because she represents the cravings that all women have to be fucked by the alpha, once he has won the contest.
The Chad-Stacy couple is a mirror image of the couple, in Mesopotamian culture, formed by the king and the chief priestess of Ishtar. On every new year (Akitu in Akkadian), the king would fuck the high priestess in public (in a hieros-gamos) to re-affirm his right to rule.
We are now living in a degraded, post-Christian version of this culture.
That cucked shit needs to end asap.
Yeah? How?
By blackpilling non chads who don't get pussy by being cucks.
I can be on board with that, provided "blackpilling" is properly defined.
I personally believe that someone who does not know the religious dimension of foid-worship and how deep it goes is not really blackpilled.
It's because they have vaginas.
Probably the same reason it was women and children first. Males are disposable.
I was never that cucked to believe in worshipping chad cum buckets, so of course it's a mindset I don't understand. The way I got out of being religious was being made fun of a lot and shown facts, which is how we can blackpill cucks.
Only cucks would give their lives away to random whores.
There is nothing sacred about holes. Don't delude yourself.
Women are just wombs, nothing more. Men built civilization and possess reason and invented 99.99% of everything. Men built cultures.
Women were just the bystanders.
I am not saying there is
I am saying that women are being worshiped because there is a majority of people (men and women) who think they are sacred. Sacredness is never "real", and yet it is the most potent force in culture.
because females are sugar and spice and everything nice teehee
Because bluepilled men will blame themselves for foid's ever increasing standards, to the point where women's esteem is a nearly goddess status and the average male's value is similar to slaves.
There is some inherent bias in humans to attribute good traits to foids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
This might explain why the notion "Women are only attracted to nice, caring guys and don't care about looks, it's men who want supermodels" comes from.
On top of that feminism further catalysed foids are wonderful effect.
This might explain why the notion "Women are only attracted to nice, caring guys and don't care about looks, it's men who want supermodels" comes from.
On top of that feminism further catalysed foids are wonderful effect.
M
Because they can't get them anymore
In the past, women were nothing more than a property
In the past, women were nothing more than a property
Simply because they have a vagina.
This is basically true. However...
...This isn't. In fact Christianity would have never escaped its status as a small cult if it were not for the support of women. It is true much of the Torah/Old Testament possess scripture that restricts foids and the amount of social/legal damage they can cause but almost none of them were taken into account as Christianity developed distinctively from Judaism. In fact, when it comes to religion women are noticeably more religious than men. Christianity itself did absolutely nada to fight this; note how the apostle Paul and his musings on women are almost never referenced even in older interpretations of Christianity.
The real reason women are worshipped has nothing to do with the 'loss of religion' but increasing gynocentrism. What must be addressed is not what imaginary sky fairy we need to worship, or which worthless religious book we need to read but human biology itself. Women will always ultimately subvert social tenets and control men because of their wombs and vagina.
This is an understandable misunderstanding (and a widely shared one) but a misunderstanding nonetheless.
CAVEAT: I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I do not believe in Christianity. I just think that the history of Christianity is necessary to understand our situation.
It is absolutely correct that some women supported Christianity. The most noticeable are Helena, the mother of Constantine and Monica, the mother of Augustine. There are also plenty of female characters in the Gospels (although we don't know the reliability of these accounts). Better historically attested are a number of barbarian queens and princesses who contributed to their husbands' conversion.
Now, should we conclude that Christianity is bad because some women supported it? I know that many Incels would answer yes to this question and it is a real tragedy because it shows how misled we have all been. Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to men, and I am going to demonstrate that here, if I am lent a patient enough ear. Understanding history is never easy. It takes time. What I ask is merely a suspension of judgement before I am able to present my case in full.
I have started with the two threads below, which lay the groundwork for the rest. They deal with a time long before Christianity, or even Judaism, appeared:
Real Gender Studies 101 - The Paleolithic
From around 2 millions years ago to 10 000 years ago, humans have led roughly the same lifestyle: hunting and gathering. Given the length of time we have lived that way, it is quite clear that it is that lifestyle that determined how we evolved. All of our instincts were shaped by this period...
incels.is
Real Gender Studies 102 - the Neolithic
This is the second installment in the "real gender studies" series. It follows the one below: https://incels.is/threads/real-gender-studies-101-the-paleolithic.316731/#post-7198873 At the start of the Neolithic (around 10 000 years BC), mankind shifted from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to...
incels.is
I am going to publish new threads in this series (RGS 103, 104, ...) in the coming days
In the series of threads I mentioned above, I address only that: biology.
Again, I do not believe in the great sky Chad, although I do believe that this idea was once beneficial.
This is how I plan to continue to present my case, by sticking to biology and, in particular, our instincts.
No need for long-winded essay-length explanation.
Just repeat after me Heartiste's old adage:
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.
Just repeat after me Heartiste's old adage:
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.
This is an understandable misunderstanding (and a widely shared one) but a misunderstanding nonetheless.
CAVEAT: I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I do not believe in Christianity. I just think that the history of Christianity is necessary to understand our situation.
It is absolutely correct that some women supported Christianity. The most noticeable are Helena, the mother of Constantine and Monica, the mother of Augustine. There are also plenty of female characters in the Gospels (although we don't know the reliability of these accounts). Better historically attested are a number of barbarian queens and princesses who contributed to their husbands' conversion.
Now, should we conclude that Christianity is bad because some women supported it? I know that many Incels would answer yes to this question and it is a real tragedy because it shows how misled we have all been. Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to men, and I am going to demonstrate that here, if I am lent a patient enough ear. Understanding history is never easy. It takes time. What I ask is merely a suspension of judgement before I am able to present my case in full.
I have started with the two threads below, which lay the groundwork for the rest. They deal with a time long before Christianity, or even Judaism, appeared:
Real Gender Studies 101 - The Paleolithic
From around 2 millions years ago to 10 000 years ago, humans have led roughly the same lifestyle: hunting and gathering. Given the length of time we have lived that way, it is quite clear that it is that lifestyle that determined how we evolved. All of our instincts were shaped by this period...Real Gender Studies 102 - the Neolithic
This is the second installment in the "real gender studies" series. It follows the one below: https://incels.is/threads/real-gender-studies-101-the-paleolithic.316731/#post-7198873 At the start of the Neolithic (around 10 000 years BC), mankind shifted from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to...
I am going to publish new threads in this series (RGS 103, 104, ...) in the coming days
In the series of threads I mentioned above, I address only that: biology.
Again, I do not believe in the great sky Chad, although I do believe that this idea was once beneficial.
This is how I plan to continue to present my case, by sticking to biology and, in particular, our instincts.
I have read and seen those threads. I more or less gleamed that you are not a theist, my response to you was not predicated on refuting theism.
Anyone that has a decent understanding of anthropology, even the fervent anti-theists (such as myself) will never deny the advantages of organized religion in the past. The disconnect I see many make such as yourself is that you seem to incorrectly attribute this to specific religions or doctrine. You seem to be aware of Helena and Augustine's influence and how this combined with Constantine's desire for a framework to build his political power on. This alone should be enough to realize that Christianity (or any Judaism derived religion) are in themselves nothing special. If Constantine had lost the pivotal battle, not been influenced by his mother, etc. It would have easily been another religion used for his purposes. The Council of Nicea further proves this point, it cements the status of the bible being cobbled together more for the sake of political expedience than anything else.
Rather, it is not any specific religion per se' but the social structure/collectivism that comes along with such things and how they allow men some more leeway to combat women's natural advantages in subversion. However, at best they are only effective for a period of time before women more overtly express influence. This is why 'going back to religion' simply won't work, even if we were to remove all technology and current knowledge. It doesn't solve the core issue of why women are able to exert power, it is at best placing a band-aid on a gaping wound. Religion in particular relies on social aspects to truly flex its power and this is the natural domain of women anyway.
You speak of naturalistic inclinations. It is true religion has evolved with human psychology, but religion in and of itself isn't exactly natural, it is a byproduct of things like human's proclivity towards superstition, tendency to anthropomorphize, pattern recognition and so on. Religion more benefits those at the top like clergy, televangelists, corporate elite, etc as they fleece the populace. It will never be a solution for gynocentrism. Women will always infiltrate such things and turn them against men. Note how increasing numbers of men refuse to attend church for example. Its like the [insert economic/ideology advocate here] saying that ideology/economic model didn't work because 'we never truly had it' or 'it was subverted'. If it would work, it would been successful and would continue to do so. Religion failed in regards to keeping foids in check because it was never going to work in the first place.
Last edited:
Can't be that expensive if they are willing to be treated like shit by Chad or dark triad assholes.
That is too general. Not what I have in mind.
Imo, there is indeed something specific to Judaism and even more so to Christianity that is not easy to see and understand but is absolutely fundamental.
Political leaders always seek the support of religion. Sometimes, they stumble upon something really valuable. In itself, this does not prove Christianity is either good or bad. More investigation is required.
No, see above. This is a fallacy. Just bc an Emperor used Christianity for his own purposes does not prove it is wrong in itself. If anything it shows that Constantine noticed there was some potency in that sect, although he probably did not realize how far it went.
Maybe, maybe not. That is speculation.
It does not such thing. Many religions went through a codification phase under political tutelage. The first one was Buddhism under Ashoka. In itself that does not indicate that the religion in question is not beneficial. It just goes to show that religion and politics interact. So what?
Again, this is too general and too vague. A more precise investigation is required, which I plan to continue doing in the RGS xxx threads
Going back to religion is not the goal here. We need to understand how it worked so that we can emulate their earlier success. We need to understand the principles involved, not copy blindly of course.
Exposing how this happens, in detail and with precision, is the goal I pursue. To reach it, a careful examination of historical data is necessary. Please be patient.
Yes
That is a fallacy that has been implanted into your brain (and many others) by left-wingers who also happen to be the biggest foid worshipers of all time. That should give you pause.
I propose to show that is was a pretty effective antidote to it in the past and that the underlying principles can be used to do it again in a new way.
Yes, decadence will always set in. That is why civilization constantly needs to be rebuilt. It has always been like that.
Every 2 or 3 millennia, a major reconstruction is needed.
No solution is permanent. Silver bullets don't exist. Everything has an expiry date. Yes
This is true at every level of technology and religion is technology. It is social engineering.
It is not because the previous model that we used successfully for 2000 years has reached the end of its useful life that we can conclude that it never worked. All historical evidence points to the fact that it worked beautifully during that period.
Now, what we need to do is an honest, unbiased post-mortem and then move on to the building of the next version with the benefit of what we have learnt. That is what I am proposing to do in the next RGS xxx threads.
What do you mean exactly? What is "MemeAnalysis" ?
because retarded simps think that is the path to obtaining pussy (they are wrong)
Then state it. I would wager again it is not specific to Judaism and Christianity (which the latter doesn't even make sense seeing the amount of schisms and dominations it birthed, what exactly what would one even define Christianity as at this point. Even when it was a cult, there were at least three different groups such as the gnostics).
My stance is that Christianity itself is successful because of factors like siphoning off of successful empires (ie. Roman) and its tendency to be nebulous/appropriate ideas and claim them as its own. It is more like a patchwork quilt with some loose common tenets (even those are not agreed upon).
Yes, they stumbled upon the value of controlling and fleecing the populous through their superstition and tribalism. That in 'itself' doesn't prove Christianity good or bad, this is irrelevant and not the point I was making. The point is that religion is a very suitable vector and social meme through which the elite classes to control and impoverish the masses. You may require more investigation on this point, but I do not. The excesses of the political elite, rich and clergy are well documented. You can see it in real time with televangelists and the ur example is the Vatican and Catholic church.
There's nothing fallacious about it, this is not some random example being shoehorned but we are explicitly discussing Christianity, its rise to influence and how. So dismissing it by saying its 'may not be wrong' (again irrelevant, we are not discussing morality here) is nonsensical.
Speculative perhaps, but with more foundation than whatever your alternative may be. It would seem to be quite safe assumption given the history of religion across cultures and how they function but that may be something you need to look into yourself.
So what? I've already noted the connection between political interest, religion and the relationship between those in power. Yes, obviously they interact. And obviously this is a very, very important connection to account for when discussing the topic. You can't simply dismiss it out of hand.
In which case, carry out your investigation and report your findings (which presumably disagree with what I'm arguing). But invalidates your responses here to no small extent if your stance is basically "well, I need to research more". Which is fine - but then why even initiate a debate if you admit you are uninformed or ill equipped for a conclusion?
Good.
I disagree that 'we' need to understand it. I assert I understand it just fine. And I don't even think the faucets behind religious success are even particularly complicated for a layman to understand. I feel you are attempting to overcomplicate the topic for whatever reason and its not as if this subject hasn't been studied extensively anyway.
I will no doubt read any information you post in the future, however I need not be 'patient'. Begging your pardon but again, I feel this topic isn't some great mystery as you seem to frame it. I've been very invested in religion and its effects for quite some time now. Do not assume everyone is stumbling around in the dark for answers.
There is nothing 'fallacious' about following the money and influence of those who abuse religion. The billions of dollars possessed by the Vatican is self-explanatory and any study into the history of religion bears out its tendency to hoard wealth by clergymen and the elite. Also, right wingers are just as worshipping of foids as the far left. Your ignorance of this fact is unsurprising given the amount of people on this site that actually think things like Islam are a solution.
And I propose that the only reason it may have been effective is precisely because it was the past, and whatever principles you seek to apply will not work in the modern era.
Perhaps the problem is that the so-called decadence is actually a foregone conclusion to the very concept of civilization itself. Something that is unnatural to the current psychology of humans.
Thus proving my point. We have been through this cycle at least several times. Obviously this means trying to re-implement what worked in the past is problematic. I am more pessimistic on this issue - I don't think there is a ideological or social 'solution'. I think humans either must adjust their psychology (particularly women) so that they are suitable for functioning in the modern age or evolve into something different.
And this is a problem as I stated above. What is the point in even discussing temporary solutions anyway. Retreading old so-called 'fixes' that will not only fail, but you even acknowledge they will inevitably fail. Such a thing seems mindbogglingly pointless to me and frankly I have no interest in such a discussion.
Oh? I vehemently disagree with that notion. Rather I think at best religion was a stepping stone for civilization that came with both pros and cons but to say it 'worked beautifully' is frankly delusional.
Again, 'we' don't need to do anything. I will check out whatever you have to say in the future (and will change stance if I find your argument compelling) but I feel quite comfortable on this topic enough to state religion is largely obsolete and even regressive (as in dysfunctional). Its only suitable purpose, along with its 'underlying tenets' is to control people for the sake of the powerful. And of its other supposed benefits, be they social or not can be achieved otherwise.
Last edited:
It's self-deception for low-value starveling potential beta provider desperate males who wishfully think of simping as the most effective way of obtaining mates. female sexual value is also intrinsically leveled higher on averages due to multifaceted factors.
Male expendability - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
I will
because man are attracted to a wide variety of foids
and foids arent attracted to a wide variety of man ( are hypergamous )
and only let the best man fuck them
man went with it and lowered their standarts to the point they are paying for sex
No wonder why woman are called Goddess every so often now.
@Meus
and foids arent attracted to a wide variety of man ( are hypergamous )
and only let the best man fuck them
man went with it and lowered their standarts to the point they are paying for sex
No wonder why woman are called Goddess every so often now.
@Meus
Bcuz they have 3 wet tight holes and a body shape u r genetically compelled to like
5 if you counter eye sockets
Advanced tastes5 if you counter eye sockets
Similar threads
underballer
Users who are viewing this thread
