new

The Myth of Self-Improvement

The biggest, ultimate COPE practiced by practically everybody on the planet is the belief that they have control over their own biology. If only they try hard enough! Then, one day, someday, everything will change! A believe most people have on this sorry planet, yet we still see most people remain tremendously average. Because as much as they'd hate to admit it, their very conscious, their soul, is just as anchored to biology as their physical athleticism. And no matter how hard you train, you're never going to beat Usain Bolt. Nor are you going to become the next Albert Einstein or Bill Gates.

It is pretty obvious that some men will always be more athletic than others. And recent research indicates that other aspects of men are just as unchangeable. We do not know how to improve IQ through education alone. Most people who have significant weight loss will gain it all back. Even personality traits seem to be significantly genetic. But when we say that our ability to get laid is mostly set and stone, both Blues and Reds FREAK THE FUCK OUT. "Its your personality, you misogynist freak!" "Just lift, bro." "Don't you even know game?" They cannot stand biological determinism, because it represents a counter to everything they stand for. But as the least successful of men, we know that, no matter what we do, we cannot get laid to save our lives. And I mean this in a very literal sense.

The Blue Pill - The Hope

Honestly, I'm outright tired of addressing why The Blue Pill is wrong so many times, only for us to be strawmanned anyways. To put it simply, The Blue Pilled really do believe in a Just World Fallacy. Men who are friendly and fun get laid, men who are rude and, well, evil don't. That is the extend of their philosophical rigor. No explanation for the divorce epidemic, hybristophilia, celebrity obsession, ancestral sexual success, or harems. They just believe a nice guy can't be nice unless he regularly slays pussy. In fact, men who sexually succeed can't be assholes, because women want them. The real truth is somewhere in between, but Blue Pill refuses to admit women can be shallow at every turn.

Our "personality" is the least of our problems. If The Blue Pill "theory" that misogyny is the cause of our virginity, and not the other way around, then we would have seen some sexual success while we still drank the Kool-Aid. In fact, many of us were just as Blue Pilled as the current posters (I certainly know I was). Yet female interest never happened. Their "theory" holds no water.

That's all I'm willing to say no Blue Pill nonsense. The more important issue is what The Red Pill exposes. Does The Red Pill hold any more water?

The Red Pill - The Cope

Ostensibly, The Red Pill uses real, evolutionary psychology to attain sex from nubile, fertile females. And on paper, much of what they write makes sense. Females are interested in musculature. Therefore, you must lift weights. Females are interested in social dominance. Therefore, you must pass shit tests, maintain frame, and acquire value. However, there is a world's difference from recognizing these attributes and being able to attain them yourself.

Men are both with a predisposition to certain personality traits. Some men have more testosterone and other hormones/enzymes to ward off fat and attain muscle mass. Kids don't exactly lift, but that doesn't change the fact we can tell who the jocks are by Junior High. A jock who has a dry spell can use this information to maximize his already top tier genes. A nerd or an Incel will find far fewer success.

Even if it is technically possible for a normie to become a muscle God, most normies lack the biological willpower to achieve the results. The "Alphas" of TRP CONSTANTLY praise the life changing effects of lifting. It will boost your confidence, make you slay pussy, and most importaly, make you feel like a GOD. Well, sorry, if lifting was actually the soul-cleansing activity TRP says it was, people would actually fucking do it. "Don't lift for pussy, do it for yourself!" is an absolute excuse for the back-breaking labor men do in their desperate attempt to get female sexual validation. If -people were sexually attracted to fatsos, every gym on the planet would look like a ghost town. Even when I tried to lift weights, I NEVER enjoyed it beyond the brief testosterone pulse afterwards. Yet, if I brought up this fact to a TRPer, they would be angrier than if I said I was going to rape their son. It is a cult to them, and they will not take any excuse for you to not join their religion. Apparently, you must do it for yourself, whenever you want to or not.

And what are the actual, on the field results behind the constant Alpha posturing? Well, as far as I know, no scientific study has been performed to measure the success of PUA/Red Pill philosophy. However, I will point out that, despite painting it like a miracle drug, one of the core tenants of The Red Pill is to expect constant failure in approaches

Some tidbits of Alphaness:

Buddy had a 3% rule... He'd go up to a girl, say," Nice shoes. Wanna fuck?" He got slapped a lot. But also got laid a lot too. There is no lose. You win or you learn.
Tinder I have around 200 matches(3 1/2 months) and Ive banged 11
Out of the 160 openers, I have a 5.00% success rate in landing a date. And out of the 160 openers, I got laid 3.13% of the time
You're looking at about 3% (sex) for a daygame cold approach.
I asked out over 200 women. In the end, I got 60 numbers, 2 dates, and 0 lays.

You will never see this be advertised by whatever posturing douchebag, trying to peddle his advice to ugly, impressionable men. Even with all of the self-improvement in the world, your chances still remain in the low single digits. Its almost like self-improvement and game aren't particularly effective!

I'd like to believe that Red Pill Knowledge has at least SOME effect, but it seems rather clear that not only is there no evidence TRP will make you a pussy slayer.

The Black Pill - The Rope

The ultimate conclusion one has to make is that most females look at the same type of attractive man, that is largely determined by biological factors. Lifting will not change your face. Game won't remove your autism. And concepts like abundance mentality and dread game are impossible to achieve unless you're already sexually and financially successful. You can't have abundance when you fail 97 tries out of 100, or are a kissless, hugless, romanceless virgin. Nothing you read on the web is going to make you wealthy, and for as many ventures that succeed, many more will fail.

The Black Pill is the ultimate representation of reality. Most pussy slayers have never even heard of The Red Pill or Game. Yet they still slay pussy. This is because they were born as Chad Thundercock, not made.

As Incels, the moment we reached out-of-college age without losing our V-cards, all hope is lost. Maybe if we become rich we'll get laid. MAYBE. But there is no point in dedicating our lives to the gym nor haranging every single female we need in "Day Game". We are virgins because we are unattractive: nothing but a miracle will change that.

This is fundamentally a question about illegalism. And there are two questions nestled in here: why do you personally choose to work wage labor instead of crime, and why should people submit to wage labor instead of committing crimes?
When the term “wage slavery” entered the vernacular, it was contemporary with American chattel slavery. It wasn't socialists, or Marxists, etc. that used it. It was slavery abolitionists. Two prominent examples are Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe. While Africans and African descendants were being whipped and killed, some of those who escaped would turn around and compare their previous condition as chattel slaves to their new condition as wage slaves. Thus, it's not a new term, it isn't something invented by academics, socialists, anarchists, or modern anti-capitalists. It was originally a statement that wage relationships are literal slavery. I want everyone to keep this fact in mind, to help frame where I am going with this.

Further, when I say “choose” in the title I don't mean it in the pseudo-choice “voluntaryist” sense, as if either crime or wage slavery are free, peaceful, or voluntary arrangements. But I do mean it in an absurdist or existentialist sense, in that you can in fact wake up one day and decide to go to work at Subway or choose to rob Subway. Alternately, you can choose to lay in bed for days at a time, or hang yourself by a rope in your closet. This does not deny the material conditions that influence one decision over the next (e.g. the consequences of working at Subway versus the consequences of robbing Subway), but rather affirms what Jean-Paul Sartre called “radical freedom.” You don't have to submit, although there may be consequences for not submitting.

I actually don't expect the few illegalists here to answer, and I might even discourage it. I don't want anyone to implicate themselves in a crime. I want you to keep going strong. I'm interested in hearing why people have chosen to submit to wage slavery versus crime. To go back to the first framing point: there were slaves who submitted to slavery, and there were slaves who started insurrections, fought masters, got beaten, got killed, or ran away and escaped. Why are you in the first category (the wage slave who submits) and not the second category (the slave refuses to submit)? If we truly believe that wage slavery is slavery, why are so few anarchists willing to reject wage slavery in full, throw it off, and lay down their own lives (or at least take the high risks of crime) instead of enduring slavery?

In an earlier comment on a different topic I said that I didn't trust anarchists who had not been arrested. This was unpopular. Probably because most anarchists (especially the American Reddit demographic) are not criminals, are not illegalists, and have not been arrested. However, I don't mean this to be a personal attack. The purpose of direct action/illegalist/insurrectionist groups is criminal. You have to be able to trust those people. And a good way of knowing if someone can be trusted, of knowing if someone can handle the inevitable interrogation and criminal justice ringer, is if they've caved under pressure or resisted in the past. If someone has been arrested and they didn't snitch, that's a good sign you can trust them. Further, if someone has been arrested and they did snitch, you've weeded them out. This does not even need to be a political/social/anarchist crime. It reflects upon how well someone is able to cope with arrest and provides an indication of their trustworthiness and dependability.

This is not “who is a better anarchist.” It's a practical tactic for forming illegalist, insurrectionist, and direct action groups with people you can trust.
(I wont go into people who are arrested and become informants, unfortunately you just may not know. And so there are some limitations here. But, in most cases, if someone is arrested and snitches you will find out during the legal discovery process or the street grapevine.)
There was one response that said I “glorify crime,” “romanticize crime,” or something to that effect. Friends, if you've read any illegalist literature, it all glorifies and romanticizes crime. The act of crime in and of itself, be it illegalist (e.g. for your own financial gain to avoid wage slavery) or insurrectionist (illegal, but for political/anti-political and without lucrative purpose), is supposed to be liberating. In fact, every time someone posts a picture of a riot, a burnt police car, calls an arrested anarchist a hero, etc. they're glorifying crime. Look at Bonanno's "Armed Joy" - does this not glorify crime?

Now, there is no glory and nothing romantic about prison. Prison sucks. There is nothing glorious about a lynched slave. But this does not mean that crime itself is neither glorious nor romantic, nor liberating, nor joyful, nor beautiful. We don't blame the anarchist criminal here for being a victim. We blame the prisons. We blame the lynchers. The anarchist criminal is not at fault. The state, the prisons, and the police are. As a minor footnote, in anarchist revolutions past and present (Spain and Rojava), “martyrs” were/are glorified and elevated. In Spain, militias were named after anarchists killed in heroic attacks on fascists. In Rojava, there are murals painted and walls plastered with the pictures of revolutionaries who died fighting Daesh.

There's nothing great about getting killed, either. But this does not mean that getting killed – or going to prison, or getting arrested – is not the inevitable consequence a heroic revolutionary act. In fact, it's something you have to accept as a revolutionary, an illegalist. It's something everyone who fought in Spain, or who are currently fighting in Rojava, have accepted. Thus it is both an inevitable and necessary act of individual and collective revolutionary struggle. We should treat the anarchist martyr, the illegalist, or the prisoner, the same way we we would treat the failed runaway slave, or the failed slave revolt leaders, who are ultimately caught and killed by slave hunters. They were brave, they tried, they didn't make it, but maybe someone else will. Who condemns the runaway slave for trying to escape?

Why, then, is there so much opposition to crime from anarchists? Not necessarily in word (although also, unfortunately, a lot in word), but in deed. And why do so few anarchists seem to be criminals (at least in the USA)? What is holding you back, exactly? Why isn't illegalism a real trend – and not only a trend, but the most prominent trend – for anarchists?