Serious You want a girlfriend because you are WEAK

[subhuman]

It's almost tragic how chads exhibit such a callous disregard for the hoards of foids that are drawn to them, but incels who have no bitches lack that same indifference. Chads will beat bitches the fuck up, rape them, cheat on them, and then discard them for the next young bitch (foids like all of this by the way). Meanwhile incel cuck wants to love a foid and simp for her. What is the reason for such a difference in behavior?

Chads spend their whole lives affirmed based on their looks and height, establishing a feedback loop which allows them to cultivate inner strength. Supremely self confident and independent, chads are able to forge their own path without needing to seek the approval of others.

Most incels, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this post, lack this inner strength and self confidence and are excessively reliant on external validation for their sense of self worth. Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations for want of a girlfriend. Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

You will NEVER become satisfied this way, even if you do get a foid. You will just become attached and clingy to her, which will strain the relationship. Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die. All the while suffering from your own inner weakness. Stop conforming, embrace your independence, and learn to blaze your own trails.

 

[parzurnacs]

I mean, the only real purpose of having a gf would be to have free access to sex and having her taking care of the house and children if you had any (terrible idea), a man should dump his gf at the moment she starts trying to leech off your money or you just end up tired of her.

The problem is that foids have so much power in male instincts that these guys blinded by love will be their gf's slave until they end up trapped in a marriage and it's already too late.

Some generations ago most men knew some things about the nature of women because it was displayed in mainstream culture, now with feminist media all men are cucked and that's why they have this idealized concept of women and love.

 

[Retardinator]

I know let me cope nigga

 

[Lonelyus]

I mean, the only real purpose of having a gf would be to have free access to sex and having her taking care of the house and children if you had any (terrible idea), a man should dump his gf at the moment she starts trying to leech off your money or you just end up tired of her.

The problem is that foids have so much power in male instincts that these guys blinded by love will be their gf's slave until they end up trapped in a marriage and it's already too late.

Some generations ago most men knew some things about the nature of women because it was displayed in mainstream culture, now with feminist media all men are cucked and that's why they have this idealized concept of women and love.

She can then claim false rape charges if you try to leave and YOULL be stuck forever or until your ready to face hell and leave

 

[Righteous Hitter]

Is this now turning to a ??! Just go and do it by yourself then.

 

[K9Otaku]

Excellent post. You are asking the right questions

Let me just ask you a few of my own in order to try and move the debate forward.

Most incels, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this post, lack this inner strength and self confidence and are excessively reliant on external validation for their sense of self worth.

Don't you think we should discuss this at some point?

Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations for want of a girlfriend. Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

The question here is what exactly is "inner strength" and how to cultivate it. Many people over the centuries have proposed tons of different approaches, many of them in complete contradiction with each other.

Before I talk about what I think is the most promising option, I would like to mention a few that I consider counter productive and therefore to be avoided:

• Nietzschean individualism (and related theories, from Max Stirner to Ayn Rand). Pretending that you can be strong just by repeating "I am strong, I am strong" a billion times is just cope imho. Also, the whole delirium about the "Uberman" is a clear admission of Chad worship.
• Marxism and rebellion masturbation in general. Chanting slogans in the streets and investing you hopes in "changing society" is just a more covert way of doing the same as above. Wanting to topple the "powers that be" is just Chad worship again, by people who secretly hope that by toppling the current bunch of chad top dogs, they will be able to take their place. Everytime a revolution has "succeeded" its very own supporters have ended up even more miserable than before.

Thoughts?

 

[Sheogorath]

You want a girlfriend because you are WEAK​

incel cuck wants to love a foid and simp for her

It takes a strong man to admit to his weaknesses OP.
A weak man is so terrified of his weaknesses he will insist on denying them to others and even to himself.

Wanting to feel love for a woman is not the same thing as engaging in idolatry towards her.

I do not desire a religious-tier deity worship of a woman, only a moderate and realistic fondness of whatever limited virtues she may demonstrate to me.

Most incels, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this post, lack this inner strength and self confidence and are excessively reliant on external validation for their sense of self worth.

Like how you're validating your own self-worth by creating a thread to interact with us here?

Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations

we're a society here too

I have my own values, my struggle with finding a woman is not knowing I can impress them upon her.
I do not in any way desire to subjugate my own values to her own.
I am open to valuing new things and learn from others should that happen.

Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

Wanting to share love with as woman does not mean that I want to become reliant on her for validation.

I want to resist that and build an esteem which could survive in her absence.

I don't know that shunning women (as you seem to imply) would be a path to such independence though.

If a woman's validation can break me out of a rut of low self-esteem, that could bring me to a self-sustaining level that would not collapse should she change her mind and reject me.

You will NEVER become satisfied this way, even if you do get a foid. You will just become attached and clingy to her, which will strain the relationship.

Attached clinginess is not a guarantee.
We might be predisposed to that which is why we should remain aware and resist it.

Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die.

Of course there is, you're stating the obvious.

All the while suffering from your own inner weakness. Stop conforming, embrace your independence, and learn to blaze your own trails.

But there's always the possibility I will die, and then what use was my independence and strength if it may end?

All our strength is ephemeral, that is the nature of morality. Our brains will sicken with age and we will suffer dementia and become shells of our past selves.

 

[subhuman]

Is this now turning to a ??!

No JFL. I reject the redpill for three reasons:

1. It's not a real philosophy, just something grifters push to get you to buy their shit.
2. What it prescribes isn't real self "improvement", but rather conformity. True self improvement I believe is creating your own values rather than conforming to the ones that are handed to you
3. Obviously it doesn't help to get foids

Instead, what I'm saying is to cultivate inner strength and improve yourself so that you don't feel the need to get attached to foids.

 

[RollD20]

I think its more cause we are brought up into the false reality of 'romance'.
We are searching for something which is rare/does not exist in modern society.

 

[Sheogorath]

What it prescribes isn't real self "improvement", but rather conformity. True self improvement I believe is creating your own values rather than conforming to the ones that are handed to you

Red pill involves stuff like gym-maxing which is obviously objective self-improvement because you're improving your capacity to accomplish tasks.

One should also have the wisdom to realize that there is never any absolute sense of creating one's own values as our thoughts are always influenced by other ideas have have encountered.

One should not be a conformist sheep, agreed, but let's not treat this like a simplified dichotomy.

 

[Righteous Hitter]

No JFL. I reject the redpill for three reasons:

1. It's not a real philosophy, just something grifters push to get you to buy their shit.
2. What it prescribes isn't real self "improvement", but rather conformity. True self improvement I believe is creating your own values rather than conforming to the ones that are handed to you
3. Obviously it doesn't help to get foids

Instead, what I'm saying is to cultivate inner strength and improve yourself so that you don't feel the need to get attached to foids.

I agree about what you wrote but i am sceptical because you are not chad or htn and nt to not be meet with hostility while doing chad things. Yes every man should assume such stance but can we as incels and autists?
and are not philosophies, they are supposed sexual attraction facts based on genetic determination.
Creating your own values really seem either as delusions or God complex but i do understand what you saying and what you want brocel.

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

I am not even sure that i want a partner. Dating and girlfriends are for younger people.

 

[županič]

Bro you know why chads can beat bitches the fuck up, rape them, cheat on them, and then discard them for the next young bitch? Because they can. They know that even when they will act bad towards them the bitch will still love them. They really have nothing to lose. While for us or betacuks getting girlfriend is really hard and we have absolutly everything to lose if you do one of those bad things that chad is done. It has nothing to do with weakness or strenght. We just know that when we lose our current gf then there might not be next one.

 

[Shrek]

Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die. All the while suffering from your own inner weakness.

Just keep her Fritzl style kek

 

[NorthernWind]

An ordinary person have some money so he can go to supermarket and buy food.

A very poor person is forced to beg for money by life's circumstances because it's his only chance of survival.

Incels are clingy because they practically don't have chances to get a girlfriend.
If you had only one pair of boots you would be too attached to it compared to those who have 50 pair of boots.

 

[Indari]

can't really blame em. bluepilled soyciety steers socially unsuccessful men to be weak, cucked, simps

 

[zionpill]

It's almost tragic how chads exhibit such a callous disregard for the hoards of foids that are drawn to them, but incels who have no bitches lack that same indifference. Chads will beat bitches the fuck up, rape them, cheat on them, and then discard them for the next young bitch (foids like all of this by the way). Meanwhile incel cuck wants to love a foid and simp for her. What is the reason for such a difference in behavior?

Chads spend their whole lives affirmed based on their looks and height, establishing a feedback loop which allows them to cultivate inner strength. Supremely self confident and independent, chads are able to forge their own path without needing to seek the approval of others.

Most incels, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this post, lack this inner strength and self confidence and are excessively reliant on external validation for their sense of self worth. Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations for want of a girlfriend. Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

You will NEVER become satisfied this way, even if you do get a foid. You will just become attached and clingy to her, which will strain the relationship. Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die. All the while suffering from your own inner weakness. Stop conforming, embrace your independence, and learn to blaze your own trails.

i slightly agree with this. but humans are social creatures and will always want social validation. thats why community is important. its important to make a community of like minded people who are very loyal and close.

 

[decembrist_kirillov]

k

 

[Balding Subhuman]

BASED

 

[M.Yass]

Wasting your breath, people who have been on here for a while and still desire to be cucked can only learn once life slams them in the face. Even then, they'll be thankful (at least I'm not an inkwell ) because the only desire they ever had was to be a normie.

 

[subhuman]

One should also have the wisdom to realize that there is never any absolute sense of creating one's own values as our thoughts are always influenced by other ideas have have encountered.

One should not be a conformist sheep, agreed, but let's not treat this like a simplified dichotomy

You make good points and I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I have always argued that individualism as a static and isolated concept is stupid, because of how we are shaped by our environments. Ultimately, I agree with you that we need to move past a simple dichotomy of the individual vs collective, in favor of a more dynamic individualism. I don't think a true individual would reject the importance of women, social groups, or relationships, and in doing so deny their nature as social animals. Instead, I think individuals should embrace the fact that they are not entirely independent from their social environments, and actively navigate it and transcend its influences to achieve their own goals.

Really, the biggest issue I was addressing with my OP was the concept of "incels". By accepting this label, one is defining themselves based on women, diluting their own values and goals for other people and ultimately subordinating themselves to the expectations and judgements of others. I believe that the primary source of one's self worth should come from within, without being beholden to others. I think that by becoming self reliant and asserting ourselves we wouldn't feel the need to seek validation from others and can escape most of the pitfalls of inceldom.

Red pill involves stuff like gym-maxing which is obviously objective self-improvement because you're improving your capacity to accomplish tasks.

I disagree. I don't think there is any objective self improvement because there is no objective way to view the world. Ultimately, it's up to us to define our own values and goals.

But there's always the possibility I will die, and then what use was my independence and strength if it may end?

I think that knowledge of our own mortality should inspire us to live more passionately and fearlessly. The absence of an external justification for our lives is necessary to give us the freedom to create our own meaning and values. Ultimately, it's up to you to answer this question.

 

[subhuman]

Don't you think we should discuss this at some point?

Yes. I just didn't want to make the post too long. If I were to make an argument, I would say it's because of a culture in decline and also the result of feedback loops like the looking glass self.

Nietzschean individualism (and related theories, from Max Stirner to Ayn Rand). Pretending that you can be strong just by repeating "I am strong, I am strong" a billion times is just cope imho. Also, the whole delirium about the "Uberman" is a clear admission of Chad worship.

Nietzschean individualism was the inspiration for my post JFL. I am a firm believer in embracing our own values and self created meaning and the affirmation of life. Why do you take issue with it? And what would you propose instead?

 

[12 Years a Rotter]

low iq take. chads act this way because they are primitive and primitive people do not value monogamy. nothing to do with muh inner strength

 

[cunnylover69]

Chads spend their whole lives affirmed based on their looks and height, establishing a feedback loop which allows them to cultivate inner strength. Supremely self confident and independent, chads are able to forge their own path without needing to seek the approval of others.

But are they really forging their own path if their "inner strength" is reliant upon the assurance that they can get any woman they want? I don't think chads are true individuals just because they find it easier to not think about women. It is only natural that they end up this way, and they are just following evolutionary behavior.

If this is true, then real inner strength or that which goes against our natural inclinations can't be the same as chad's inner strength. Like you said, certain philosophies can tend towards chad worship, wherein we attempt to emulate this natural form of inner strength. Is the answer then to reject nature entirely? I guess the first step would be nofap.

 

[Sheogorath]

people who have been on here for a while and still desire to be cucked

Desiring to be cucked is like desiring to be raped. I guess it can happen but few people consciously embrace that.
Perhaps you might be referring to subconscious impulse you speculate people have rather than conscious desire?

If you had only one pair of boots you would be too attached to it compared to those who have 50 pair of boots.

You could just use the old boots to club a guy in the face and steal his new boots.

I have always argued that individualism as a static and isolated concept is stupid, because of how we are shaped by our environments. Ultimately, I agree with you that we need to move past a simple dichotomy of the individual vs collective, in favor of a more dynamic individualism. I don't think a true individual would reject the importance of women, social groups, or relationships, and in doing so deny their nature as social animals.

What is a "true individual" ? Still speaking as if it's discrete. Independence is a spectrum of comparison.
I would describe someone as more independent, more individualistic, if they reject conformity to something.
This can apply even rejecting to conforming to good things while embracing unhealthy things, so long as it was spontaneous.
A lot of the embracing of bad things is just another form of herd thinking though.
This is why I try to remember not to embrace the strong urge to conform.

the biggest issue I was addressing with my OP was the concept of "incels". By accepting this label, one is defining themselves based on women, diluting their own values and goals for other people and ultimately subordinating themselves to the expectations and judgements of others.

This is also a problem with defining oneself as a "celibate" in general in my opinion.
Of course that could also be the problem in defining oneself as anything.
If I am a "bodybuilder" does that mean I am not also a scientist or explorer?
We can wear many hats and adopt many identities in different forums.

The greater problem than identifying one's celibacy is in embracing the adjective 'involuntary'.
It creates an illusion of a complete lack of input as to one's destiny.

Even weak men can easily rape women - we're obviously not involuntarily 'celibate' in respect to sex alone, but rather in regard to the consenting and enthusiastic romance we desire.
Our meaning nowadays is much closer to the classic meaning of celibate meaning unmarried - even if you don't desire marriage you probably desire something romantic along those lines.
Even if it was validation of one-night stands, you want that consent and validation from a good woman.

I think the emphasis here is a good one. Everyone here will LARP about having no standards, taking ANY woman, but that's just a LARP.
Everyone has them - to varying degrees. It is necessary to have standards about women to actually perceive what love is.
Without those standards we'd just be escortcels LARPing as betabux as if it's anything different.

Due to that, the idea that it is wholly involuntary that we lack a relationship is wrong - I think we all choose to withhold giving maximal effort to certain possibilities mostly because we do not perceive potential for genuine love in them - we do not want a woman to exploit us with trickery.

Where 'involuntary' seems most appropriate is in respect to romance itself - we desire that, yet at the same time might unintentionally get in our own way of recognizing opportunities for such romance because of that fear of putting our hope in a woman who lets us down.

We are basically emcels like many women are who can't achieve chad, the only difference is that emcel women at least get enthusiastic sex from people they're attracted to, for free, while we don't. They might not receive the LTR validation they want, but still enjoy ephemeral bliss in temporary romances which are denied to us.

I believe that the primary source of one's self worth should come from within, without being beholden to others. I think that by becoming self reliant and asserting ourselves we wouldn't feel the need to seek validation from others and can escape most of the pitfalls of inceldom.

I validate my own existence with celebration of my own intelligence, but I have no problem in also validating my worth by measuring it through another person's eyes, such as your own eyes from reading this sentence I write now.

I can establish worth from multiple inputs. My own input has always been primary, but I find it shortsighted not to also allow inputs from others, because I think that will help me grow as a person and gain perspective.

Generally I only assign worth to others' input as I gain admiration for their capacity through things like reading what they write. This is why for example, I would assign more worth to your input defining my worth than some street rando I haven't conversed with. At the same time it doesn't mean I'm your minion or anything because I still assess th e value of statements others make, be they positive or negative, as it pertains to me.

I disagree. I don't think there is any objective self improvement because there is no objective way to view the world. Ultimately, it's up to us to define our own values and goals.

Just as there isn't any absolute individualism or groupthink (just those who lean hard in either direction) I think there similarly is not absolute objectivity or subjectivity, it's always a mix of those concepts as we lean in those directions.

I think that knowledge of our own mortality should inspire us to live more passionately and fearlessly. The absence of an external justification for our lives is necessary to give us the freedom to create our own meaning and values. Ultimately, it's up to you to answer this question.

To some it works that way. It always seemed like a concession to me though - like we can't be immortal and unkillable as we'd like to be, so we just try to enjoy some passion to cover up the pain of that impending doom.

I think for those who can't have absolute immortality of the self they try to find that in other ways. Most normies through immortality of the gene, passing on their germ to next generation. Or of the meme - to pass ideas down to children, adopted kids, students, proteges, etc.

It's ultimately pretty pathetic since such memories fade pretty quickly. Do you know the favorite song of your great grandfather? I expect less than 1% of the population does.

Madame Fortuna in The Last Unicorn is an interesting commentary on this - she captures immortal creatures, knowing they will hate her forever for caging them, so she embraces death knowing she will be remembered forever by those creatures, unlike those who merely have children and are soon forgotten.

In more realistic terms I think that's why some aim for a broader remembering by society - they become politicians and whatnot, wanting buildings named after them. In a lot of cases what would be remembered is a facade they presented to gain that fame rather than the genuine person though.

If Nathan Larson did indeed intentionally kill himself by starvation then perhaps he was aiming for that. I don't think that would be enough for me though, I just want to keep on living and having experiences and maybe LARP that I'll somehow survive enough for life extension treatments to let me live centuries, but that's a pipe dream.

But are they really forging their own path if their "inner strength" is reliant upon the assurance that they can get any woman they want?
I don't think chads are true individuals just because they find it easier to not think about women. It is only natural that they end up this way, and they are just following evolutionary behavior.

Even though I'll talk shit like PCs vs NPCs, this is a metaphor, an extrapolation of the spectrum of individuality.
Everyone is a true individual - and yet nobody is.
Some are more individualistic, and perhaps being a chad frees you from burdens to allow you to contemplate that, or perhaps it lets chad avoid contemplating those questions we contemplate.
Both can be true, there's no absolute rule, always variation in life experience and thought process.

If this is true, then real inner strength or that which goes against our natural inclinations can't be the same as chad's inner strength.

The inner workings of every man will have its differences. Even to weigh these as a strength or weakness will always be subjective.

I wouldn't say going against natural inclination is always a strength, I think that depends on context. One should not be absolutely ruled by those things, but following those inclinations can be a good thing depending on what it is.

Like you said, certain philosophies can tend towards chad worship, wherein we attempt to emulate this natural form of inner strength. Is the answer then to reject nature entirely? I guess the first step would be nofap.

If you want to reject nature entirely then you would reject the urge to live and just an hero.
I see no reason to do that - I like a lot of things about nature and dislike other things.
Why the need to lump natural things together in a category?

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Personally I know that this is still something I have to work on. Just kill every bluepilled desire I have to get a gf.

 

[cunnylover69]

If you want to reject nature entirely then you would reject the urge to live and just an hero.
I see no reason to do that - I like a lot of things about nature and dislike other things.
Why the need to lump natural things together in a category?

Well I'm not sure suicide is an escape from or a solution to the problems of nature. Nature is balanced and cyclical. These make up its inherent order. If we represent imbalance, then suicide is consistent with order. By rejecting this order, we reject nature.

So if we truly believe there is some higher form of consciousness that anyone can attain, we have to classify it as different from natural instinct. That doesn't mean I despise nature or my own natural impulses. But liking something doesn't necessarily justify it. If we believe that "strength" is only found in intangible ideals, then it cannot be formed out of material processes. I view it more as an immunity to them.

 

[michael99]

I disagree OP

Wanting to be with a woman is built into our DNA. It has very little to do with needing external validation. We want sex and love and a family. This is hard coded into our DNA

Chads don't care about women because they are abundant to them, not because their self confidence is so high they don't care for them anymore.

In theory if women stopped showing Chad attention he would very quickly lose his confidence

You'll notice older Stacie's start to feel this. Once they get older and their looks drop off they panic the moment they start receiving less attention from men despite being hyper confident and indifferent to male attention before

 

[GeckoBus]

Excellent post. You are asking the right questions

Let me just ask you a few of my own in order to try and move the debate forward.


Don't you think we should discuss this at some point?


The question here is what exactly is "inner strength" and how to cultivate it. Many people over the centuries have proposed tons of different approaches, many of them in complete contradiction with each other.

Before I talk about what I think is the most promising option, I would like to mention a few that I consider counter productive and therefore to be avoided:

• Nietzschean individualism (and related theories, from Max Stirner to Ayn Rand). Pretending that you can be strong just by repeating "I am strong, I am strong" a billion times is just cope imho. Also, the whole delirium about the "Uberman" is a clear admission of Chad worship.
• Marxism and rebellion masturbation in general. Chanting slogans in the streets and investing you hopes in "changing society" is just a more covert way of doing the same as above. Wanting to topple the "powers that be" is just Chad worship again, by people who secretly hope that by toppling the current bunch of chad top dogs, they will be able to take their place. Everytime a revolution has "succeeded" its very own supporters have ended up even more miserable than before.

Thoughts?

bro you are too high iq for this fucking place lmao, nigga i can tell from the quality of your writing alone

 

[SeetheBot9000]

If I didn't want a gf/sex etc then I would be volcel, not incel. If you are so above it all, OP, leave this forum. I don't even disagree with what you are saying. If I can get to a point in life where I stop giving a fuck about foids and just transcend it all I will be happy, but I have not reached that point, which is why I am incel. But the fact that you are on this forum means that you are incel, no? So you still want relationships, sex and female validation?

 

[K9Otaku]

Yes. I just didn't want to make the post too long. If I were to make an argument, I would say it's because of a culture in decline and also the result of feedback loops like the looking glass self.

"looking glass self", what is that?

Nietzschean individualism was the inspiration for my post JFL.

I thought it could be the case. That is why I listed those objections.

I am a firm believer in embracing our own values and self created meaning and the affirmation of life. Why do you take issue with it? And what would you propose instead?

The reason I take issue with Nietzschean individualism is, first of all, that it is at the heart of the philosophy that gave rise to the woke bullshit. LGBTQ+ stuff, in particular, is directly inspired by the idea of "embracing our own values and self created meaning". Wokeism is the direct intellectual descendant of existentialism and the so called "French theory" of Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, etc. These guys were in turn followers and admirers of Nietzsche.

Secondly, I believe that it is just not possible to have "self created meaning". Trannies are constantly trying to do that and they fail. They just look gross to the majority of people. Eventually, they realize that and commit suicide, most often (see this thread, for example). The reason is that "meaning" is created by groups of people (cultures), not individuals. If you try to do it on your own, you are just making up stuff and end up with something totally fake that cannot support you more than a few years at most. And then you rope.

Thirdly, there is something else hiding behind Nietzschean individualism and it is Chad worship. It is not for nothing that someone had the idea for this meme:

 

[K9Otaku]

bro you are too high iq for this fucking place lmao, nigga i can tell from the quality of your writing alone

I guess this is a compliment, right?

I am here because I am an incel and I think that the black pill is fundamentally correct and, above all, that it is the only basis on which something that can replace the currently decaying Western culture can be built.

 

[GeckoBus]

I guess this is a compliment, right?

I am here because I am an incel and I think that the black pill is fundamentally correct and, above all, that it is the only basis on which something that can replace the currently decaying Western culture can be built.

I understand. I do not believe in saving the west, as I don't believe there can be an earthly utopia. People have tried before, you know.
Oliver Cromwell famously tried to outlaw alcohol and degenerate partying in Britain. It didn't go well. He was a misguided idealist.

Additionally he was gullible enough to think he could juggle and maintain the favors of multiple interests groups, like the royalists, the military and the populace. He later died deeply depressed and ill of health from the stress he put on himself.
Now, you may say, well he just did not do it right but I disagree. There will be no earthly utopia, ever.

The closest thing we had was the longest lasting and most successful empire in history, namely the Byzantine Empire. It was an christian theocracy and lasted for 1000 years despite its capital coming under siege over 20 times in that period.

Another thing about your post irks me. You say, the blackpill is correct and something upon which a culture can be built.
This is a dangerous fallacy. You should study the is/ought fallacy, but you may be familiar with it already.

My point of contention is this: The blackpill is simply an amalgamation of neutral information. It is something that simply 'is.'
But you are carelessly jumping from an 'is' to an 'ought.'

As it stands, the genocidal maniacs running our world are utilizing arguments similar to the blackpill to justify their actions. So have many other groups in history used blackpill talking points to advance their agendas. However, this does not disprove the blackpill. How we ought to act is wholly distinct from the information we have available.

This is also called "the myth of the given," or "the myth of obviousness."
For instance, let's assume we were women of reasonable intelligence (lol), and we were advocates for the female cause.
From our persepective, the blackpill is extremely positive. Women are in power, men are easily manipulated, women demonstrate great aptitude at getting ahead in life. Women are pretty awesome from this perspective and should keeping doing what they are doing (I am oversimplifying on purpose).

How would you counter such a position? You can't. They are using the same "blackpill facts" but because they are applying a different worldview, they come to a completely different "ought" conclusion.

We are not debating facts you see. There is no such thing as a fact when it comes to ought claims. Ought claims are presuppositions distinct of the adherents worldview.
We are debating the coherency of worldviews. It's a matter of which worldview can account for the maximum number of problems we are confronted with when navigating life.
These problems range from base-level philosophical problems to more empirical issues.
Some of these problems are:

- the problem of induction
- the problem of the external world
- the problem of identity over time
- the problem of metaphysics/universals

to name a few.
Most worldviews, the vast majority, will not be able to account for any of these and be self refuting, because if taken to their ultimate conclusion, they mostly lead to the negation of the possibility of knowledge itself.

Let's take Nietzsche for instance and say, there is no truth. This is self refuting already. Is the statement "there is no truth" true? Necessarily. So it's over in one step. Ok, lets take another one that is popular, "might is right" or "will to power."


1. "There is no truth, only will to power" - is that statement a truth claim? If yes ->it's false and self refuting
2. "There is no morality, only power, everyone invents their own morality" -> is that an absolute moral claim? Of course. It necessarily has to be universally true and applicable for everyone eternally. So it does the exact opposite of what it claims. It necessisates the claim-maker as the omnipotent dictator of morality while espousing to do the opposite.

How do you know that there is only will to power if there is no truth?
If you just assume it, then your making another truth claim, namely “I can assume it is true.”
And how do you know that you can assume things? That’s just another unfounded claim you make.

How do you know that you can know things?
You just assume that based on nothing.

So, if you can not know anything, what are you going to apply your will to power to? If you can’t know if something is good or bad, because you can’t know that you know anything, then what will you apply your will to power to? You can't know that you know what you want is a good course of action. And every course of action you take presumes that you think it is a good course of action because nobody can do something they don't want to do.
(please don't fall for the trap of thinking I use the word "good" in the reductive good vs evil sense. Word-concept fallacy. I'm talking in the abstract sense of "good")

There are no valid arguments to me made at this point because you cant make any claims anymore.
Everything is just opinions at this point, they will agree on that. But you have to push further. So, is the claim that everything is just opinions a truth claim? Is that necessarily true? Yes. So how do you know its true? You can’t.

So, If they were honest they would have to say:
“I don’t know if I am right or wrong and I can not even assume to know whats right and wrong, but I will enforce whatever I want by power.”

This is of course self contradictory. If you can’t know anything let alone which course of actions is good or bad, then you can not apply your will to anything. Because that assumes you know which course of action is good. So you don’t know anything, you don’t even know what you want, because you don’t know that its good or bad. So what are you going to enforce with power? If you can’t know anything, how can you enforce anything?

Also, "I can't know anything" is also just another unfounded claim that requires you to have the ability to know in the first place.

Earthly Illustration: Maybe eating healthy is a complete cope and everything is just mindset. Maybe there are vegan monks in china that secretly live to 1000. You can not know that. And you cant know your diet is right either. You cant know anything. So which path will you choose if there is not even a path.

People will respond, "oh, but I can assume I know what's right."
You can not though, because "i can assume" is ad hoc. It's just another claim they conjure up to save their failing position.

There is nothing to enforce, there is just nothing. And even that is an assumption based on faith – “there is nothing.”
So you literally cant know anything, not even that you don’t know anything.
Just kill yourself theory.

“But I can assume.”
No you cant, the claim "I can assume" is an assumption.
You cant know anything at all.

Sometimes they say “thats just wordgames” at this point.
Or, “we have to draw a line.” (of where to stop taking the argument to its conclusion)

But how do you know where to draw the line? This is a classic neck-breaker of utilitarian arguments.
Where you draw the line is arbitrary and so is the entire position.

You cant assume anything, not even that assuming itself is valid.
The claim "I can assume" is a claim based on faith.
You cant even assume, because even "I can assume" is an assumption.
You cant know anything at all. Not even that assuming is valid.
And if you cant know anything then you cant enforce anything with power.

You cant assume that I can assume anything. Or not assume anything. In your worldview you cant know anything at all. You cant make any claims whatsoever. To make a claim is to assume that you have access to the truth, which yo usay you don’t have acces to. So you how can you claim that thers different opinions? Thats a truth claim. So you cant know that there are different opinions. You cant assume there are because assuming that you can is a truth claim.

You cant know anything at all not even that you know anything, not even that you know that you don’t know. Truth is subjective is a a truth claim, you cant know that.

Thats a contradiction
I cant know anything – how do you know that you cant know anything then?
At this point my opponent said said yes, "you cant know anything but its just word games"

Yes, because you cant know anything.

Their worldview literally cancels out the possibility of knowledge. You cant know that you know. You cant assume, because that assumes that assuming is true.
“I can assume” – that's a truth claim
But truth doesn’t exist, so you cant know anything in their worldview. It eliminates the possibility of knowledge itself.

====

I'm sorry if this was repetitive, I got lazy and just pasted an exchange I had with someone a few weeks ago.
The point is, you need access to the truth to make arguments, obviously. But this does not work if you're a relativist of any kind. You have to presuppose absolute truth exists and that it exists person-independent.
So where is it?

You have to have access to the truth out of necessity.
There are arguments and claims that are true simply by the impossibility of the contrary being true. (Law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle).

Maybe this is all just basic stuff to you but yeah.

I will attach a pdf here that you should read:

(R. M. Manion) - The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism.pdf

The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism Copyright © 1999, 2005. By R. M. Manion. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to understand the world, intentional and accidental. An intentional world is one that comes about on purpose and for a purpose. It is a world that...

www.docdroid.net

 

[ResidentHell]

Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations for want of a girlfriend. Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

You will NEVER become satisfied this way, even if you do get a foid. You will just become attached and clingy to her, which will strain the relationship. Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die. All the while suffering from your own inner weakness

Brutal OP. Most bluepilled normies will have to face this reality one day. Many normies around the world have restorted to self-harm or suicide due to this weakness --- They were neither emotionally able nor prepared to tolerate female infidelity or loss of female companionship (by divorce or abandonment), and self-harmed / roped or injured / killed their female partner because of it

 

[K9Otaku]

I understand. I do not believe in saving the west,

Me neither, but I believe something new can be built on its ruins.

as I don't believe there can be an earthly utopia. People have tried before, you know.

I do not believe in that either.

Oliver Cromwell famously tried to outlaw alcohol and degenerate partying in Britain. It didn't go well. He was a misguided idealist.

Indeed

Additionally he was gullible enough to think he could juggle and maintain the favors of multiple interests groups, like the royalists, the military and the populace. He later died deeply depressed and ill of health from the stress he put on himself.

I agree. You cannot control things. You can only observe them and adapt.

Now, you may say, well he just did not do it right but I disagree. There will be no earthly utopia, ever.

Indeed

The closest thing we had was the longest lasting and most successful empire in history, namely the Byzantine Empire. It was an christian theocracy and lasted for 1000 years despite its capital coming under siege over 20 times in that period.

There is no doubt that Christianity saved the Roman Empire, of which the "Byzantine" Empire was the heir. This historical fact is indeed one of the strongest in support of the beneficial nature of Christianity. However, I also believe that the West did better than the East, eventually, because of protestantism.

Another thing about your post irks me. You say, the blackpill is correct and something upon which a culture can be built.
This is a dangerous fallacy. You should study the is/ought fallacy, but you may be familiar with it already.

I am, but I do not see how it applies here. What I mean by "correct" is that it is the first time that a group of people have publicly denounced the cult of the great foid goddess (i.e. the Whore of Babylon) that has become the main semi-official religion of our time. In other words, Incel are doing the same as the prophets Eli and Elijah did when they "refused to bend the knee before Baal" That is a step in the right direction, if nothing else.

My point of contention is this: The blackpill is simply an amalgamation of neutral information. It is something that simply 'is.' But you are carelessly jumping from an 'is' to an 'ought.'

I do not believe that the "black pill" is really science or "neutral". The appearance of "scientific" findings about female behavior, is just a pretext to express refusal to bend the knee to the goddess. That is what the blackpill really is in my view and that is why I believe it is good. In other words, the blackpill is not an "is" at all. It is 100% an ought: "thou shalt not bend the knee before the great foid".

For instance, let's assume we were women of reasonable intelligence (lol), and we were advocates for the female cause. From our persepective, the blackpill is extremely positive. Women are in power, men are easily manipulated, women demonstrate great aptitude at getting ahead in life. Women are pretty awesome from this perspective and should keeping doing what they are doing (I am oversimplifying on purpose).

I do not believe that this is based on an "is" either. What you allude to above is just religious praise for an idolatrous cult and its priestesses. Such praise was already being written over 4000 years ago. You can find some examples here (I particularly recommend Inanna C).

How would you counter such a position? You can't.

I can, because I can deny that the "blackpill" is factual. Social "science" is not science. It is humanities masquerading as science. In the humanities, there is no clear difference between ought and is. Everything is a value judgment in the humanities. Never believe people who tell you otherwise.

There is a meaningful is/ought distinction only in the hard sciences (how to make the Bomb vs. How to use the Bomb)

Some of these problems are:

- the problem of induction
- the problem of the external world
- the problem of identity over time
- the problem of metaphysics/universals

To be honest, I am not a fan of Philosophy. You need to know about it of course but not dwell on it more than absolutely necessary.

Let's take Nietzsche for instance and say, there is no truth. This is self refuting already. Is the statement "there is no truth" true?

I don't believe that "there is no truth" is self refuting if you simply claim it is a credible statement. If you say: "believe me, there is no truth", there is no contradiction because there is no truth claim, only a trust claim.

1. "There is no truth, only will to power" - is that statement a truth claim? If yes ->it's false and self refuting
2. "There is no morality, only power, everyone invents their own morality" -> is that an absolute moral claim? Of course. It necessarily has to be universally true and applicable for everyone eternally. So it does the exact opposite of what it claims. It necessisates the claim-maker as the omnipotent dictator of morality while espousing to do the opposite.

How do you know that there is only will to power if there is no truth?
If you just assume it, then your making another truth claim, namely “I can assume it is true.”
And how do you know that you can assume things? That’s just another unfounded claim you make.

I don't believe Nietzsche's thought has value but not because he is self refuting. He is just full of shit and a Chad worshiper

How do you know that you can know things?
You just assume that based on nothing.

I don't. I believe that the only thing we have are beliefs, with varying degrees of trust.

The claim "I can assume" is a claim based on faith.

Indeed. That is fine with me

You cant even assume, because even "I can assume" is an assumption.

And why is that a problem?

You cant know anything at all. Not even that assuming is valid.

I just need to find it credible (trustworthy) that it is possible to assume. Then I can start assuming all I want.

And if you cant know anything then you cant enforce anything with power.

Actually, you can. You don't need knowledge to have power. You just need to have the trust of a small cadre of enforcers (like a police force) in order to be able to enforce.

In your worldview you cant know anything at all.

Yes

You cant make any claims whatsoever.

I can, by making an appeal to trust: "Trust me, such and such is the case"

I also claim that nobody can do more than that.

To make a claim is to assume that you have access to the truth,

No, just making an appeal to trust

So you how can you claim that thers different opinions?

There are different bodies of opinions, each with its own trust rating (from an individual perspective) or its own credit rating (from a collective standpoint). This is the same as saying that there are different brands of cars, each with its own reputation.

Their worldview literally cancels out the possibility of knowledge.

It does. But knowledge does not exist anyways (believe me)

I will read the Manion paper and tell you what I think.

 

[Fallenleaves]

You can say all of this but nothing will change the fact that you have fucked a big tiddy escort on multiple occasions.

 

[Epedaphic]

I don't know that everyone wants excessive validation from a woman or to become dependent on one. Those both seem like they'd create a setup for a disaster. Validation can come from men or oneself, and I agree that self sufficiency is a good thing. But I think it's okay and normal to still want a girlfriend to meet needs of companionship, intimacy etc. and that leads to feeling alone or down when it's hard to attain but the desire alone certainly doesn't make someone weak.

As for those who want to suppress the desire or take actions towards distancing oneself from the behaviors associated with them, the MGTOW movement is probably a good resource.

 

[Qeasi Cou]

It's almost tragic how chads exhibit such a callous disregard for the hoards of foids that are drawn to them, but incels who have no bitches lack that same indifference. Chads will beat bitches the fuck up, rape them, cheat on them, and then discard them for the next young bitch (foids like all of this by the way). Meanwhile incel cuck wants to love a foid and simp for her. What is the reason for such a difference in behavior?

Chads spend their whole lives affirmed based on their looks and height, establishing a feedback loop which allows them to cultivate inner strength. Supremely self confident and independent, chads are able to forge their own path without needing to seek the approval of others.

Most incels, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this post, lack this inner strength and self confidence and are excessively reliant on external validation for their sense of self worth. Instead of cultivating inner strength, creating their own values, and becoming self reliant, they subordinate themselves to societal expectations for want of a girlfriend. Your lack of female companionship hurts so bad because you are WEAK and instead of making yourself stronger, you want to become dependent on a foid.

You will NEVER become satisfied this way, even if you do get a foid. You will just become attached and clingy to her, which will strain the relationship. Then there is always the possibility she will cheat or leave you or even die. All the while suffering from your own inner weakness. Stop conforming, embrace your independence, and learn to blaze your own trails.

Based.

 

[ControlledInsanity]

No JFL. I reject the redpill for three reasons:

1. It's not a real philosophy, just something grifters push to get you to buy their shit.
2. What it prescribes isn't real self "improvement", but rather conformity. True self improvement I believe is creating your own values rather than conforming to the ones that are handed to you
3. Obviously it doesn't help to get foids

Instead, what I'm saying is to cultivate inner strength and improve yourself so that you don't feel the need to get attached to foids.

Redpill is applicable only to 8/10 and above. It only works for those who already had any opportunity.