ShiiOfTheSPLC
KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM
★★★★★
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2020
- Posts
- 17,961
this guy was a fucking visionary, this passage basically summarizes my entire socioeconomic analysis of women and it was written decades before any of us were born. there is no female equivalent to an incel or "tramp" (a man at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy) because women ALWAYS have a social safety net, courtesy of their vagina. pussy is a valuable and precious commodity, so just having a vagina ensures that women will be coddled, taken care of and provided for. society's #1 priority is ensuring that women ALWAYS have their financial, social and sexual needs met unconditionally. any less is seen as a travesty that has to be immediately rectified. men, on the contrary, are seen as expendable and no one cares if they're left to rot on the streets or kill themselves
and you KNOW that if he wrote this in 2021, feminists would respond by calling him an incel and saying he has a small dick (because they don't have any other way to refute it). props to @GeneticTrashLoser for finding this
"The second great evil of a tramp’s life—it seems much smaller at first sight, but it is a good second—is that he is entirely cut off from contact with women. This point needs elaborating.
Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male. The following figures, published by the L.G.C. from a night census taken on February 13th, 1931, will show the relative numbers of destitute men and destitute women:
Spending the night in the streets,
60 men, 18 women.[6]
In shelters and homes not licensed as common lodging-houses,
1,057 men, 137 women.
In the crypt of St Martin’s-in-the-Fields Church,
88 men, 12 women.
In L.C.C. casual wards and hostels,
674 men, 15 women.
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy. For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above—even a very little above—are as far out of his reach as the moon"
and you KNOW that if he wrote this in 2021, feminists would respond by calling him an incel and saying he has a small dick (because they don't have any other way to refute it). props to @GeneticTrashLoser for finding this
"The second great evil of a tramp’s life—it seems much smaller at first sight, but it is a good second—is that he is entirely cut off from contact with women. This point needs elaborating.
Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male. The following figures, published by the L.G.C. from a night census taken on February 13th, 1931, will show the relative numbers of destitute men and destitute women:
Spending the night in the streets,
60 men, 18 women.[6]
In shelters and homes not licensed as common lodging-houses,
1,057 men, 137 women.
In the crypt of St Martin’s-in-the-Fields Church,
88 men, 12 women.
In L.C.C. casual wards and hostels,
674 men, 15 women.
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy. For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above—even a very little above—are as far out of his reach as the moon"
Last edited: