Casual sex and love is what we all desire. This is in obvious conflict with Christianity, which teaches the only acceptable expression of sexuality is in marriage. The majority of people on this forum do not care if love & sex is expressed within the confines of marriage; however, even if you desire and only will have sex within the societal institution of marriage, my point still stands. Let me explain...
Christianity taught us to hate the body and the flesh. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 that he "beats his body into submission every day." There is a radical disdain for casual sex (or really any expression of sexuality) in the Bible. Despite the Old Testament being replete with examples of sexual misbehavior (curiously, the OT does not outright condemn acting up sexually in many cases--it's either implicitly understood to be wrong or obliquely criticized. If not criticized, it sometimes is strangely praised. To give an example: Lot's daughters get him drunk and seduce him, which you would expect to morally implicate Lot, but in one of the Petrine letters Lot is described positively as "righteous."), Christianity consistently tells us to "keep it in your pants" and orient your eyes towards the things of heaven. Compare this to blackpilled inceldom, where reciprocal love and sex with a female is the highest goal in life, not apokatastasis or union with God (which is, admittedly, an admirable if not frustratingly difficult goal to achieve given bodily/fleshly desires and impulses). A failure to obtain this singular goal humanity, mutual love with a woman, is often ascribed as chief cause of post-pubescent suffering.[1] (There is an argument to be made for Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that to achieve higher-order transcendental bliss you first have to meet your base needs. This thesis, however, is disputable as many great artists have been fueled by sexual & other insecurities--Kafka is a good example of this. Insecurity often turns otherwise complacent men into great ones--fantastic artists, bold leaders, men-against-time, etc. So, the emphasis on "getting sex" before you can do something great is a thesis I find highly disputable. But I digress.) Christianity teaches us to hate our bodily impulses of union with woman (think of injunctives against lusting after any woman, etc.), except through marriage with ONE woman, while inceldom teaches us sex with wom(a/e)n is a natural desire in every man--in other words, Christianity hates the body, inceldom loves it. But what of the incels who only want to have sex with one woman in their life? Aren't they fully incels too?
I find it impossible for any pious Christian to be fully incel, truly blackpilled; for this to happen, you have to acknowledge certain realities about sex, modern dating, biology, and life, and their relation to their antithesis: death. To be fully-incel is to recognize certain immutable biological truths about modern life, sex, but most importantly, BIOLOGY. The aggregation of 90% of women to the top 5% of men is a consequence of BIOLOGY instantiated and gifted to individual consciousnesses by Nature. Full-inceldom, correctly called "being blackpilled," is acknowledging and coming to accept this truth. That BIOLOGY overdetermines you is a fact equally liberating as it is terrifying. You see threads on here constantly complaining about a variety of issues, from IQ to facial structure to autisticesque behaviors. So what's the common denominator in all of these problems? BIOLOGY as given to us by Nature. Man is a creature of the animal kingdom. Acknowledging that every man wants to have sex with multiple women he finds attractive is a basic axiom for being blackpilled, a fact so basic in the animal kingdoms that it doesn't even need to be said. Males want to have sex with multiple hot females across all species of living creature.
BIOLOGY (& its byproduct, history) also overdetermines and constrains what you believe at all levels, including religion. To pretend that religion is somehow isolated from the rest of biological and historical impulses is an incredible fallacy. Nature and historical happenstance overdetermine what you believe--you're only a Christian because a small Judaic cult pioneered by the apostle Paul dominated the western world by pure chance. It's not an accident incels are so similar to one another in belief. Our common biological aberrations and societal mistreatment shape how we view other people, religion, and society at large.
But biology is not the root cause of everything; Nature is. The chthonic power we call Nature has always subjected everything under "her" control. Nothing is not bound by Nature: Nature-as-God is the last blackpill, the ultimate freeing realization that everything is cyclical, everything under Nature's dominion--even the god(s) we worship: the pagan Gods of Greco-Roman religious cultures were always nature-personified, byproducts of nature, or somehow subjected to nature. Nature always has the final say. Contrasted to Christianity which posits a God outside of time and nature, not only above it but absolutely above it, Nature is viewed as something created by an all-powerful aseitic God, not the final power we answer to. This is the opposite of the blackpill. This puts the emphasis on humanity instead of Nature. Nature either endows you with the ability to procreate, to continue a species lineage millions of years old, or it doesn't. (And in our case, we fall in the latter camp.) This is the terrifying reality of the blackpill, that you aren't in control, that time is cyclical, that humanity is stuck in a time-loop of destruction and life. The history of humanity is a blip in a larger cosmic drama of rebirth and dissolution. "Surfing the Kali Yuga" is being able to manipulate this fact to your advantage. To those who are able to do so, I say: Godspeed, soldier. You have nothing to lose but your chains. To the rest of us who can't, for whatever psychological or biological reason, know this: you were never in control to begin with. It's always been Nature.
Let those who have ears, hear.
Footnotes
[1] In the common sense normie narrative of Elliot Rodger's life, he is depicted as a virulent misogynist who only hates women; this, however, is not true. He equally ascribes the same blame, if not more, against men in his life who bullied him. Proof of this point: He opens his manifesto calling out humanity as the chief cause of his suffering, not just women. Many men are described negatively and with abject hatred; so the thesis he "just" hated women and was a MGTOW pro-man misogynist is a false one.
Christianity taught us to hate the body and the flesh. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 that he "beats his body into submission every day." There is a radical disdain for casual sex (or really any expression of sexuality) in the Bible. Despite the Old Testament being replete with examples of sexual misbehavior (curiously, the OT does not outright condemn acting up sexually in many cases--it's either implicitly understood to be wrong or obliquely criticized. If not criticized, it sometimes is strangely praised. To give an example: Lot's daughters get him drunk and seduce him, which you would expect to morally implicate Lot, but in one of the Petrine letters Lot is described positively as "righteous."), Christianity consistently tells us to "keep it in your pants" and orient your eyes towards the things of heaven. Compare this to blackpilled inceldom, where reciprocal love and sex with a female is the highest goal in life, not apokatastasis or union with God (which is, admittedly, an admirable if not frustratingly difficult goal to achieve given bodily/fleshly desires and impulses). A failure to obtain this singular goal humanity, mutual love with a woman, is often ascribed as chief cause of post-pubescent suffering.[1] (There is an argument to be made for Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that to achieve higher-order transcendental bliss you first have to meet your base needs. This thesis, however, is disputable as many great artists have been fueled by sexual & other insecurities--Kafka is a good example of this. Insecurity often turns otherwise complacent men into great ones--fantastic artists, bold leaders, men-against-time, etc. So, the emphasis on "getting sex" before you can do something great is a thesis I find highly disputable. But I digress.) Christianity teaches us to hate our bodily impulses of union with woman (think of injunctives against lusting after any woman, etc.), except through marriage with ONE woman, while inceldom teaches us sex with wom(a/e)n is a natural desire in every man--in other words, Christianity hates the body, inceldom loves it. But what of the incels who only want to have sex with one woman in their life? Aren't they fully incels too?
I find it impossible for any pious Christian to be fully incel, truly blackpilled; for this to happen, you have to acknowledge certain realities about sex, modern dating, biology, and life, and their relation to their antithesis: death. To be fully-incel is to recognize certain immutable biological truths about modern life, sex, but most importantly, BIOLOGY. The aggregation of 90% of women to the top 5% of men is a consequence of BIOLOGY instantiated and gifted to individual consciousnesses by Nature. Full-inceldom, correctly called "being blackpilled," is acknowledging and coming to accept this truth. That BIOLOGY overdetermines you is a fact equally liberating as it is terrifying. You see threads on here constantly complaining about a variety of issues, from IQ to facial structure to autisticesque behaviors. So what's the common denominator in all of these problems? BIOLOGY as given to us by Nature. Man is a creature of the animal kingdom. Acknowledging that every man wants to have sex with multiple women he finds attractive is a basic axiom for being blackpilled, a fact so basic in the animal kingdoms that it doesn't even need to be said. Males want to have sex with multiple hot females across all species of living creature.
BIOLOGY (& its byproduct, history) also overdetermines and constrains what you believe at all levels, including religion. To pretend that religion is somehow isolated from the rest of biological and historical impulses is an incredible fallacy. Nature and historical happenstance overdetermine what you believe--you're only a Christian because a small Judaic cult pioneered by the apostle Paul dominated the western world by pure chance. It's not an accident incels are so similar to one another in belief. Our common biological aberrations and societal mistreatment shape how we view other people, religion, and society at large.
But biology is not the root cause of everything; Nature is. The chthonic power we call Nature has always subjected everything under "her" control. Nothing is not bound by Nature: Nature-as-God is the last blackpill, the ultimate freeing realization that everything is cyclical, everything under Nature's dominion--even the god(s) we worship: the pagan Gods of Greco-Roman religious cultures were always nature-personified, byproducts of nature, or somehow subjected to nature. Nature always has the final say. Contrasted to Christianity which posits a God outside of time and nature, not only above it but absolutely above it, Nature is viewed as something created by an all-powerful aseitic God, not the final power we answer to. This is the opposite of the blackpill. This puts the emphasis on humanity instead of Nature. Nature either endows you with the ability to procreate, to continue a species lineage millions of years old, or it doesn't. (And in our case, we fall in the latter camp.) This is the terrifying reality of the blackpill, that you aren't in control, that time is cyclical, that humanity is stuck in a time-loop of destruction and life. The history of humanity is a blip in a larger cosmic drama of rebirth and dissolution. "Surfing the Kali Yuga" is being able to manipulate this fact to your advantage. To those who are able to do so, I say: Godspeed, soldier. You have nothing to lose but your chains. To the rest of us who can't, for whatever psychological or biological reason, know this: you were never in control to begin with. It's always been Nature.
Let those who have ears, hear.
Footnotes
[1] In the common sense normie narrative of Elliot Rodger's life, he is depicted as a virulent misogynist who only hates women; this, however, is not true. He equally ascribes the same blame, if not more, against men in his life who bullied him. Proof of this point: He opens his manifesto calling out humanity as the chief cause of his suffering, not just women. Many men are described negatively and with abject hatred; so the thesis he "just" hated women and was a MGTOW pro-man misogynist is a false one.
