Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Based How to end involuntary celibacy once and for all.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 42964
  • Start date
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
The reason I am writing this post is because I believe the answer to the problem that is involuntary celibacy is way simpler than most people seem to realize. One day I will write a long manifesto on society and the damned human race, and probably, a portion of said manifesto will be dedicated to talking about this.

First of all, I have seen many users who seem to have a very low regard of themselves and consider themselves inferior to chads, to the point of calling themselves "subhuman". I can't speak for all users of this forum, but I believe this mentality is flawed because the only reason any man is inferior to other is one and only one: women. In a world without women, a chad is not superior to a virgin in any way, as that is only a social superiority, and it is only in a social hierarchy that a chad can stand over the incels. We can, for instance, take physical attractiveness. In a world where women did not exist, there would be no such thing as "physical attractiveness", except for fags of course. Physical attractiveness, even though I will not say is a "social construct", the importance of it is largely social and due to the disgrace that was women's liberation for Western society, which was caused by the Jewish-feminist agenda.

To go in depth into this, we must realize that, before the sexual revolution and women's liberation, going back to, for instance, the mid-20th century, women did not follow the same criteria as they do now when they had to choose a man. What I mean by this, is that men who nowadays would've likely been incels, were no strangers to love and sex. Now, I am not going to pretend this is because women weren't as stupid as today 70 years ago. Women have always been unintelligent beings. The reason behind this, was of course, the influence derived from centuries of social and state-imposed monogamy, which is one of the few good things brought to the White world by Jewish-Christianity. In the 1950s and early 60s, teen girls were considerably less promiscuous and shallow-minded than nowadays, and as a result, it was very common to see girls get engaged at a very young age with decent young men who are far from the jock ape-like stereotype of today's chad. I repeat, this is not because women's instincts have been perverted by the Jews; I believe they've always been perverted. What I mean to say is, the natural perversion of female sexuality could be corrected for centuries thanks to the influence of monogamist societies. I believe feminism hasn't perverted women. It is more correct to say that it has reminded them who they really are. Women's liberation has served to create a status quo in which women follow their most basic instincts from thousands of years ago. A good example of why women are mentally weak, is that, when left unsupervised, they cannot overcome their ancient instincts that date back to the Ice Age, their instincts of going for the most brute man possible to defend them. Of course, those instincts are ridiculous nowadays, as physical strength is not essential to survive in today's society, but women's brains are flawed, and they can't go beyond their primitive instincts, unlike men.

Feminism is, on essence, a female-supremacist movement, even if they have always tried to say it consists of trying to achieve legal equality between males and females. Of course, that is ridiculous, because that already exists. It's called classical liberalism. Therefore, if somebody defends legal equality between males and females, he is a classical liberal, not a feminist. Feminism is, and has always been, a left-wing movement, and as all left-wing movement, it has been a tool used by the Jews to corrupt Western society. Feminism has brought the so-called "women's liberation", which I'd say could be traced back to the late 60's-early 70's, specially thanks to the influence of the cultural revolution and the fucking Jewish hippies. In the first half of the 60s, we had beautiful teen girl singers with sweet innocent looks, such as Linda Scott, Little Peggy March, Rosie Hamlin, or Mary Weiss, the lead singer of the Shangri-Las (who is a Mischling, but she was one of the most beautiful Jewish girls I've ever seen). By the end of the 60s, we had drug-addicted whores such as Janis Joplin. All thanks to the perverted influence of the red Jewish hippies.

Women's liberation has only shown the world that women, when left unsupervised, they fall prey to their most basic and primitive instincts and they create a social hierarchy among men, in which the brute, stupid, ape-like individuals, who should be the least desirable individuals nowadays, are instead rewarded with love and even more so, sex, over intelligent, albeit physically weak men. Women's sexuality is flawed and they are mentally ill by nature. They cannot be left unsupervised, because that will only lead to the destruction of the species as we know it. Women need to be look after in order to prevent them from destroying our race by breeding with sub-human individuals.

Many users, specially those who are ethnics, have said that White women prefer White men over any other race because they find them more attractive. I think there are some subtleties to that. I do agree that Whites are the most attractive race. However, I do not think women value attractiveness as much as they do value more superfluous aspects, such as height, physical strength and penis length. Their natural instinct is to look for brute, strong, big men, and those men being handsome is not really important. They'll often go with chads who are disgustingly ugly but have all the characteristics they find attractive on the male gender. The same way, there's many handsome men who are either physically weak or short, or both, and will experience many more difficulties than chads to find a girlfriend. Also, it is obvious White women prefer White men because it is natural to have a preference to breed with your own kind. Blacks mostly breed with Blacks; Asians mostly breed with Asians; Latinos mostly breed with Latinas, etc. However, it is also true that many White women nowadays like to go for Blacks, Latinos, Gypsies or Moors, because they very often fit the stereotype of brute men they like, and because feminism is an anti-White male movement, many women feel like they're fulfilling an important social task in ending "racism" by dating these Untermensch. Also, there's the obvious fact that Blacks and Latinos, and other non-White ethnicities, have a large penis size on average, which is something they give great importance to. For that reason, they don't tend to like Asians. Asians are often the representation of what they don't like in White men. They're often skinny, have small penises, they're often short, and they're often quite unattractive. Women like brutes.

The lesson we can take from all this is that, again, women cannot be left unsupervised because their minds are flawed, and that prevents them from overcoming their most primitive natural instincts. Here is where the solution to inceldom comes into play. The only solution to the current social hierarchy between chads and incels is by reducing females to the category of property. Females, as I said, are dependent on males. They cannot be independent, because giving women independence leads to the decadence of society, as has been proven over the last half-century. The only solution is a patriarchal system. I, as an ancap, propose an anarchist society based male supremacism. Since women cannot be left unsupervised, they should be treated like property. The way children are the property of their parents, women would be property of their father, and later of their husband. This would mean women could be bought and sold, both as sex slaves or as simple spouses. This would help correct the perverted attitude of females in today's society by implanting an anarchist system where women are prevented from acting in their usual flawed instincts. I, as a White supremacist, would also advocate for reducing non-Whites, fags and mentally-handicapped to the category of property too. However, this could be a universal system. Even non-White users could agree with me on this: women must be put under the control of a man. In any anarchist society, in any part of the world, this should be the socially accepted system. Here, women wouldn't do anything their father or husband doesn't allow them to. This would prevent women from freely going to college and waste their most fertile years on futile prospects such as becoming "independent" or recreationally getting as many degrees as they want to "free themselves from the chains of the patriarchy". If women were, as they are, allowed to do that, they wouldn't start having children until at least 35, way after the ideal period for having children, and because of their biological clock running out, they would often have one or two children at most. Women should be enslaved as a way to guarantee the preservation of the species, and in a patriarchal society, women would be prevented from irrationally pursuing futile interests without the support of their husband or father, and most importantly, it would finally end inceldom, as women could easily be bought by any male and would have no choice on who they marry. Either they would be bought, or they would be forced in an arranged marriage by their father.

Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
Hoodedn1inja20

Hoodedn1inja20

(The Black Pill Reigns Supreme)
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Posts
15,988
Online
70d 10h 33m
The solution is taking all of foids rights away and sending them back to the kitchen.

Bring back arranged marriages also and looksmatch every couple.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
The solution is taking all of foids rights away and sending them back to the kitchen.

Bring back arranged marriages also and looksmatch every couple.
Agreed.
 
LeFrenchCel

LeFrenchCel

Better run, better run, outrun my gun (in vidya)
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Posts
5,957
Online
48d 2h 5m
The solution is taking all of foids rights away and sending them back to the kitchen.

Bring back arranged marriages also and looksmatch every couple.
:yes:
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
The solution is taking all of foids rights away and sending them back to the kitchen.

Bring back arranged marriages also and looksmatch every couple.
I gotta say though, I approve the arranged marriages part, but the "looksmatch" part is subjective. A father will choose who his daughter will marry and he shall be free to do so without being ruled by a "looksmatch" principle, specially because that is subjective. Looks are not important. Women will marry who they're told to marry. Full stop. Either they will marry who their father says, or they will be bought by whoever has enough money and is interested in her. Looks are not important. That's my point. Incels would not exist because looks would not be important. Only money would be, so there would not be a social hierarchy based on chads and virgins because every man could get a woman easily. They'd be property. They'd have no choice in the matter. Simple as that.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
@HighTGymcel thoughts?
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
The reason I am writing this post is because I believe the answer to the problem that is involuntary celibacy is way simpler than most people seem to realize. One day I will write a long manifesto on society and the damned human race, and probably, a portion of said manifesto will be dedicated to talking about this.

First of all, I have seen many users who seem to have a very low regard of themselves and consider themselves inferior to chads, to the point of calling themselves "subhuman". I can't speak for all users of this forum, but I believe this mentality is flawed because the only reason any man is inferior to other is one and only one: women. In a world without women, a chad is not superior to a virgin in any way, as that is only a social superiority, and it is only in a social hierarchy that a chad can stand over the incels. We can, for instance, take physical attractiveness. In a world where women did not exist, there would be no such thing as "physical attractiveness", except for fags of course. Physical attractiveness, even though I will not say is a "social construct", the importance of it is largely social and due to the disgrace that was women's liberation for Western society, which was caused by the Jewish-feminist agenda.

To go in depth into this, we must realize that, before the sexual revolution and women's liberation, going back to, for instance, the mid-20th century, women did not follow the same criteria as they do now when they had to choose a man. What I mean by this, is that men who nowadays would've likely been incels, were no strangers to love and sex. Now, I am not going to pretend this is because women weren't as stupid as today 70 years ago. Women have always been unintelligent beings. The reason behind this, was of course, the influence derived from centuries of social and state-imposed monogamy, which is one of the few good things brought to the White world by Jewish-Christianity. In the 1950s and early 60s, teen girls were considerably less promiscuous and shallow-minded than nowadays, and as a result, it was very common to see girls get engaged at a very young age with decent young men who are far from the jock ape-like stereotype of today's chad. I repeat, this is not because women's instincts have been perverted by the Jews; I believe they've always been perverted. What I mean to say is, the natural perversion of female sexuality could be corrected for centuries thanks to the influence of monogamist societies. I believe feminism hasn't perverted women. It is more correct to say that it has reminded them who they really are. Women's liberation has served to create a status quo in which women follow their most basic instincts from thousands of years ago. A good example of why women are mentally weak, is that, when left unsupervised, they cannot overcome their ancient instincts that date back to the Ice Age, their instincts of going for the most brute man possible to defend them. Of course, those instincts are ridiculous nowadays, as physical strength is not essential to survive in today's society, but women's brains are flawed, and they can't go beyond their primitive instincts, unlike men.

Feminism is, on essence, a female-supremacist movement, even if they have always tried to say it consists of trying to achieve legal equality between males and females. Of course, that is ridiculous, because that already exists. It's called classical liberalism. Therefore, if somebody defends legal equality between males and females, he is a classical liberal, not a feminist. Feminism is, and has always been, a left-wing movement, and as all left-wing movement, it has been a tool used by the Jews to corrupt Western society. Feminism has brought the so-called "women's liberation", which I'd say could be traced back to the late 60's-early 70's, specially thanks to the influence of the cultural revolution and the fucking Jewish hippies. In the first half of the 60s, we had beautiful teen girl singers with sweet innocent looks, such as Linda Scott, Little Peggy March, Rosie Hamlin, or Mary Weiss, the lead singer of the Shangri-Las (who is a Mischling, but she was one of the most beautiful Jewish girls I've ever seen). By the end of the 60s, we had drug-addicted whores such as Janis Joplin. All thanks to the perverted influence of the red Jewish hippies.

Women's liberation has only shown the world that women, when left unsupervised, they fall prey to their most basic and primitive instincts and they create a social hierarchy among men, in which the brute, stupid, ape-like individuals, who should be the least desirable individuals nowadays, are instead rewarded with love and even more so, sex, over intelligent, albeit physically weak men. Women's sexuality is flawed and they are mentally ill by nature. They cannot be left unsupervised, because that will only lead to the destruction of the species as we know it. Women need to be look after in order to prevent them from destroying our race by breeding with sub-human individuals.

Many users, specially those who are ethnics, have said that White women prefer White men over any other race because they find them more attractive. I think there are some subtleties to that. I do agree that Whites are the most attractive race. However, I do not think women value attractiveness as much as they do value more superfluous aspects, such as height, physical strength and penis length. Their natural instinct is to look for brute, strong, big men, and those men being handsome is not really important. They'll often go with chads who are disgustingly ugly but have all the characteristics they find attractive on the male gender. The same way, there's many handsome men who are either physically weak or short, or both, and will experience many more difficulties than chads to find a girlfriend. Also, it is obvious White women prefer White men because it is natural to have a preference to breed with your own kind. Blacks mostly breed with Blacks; Asians mostly breed with Asians; Latinos mostly breed with Latinas, etc. However, it is also true that many White women nowadays like to go for Blacks, Latinos, Gypsies or Moors, because they very often fit the stereotype of brute men they like, and because feminism is an anti-White male movement, many women feel like they're fulfilling an important social task in ending "racism" by dating these Untermensch. Also, there's the obvious fact that Blacks and Latinos, and other non-White ethnicities, have a large penis size on average, which is something they give great importance to. For that reason, they don't tend to like Asians. Asians are often the representation of what they don't like in White men. They're often skinny, have small penises, they're often short, and they're often quite unattractive. Women like brutes.

The lesson we can take from all this is that, again, women cannot be left unsupervised because their minds are flawed, and that prevents them from overcoming their most primitive natural instincts. Here is where the solution to inceldom comes into play. The only solution to the current social hierarchy between chads and incels is by reducing females to the category of property. Females, as I said, are dependent on males. They cannot be independent, because giving women independence leads to the decadence of society, as has been proven over the last half-century. The only solution is a patriarchal system. I, as an ancap, propose an anarchist society based male supremacism. Since women cannot be left unsupervised, they should be treated like property. The way children are the property of their parents, women would be property of their father, and later of their husband. This would mean women could be bought and sold, both as sex slaves or as simple spouses. This would help correct the perverted attitude of females in today's society by implanting an anarchist system where women are prevented from acting in their usual flawed instincts. I, as a White supremacist, would also advocate for reducing non-Whites, fags and mentally-handicapped to the category of property too. However, this could be a universal system. Even non-White users could agree with me on this: women must be put under the control of a man. In any anarchist society, in any part of the world, this should be the socially accepted system. Here, women wouldn't do anything their father or husband doesn't allow them to. This would prevent women from freely going to college and waste their most fertile years on futile prospects such as becoming "independent" or recreationally getting as many degrees as they want to "free themselves from the chains of the patriarchy". If women were, as they are, allowed to do that, they wouldn't start having children until at least 35, way after the ideal period for having children, and because of their biological clock running out, they would often have one or two children at most. Women should be enslaved as a way to guarantee the preservation of the species, and in a patriarchal society, women would be prevented from irrationally pursuing futile interests without the support of their husband or father, and most importantly, it would finally end inceldom, as women could easily be bought by any male and would have no choice on who they marry. Either they would be bought, or they would be forced in an arranged marriage by their father.

Thanks for reading.
Read, high IQ post.

Some objections:
Face is the most important factor
Foids being bought and sold doesnt promote monogamy
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Read, high IQ post.

Some objections:
Face is the most important factor
Foids being bought and sold doesnt promote monogamy
When I say "monogamy", I mean monogamy for females. If females are property, they're gonna be monogamous because they can only be fucked by their husband-owner. Obviously, a man could have multiple sex slaves, but this system would guarantee female monogamy, and females must be monogamous. A man impregnating several woman serves to perpetuate the species. A woman who fucks every man she sees is a whore. Simple as that.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
When I say "monogamy", I mean monogamy for females. If females are property, they're gonna be monogamous because they can only be fucked by their husband-owner. Obviously, a man could have multiple sex slaves, but this system would guarantee female monogamy, and females must be monogamous. A man impregnating several woman serves to perpetuate the species. A woman who fucks every man she sees is a whore. Simple as that.
If a man can fuck several foids but foids cant fuck more than one men there are gonna be men without sex. This system doesnt seem the best for fastbananacels :feelsugh:
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
If a man can fuck several foids but foids cant fuck more than one men there are gonna be men without sex. This system doesnt seem the best for fastbananacels :feelsugh:
The only men without sex are gonna be the ones who don't buy a woman. If they want a woman, it's as easy as buying a woman, the way you would buy a dog or a cat.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
The only men without sex are gonna be the ones who don't buy a woman. If they want a woman, it's as easy as buying a woman, the way you would buy a dog or a cat.
Also, I forgot to mention. Obviously I support the decriminalization of incest, so men who wish to could marry their sisters or cousins if they are allowed to.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
The only men without sex are gonna be the ones who don't buy a woman. If they want a woman, it's as easy as buying a woman, the way you would buy a dog or a cat.
Bro for every 1 man there is approximately 1 foid. This means that if every man bought 1 foid they would be an affordable price. In your system 20% of the most richest men will buy 80% of the foids for their private sex islands and lolita expresses. This leaves 20% of the foids for the bottom 80% of men. Thats 0.25 foids per man. Only 20% of men would be able to afford the rest if they bought one each. This means 60% of men would be without foids!!!:feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod: This is actually a worse system than polygamy because it makes polyamary accepted which means that mem can hog foids:feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope:. I say one each
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Bro for every 1 man there is approximately 1 foid. This means that if every man bought 1 foid they would be an affordable price. In your system 20% of the most richest men will buy 80% of the foids for their private sex islands and lolita expresses. This leaves 20% of the foids for the bottom 80% of men. Thats 0.25 foids per man. Only 20% of men would be able to afford the rest if they bought one each. This means 60% of men would be without foids!!!:feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod: This is actually a worse system than polygamy because it makes polyamary accepted which means that mem can hog foids:feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope:. I say one each
Well, as I said I support incest. Therefore, if a man buys just one woman, he can create more. He can have plenty of daughters, and when they grow up and enter their teen years, use them as sexual partners. Also, you're assuming all foids would be sold. Many of them would be forced into arranged marriages. Also, since each foid would do what she was told to, there would be foids who would be shared between several males. Sort of a Junko Furuta case. If women are property, they could be forced to sell their bodies by their husbands. Access to women would be way easier for every male than it is nowadays. Anyone could access them. They could be bought, sold, fabricated, shared, etc.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Well, as I said I support incest. Therefore, if a man buys just one woman, he can create more. He can have plenty of daughters, and when they grow up and enter their teen years, use them as sexual partners. Also, you're assuming all foids would be sold. Many of them would be forced into arranged marriages. Also, since each foid would do what she was told to, there would be foids who would be shared between several males. Sort of a Junko Furuta case. If women are property, they could be forced to sell their bodies by their husbands. Access to women would be way easier for every male than it is nowadays. Anyone could access them. They could be bought, sold, fabricated, shared, etc.
Plus, you gotta realize, classifying women as property is capitalizing women. It's no different that legalizing all sorts of drugs and firearms. Capitalism is always good. The more free the economy is, the more prosperous a country becomes. The less regulated the market is, the most efficient it is. If women are freely used and traded as property, they will be easier to access than ever.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Well, as I said I support incest. Therefore, if a man buys just one woman, he can create more. He can have plenty of daughters, and when they grow up and enter their teen years, use them as sexual partners. Also, you're assuming all foids would be sold. Many of them would be forced into arranged marriages. Also, since each foid would do what she was told to, there would be foids who would be shared between several males. Sort of a Junko Furuta case. If women are property, they could be forced to sell their bodies by their husbands. Access to women would be way easier for every male than it is nowadays. Anyone could access them. They could be bought, sold, fabricated, shared, etc.
Still seems like your system would breed incels. Also sharing a foid:feelsugh:, not ideal. One each is the best way to keep a sane society:feelsthink:. Inbreeding leads to retardation
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Plus, you gotta realize, classifying women as property is capitalizing women. It's no different that legalizing all sorts of drugs and firearms. Capitalism is always good. The more free the economy is, the more prosperous a country becomes. The less regulated the market is, the most efficient it is. If women are freely used and traded as property, they will be easier to access than ever.
This sounds like a recipe for abortions of male infants.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Still seems like your system would breed incels. Also sharing a foid:feelsugh:, not idea. One each is the best way to keep a sane society:feelsthink:. Inbreeding leads to retardation
Well, it doesn't necessarily lead to retardation, and if it does, so what? Mentally retarded would be considered Untermensch and therefore, classified as property too. Also, since they are Untermensch, they would be free to kill them with no restrictions, as they are not human, they are subhuman. Personally, depending on the level of retardation, I might keep them. If it's a girl, I might keep her for affective and sexual purposes. If it's a boy, I might not, but I could keep him as a slave to do work for me.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
This sounds like a recipe for abortions of male infants.
Seems like you value human life way more than me. I believe in perpetuating the species. I don't care much for the individual. Also, not necessarily. I mean, if all men are aborted, who's gonna impregnate the women in the future?
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Well, it doesn't necessarily lead to retardation, and if it does, so what? Mentally retarded would be considered Untermensch and therefore, classified as property too. Also, since they are Untermensch, they would be free to kill them with no restrictions, as they are not human, they are subhuman. Personally, depending on the level of retardation, I might keep them. If it's a girl, I might keep her for affective and sexual purposes. If it's a boy, I might not, but I could keep him as a slave to do work for me.
So youre gonna create a class of low iq incel slaves.... Id rather just give foids freedom
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
So youre gonna create a class of low iq incel slaves.... Id rather just give foids freedom
Why would you give foids freedom? Nothing good ever comes from it. It has been proven. Also, what's the problem of creating subhumans if they're gonna be used for subhuman purposes? If we're gonna keep the Untermensch alive, might as well get something useful out of them.
 
Hairline Subhuman

Hairline Subhuman

They want to send me in PH AGAIN :)
★★★★
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Posts
1,853
Online
26d 11h 38m
The government should give me a fucking foids as property so I can beat her if i want :feelsaww:
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Seems like you value human life way more than me. I believe in perpetuating the species. I don't care much for the individual. Also, not necessarily. I mean, if all men are aborted, who's gonna impregnate the women in the future?
I believe in the life of men. Incels in particular. If a system isnt suited to benfiting incels not only will I not approve but also the society will collapse from unrest. So its objectively a bad system.

I didnt say all men will be aborted. I mean that men will be aborted because people will start procreating to make money and male babies will be useless for their purpouse.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
The government should give me a fucking foids as property so I can beat her if i want :feelsaww:
Well, not the government because then we'd be using the State. I would have to write even a more extensive thread on why the State is evil and the only legitimate system is an anarchy of private property aka anarcho-capitalism.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Why would you give foids freedom? Nothing good ever comes from it. It has been proven. Also, what's the problem of creating subhumans if they're gonna be used for subhuman purposes? If we're gonna keep the Untermensch alive, might as well get something useful out of them.
because your system is so bad for incels I would rather live in a society where foids have freedom. I know that foids having freedom is horrible for incels. The problem with creating incels is that you are punishing them with your system for their entire lives. Incel lives matter.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
I believe in the life of men. Incels in particular. If a system isnt suited to benfiting incels not only will I not approve but also the society will collapse from unrest. So its objectively a bad system.

I didnt say all men will be aborted. I mean that men will be aborted because people will start procreating to make money and male babies will be useless for their purpouse.
Well, the life of men is useless as is the life of women. The only purpose of individuals is keeping the species alive and prosper. If they are not useful for that purpose, there's no reason to keep them alive, as human life has no objective value or purpose aside from the objective biological natural purpose of perpetuating the species. Individuals are unimportant. That's why murder is justifiable. Death, as life, is meaningless. My system doesn't just benefit incels, it benefits everybody. Inceldom would become extinct because every man could easily access to women.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
because your system is so bad for incels I would rather live in a society where foids have freedom. I know that foids having freedom is horrible for incels. The problem with creating incels is that you are punishing them with your system for their entire lives. Incel lives matter.
My system is ideal for incels because there's no system where losing your virginity is easier than in mine.
 
RuudVanNistelrooy

RuudVanNistelrooy

i'm far from the star
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Posts
3,956
Online
55d 6h 59m
At the end of the day when your head hits the pillow and the ego start to dissolute you know you SMV. For example i was incel even before Tinder and a fourth wave of feminism.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Well, the life of men is useless as is the life of women. The only purpose of individuals is keeping the species alive and prosper. If they are not useful for that purpose, there's no reason to keep them alive, as human life has no objective value or purpose aside from the objective biological natural purpose of perpetuating the species. Individuals are unimportant. That's why murder is justifiable. Death, as life, is meaningless. My system doesn't just benefit incels, it benefits everybody. Inceldom would become extinct because every man could easily access to women.
Even if you wanted to perpetuate your system, it wouldnt work because there would be an incelvolution. A too big portion of the population would be without pussy which would lead to chaos. The purpouse of humanity should be to keep an incel society alive and prospering, not your hell.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Even if you wanted to perpetuate your system, it wouldnt work because there would be an incelvolution. A too big portion of the population would be without pussy which would lead to chaos. The purpouse of humanity should be to keep an incel society alive and prospering, not your hell.
Again, explain how a big portion of the population would be without pussy. Obviously in that society it would be way easier to get a pussy than it is in current society. If you lived under my system, you wouldn't be on this forum.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
Even if you wanted to perpetuate your system, it wouldnt work because there would be an incelvolution. A too big portion of the population would be without pussy which would lead to chaos. The purpouse of humanity should be to keep an incel society alive and prospering, not your hell.
Also, the more free is the women market, the easier it will be to get women because the richer the average man will be. As with any other market. Where is it easier to get guns? In the US or in France? Where is it easier to get weed? In Canada or in Indonesia? Capitalism is only beneficial. The more capitalism, the richer the population is, and the richer the population is, the more women they will be able to buy. Capitalism is the perfect system for everybody. If you deny that, you're just having a socialist shallow-mindset about my system. The more economic freedom, the better is the quality of life and the richer the individual is. The more capitalism, the more women you will be able to get. Simple as that.
 
JonathanTookerFan

JonathanTookerFan

The King
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Posts
392
Online
5d 21h 5m
Again, explain how a big portion of the population would be without pussy. Obviously in that society it would be way easier to get a pussy than it is in current society. If you lived under my system, you wouldn't be on this forum.
A big portion of the population would be without pussy because:
1. Large majority of population will only have access to disgusting prostitutes (which is no diffetent to incels right now) as all of the rich will hog the foids.
2. The incel slave class (which will be a large portion of the population) wont even have the chance to see foids because of the conditions they will be forced to work in.
Also, the more free is the women market, the easier it will be to get women because the richer the average man will be. As with any other market. Where is it easier to get guns? In the US or in France? Where is it easier to get weed? In Canada or in Indonesia? Capitalism is only beneficial. The more capitalism, the richer the population is, and the richer the population is, the more women they will be able to buy. Capitalism is the perfect system for everybody. If you deny that, you're just having a socialist shallow-mindset about my system. The more economic freedom, the better is the quality of life and the richer the individual is. The more capitalism, the more women you will be able to get. Simple as that.
Capitalism is good but it means that most money is held by the rich. This isnt bad for things like food. The rich could hog all the food and starve the rest of the population easily, but why would they? Having more food than the average man is just painful and unhealthy. This is the same for TVs, the rich could easily buy all the TVs off the market, but why would they? Once you have one TV you already have the benefits of having a TV. For these things capitalism works and is a great system.

Foids, however, are a very unique resource. Men are evolutionarily incentivised to have as many foids as possible. As rich will have the money to hog all the fois and the incentive to they will hog all the foids. Since there is only 1 foid for every man the rich doesnt have to hog that many for there to start being problems. And changing the male to female ratio would mean killing infants because they are male or putting them into an enslaved incel class that is banned from accessing prime pussy.
 
Deleted member 42964

Deleted member 42964

Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
Joined
May 15, 2022
Posts
490
Online
3d 8h 32m
A big portion of the population would be without pussy because:
1. Large majority of population will only have access to disgusting prostitutes (which is no diffetent to incels right now) as all of the rich will hog the foids.
2. The incel slave class (which will be a large portion of the population) wont even have the chance to see foids because of the conditions they will be forced to work in.

Capitalism is good but it means that most money is held by the rich. This isnt bad for things like food. The rich could hog all the food and starve the rest of the population easily, but why would they? Having more food than the average man is just painful and unhealthy. This is the same for TVs, the rich could easily buy all the TVs off the market, but why would they? Once you have one TV you already have the benefits of having a TV. For these things capitalism works and is a great system.

Foids, however, are a very unique resource. Men are evolutionarily incentivised to have as many foids as possible. As rich will have the money to hog all the fois and the incentive to they will hog all the foids. Since there is only 1 foid for every man the rich doesnt have to hog that many for there to start being problems. And changing the male to female ratio would mean killing infants because they are male or putting them into an enslaved incel class that is banned from accessing prime pussy.

1. I don't understand why a large majority would only have access to disgusting prostitutes. Again, women can be bought, and again, the longer we live in a free-market society, the richer the population becomes and the more of them will be able to buy more and more women.

2. What do you mean by "incel slave class"? Mentally-handicapped men? Obviously I am not worried at all that Down males are going to be enslaved and forbidden from getting women. They are inferior and they must be treated as such.

3. You'd be surprised to know how many males would be happy with just having one woman. You're assuming all rich men would buy thousands of women for themselves. I'd be happy with just one girl tbh. However, if my status in this prosperous society allows me to, I might buy others as sex slaves. The point is not all men want to have a harem for themselves. Even if they did, again, the richer a society is, the more women will the average man be able to buy, because women, unlike food or any other good, are infinite. They can be infinitely created. Any man who buys a woman or hires a woman for sex can produce as many women as he likes.

4. You're assuming people don't have any morals. You're assuming people in capitalism wouldn't care for life. As I said, I don't value human life too much, but most people don't think like me, as you, yourself, have proved. You're assuming people would only want to have children for financial gain and they would be willing to murder their own children. I would be willing to do that, but most people aren't like me. There are values and moral rules that are extended in almost every society, so those moral rules would limit the actions of the population. The Nazis, as I, believed in eugenics, but they were against abortion unless it was an Untermensch. Now, I do not oppose abortion, but my point is that the Nazis viewed every member of the White German race as valuable and believed their lives should be preserved under any circumstance. Those were their moral dogmas. People do have moral dogmas and those could be moral dogmas that would and already do exist in society. Almost no one is willing to murder. Even if they are willing to murder, for example, non-Whites, or mentally handicapped, it would be because they'd see them as inferior and subhuman. Therefore, they would have humanity in high regard and would not be willing to murder children just because. People do have unofficial moral rules. That's how an anarchist society without a government works. Social rules.
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Legend
★★★★
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
3,874
Online
59d 22h 4m
The reason I am writing this post is because I believe the answer to the problem that is involuntary celibacy is way simpler than most people seem to realize. One day I will write a long manifesto on society and the damned human race, and probably, a portion of said manifesto will be dedicated to talking about this.

First of all, I have seen many users who seem to have a very low regard of themselves and consider themselves inferior to chads, to the point of calling themselves "subhuman". I can't speak for all users of this forum, but I believe this mentality is flawed because the only reason any man is inferior to other is one and only one: women. In a world without women, a chad is not superior to a virgin.
in any way, as that is only a social superiority, and it is only in a social hierarchy that a chad can stand over the incels. We can, for instance, take physical attractiveness. In a world where women did not exist, there would be no such thing as "physical attractiveness", except for fags of course. Physical attractiveness, even though I will not say is a "social construct", the importance of it is largely social and due to the disgrace that was women's liberation for Western society, which was caused by the Jewish-feminist agenda.

To go in depth into this, we must realize that, before the sexual revolution and women's liberation, going back to, for instance, the mid-20th century, women did not follow the same criteria as they do now when they had to choose a man. What I mean by this, is that men who nowadays would've likely been incels, were no strangers to love and sex. Now, I am not going to pretend this is because women weren't as stupid as today 70 years ago. Women have always been unintelligent beings. The reason behind this, was of course, the influence derived from centuries of social and state-imposed monogamy, which is one of the few good things brought to the White world by Jewish-Christianity. In the 1950s and early 60s, teen girls were considerably less promiscuous and shallow-minded than nowadays, and as a result, it was very common to see girls get engaged at a very young age with decent young men who are far from the jock ape-like stereotype of today's chad. I repeat, this is not because women's instincts have been perverted by the Jews; I believe they've always been perverted. What I mean to say is, the natural perversion of female sexuality could be corrected for centuries thanks to the influence of monogamist societies. I believe feminism hasn't perverted women. It is more correct to say that it has reminded them who they really are. Women's liberation has served to create a status quo in which women follow their most basic instincts from thousands of years ago. A good example of why women are mentally weak, is that, when left unsupervised, they cannot overcome their ancient instincts that date back to the Ice Age, their instincts of going for the most brute man possible to defend them. Of course, those instincts are ridiculous nowadays, as physical strength is not essential to survive in today's society, but women's brains are flawed, and they can't go beyond their primitive instincts, unlike men.

Feminism is, on essence, a female-supremacist movement, even if they have always tried to say it consists of trying to achieve legal equality between males and females. Of course, that is ridiculous, because that already exists. It's called classical liberalism. Therefore, if somebody defends legal equality between males and females, he is a classical liberal, not a feminist. Feminism is, and has always been, a left-wing movement, and as all left-wing movement, it has been a tool used by the Jews to corrupt Western society. Feminism has brought the so-called "women's liberation", which I'd say could be traced back to the late 60's-early 70's, specially thanks to the influence of the cultural revolution and the fucking Jewish hippies. In the first half of the 60s, we had beautiful teen girl singers with sweet innocent looks, such as Linda Scott, Little Peggy March, Rosie Hamlin, or Mary Weiss, the lead singer of the Shangri-Las (who is a Mischling, but she was one of the most beautiful Jewish girls I've ever seen). By the end of the 60s, we had drug-addicted whores such as Janis Joplin. All thanks to the perverted influence of the red Jewish hippies.

Women's liberation has only shown the world that women, when left unsupervised, they fall prey to their most basic and primitive instincts and they create a social hierarchy among men, in which the brute, stupid, ape-like individuals, who should be the least desirable individuals nowadays, are instead rewarded with love and even more so, sex, over intelligent, albeit physically weak men. Women's sexuality is flawed and they are mentally ill by nature. They cannot be left unsupervised, because that will only lead to the destruction of the species as we know it. Women need to be look after in order to prevent them from destroying our race by breeding with sub-human individuals.

Many users, specially those who are ethnics, have said that White women prefer White men over any other race because they find them more attractive. I think there are some subtleties to that. I do agree that Whites are the most attractive race. However, I do not think women value attractiveness as much as they do value more superfluous aspects, such as height, physical strength and penis length. Their natural instinct is to look for brute, strong, big men, and those men being handsome is not really important. They'll often go with chads who are disgustingly ugly but have all the characteristics they find attractive on the male gender. The same way, there's many handsome men who are either physically weak or short, or both, and will experience many more difficulties than chads to find a girlfriend. Also, it is obvious White women prefer White men because it is natural to have a preference to breed with your own kind. Blacks mostly breed with Blacks; Asians mostly breed with Asians; Latinos mostly breed with Latinas, etc. However, it is also true that many White women nowadays like to go for Blacks, Latinos, Gypsies or Moors, because they very often fit the stereotype of brute men they like, and because feminism is an anti-White male movement, many women feel like they're fulfilling an important social task in ending "racism" by dating these Untermensch. Also, there's the obvious fact that Blacks and Latinos, and other non-White ethnicities, have a large penis size on average, which is something they give great importance to. For that reason, they don't tend to like Asians. Asians are often the representation of what they don't like in White men. They're often skinny, have small penises, they're often short, and they're often quite unattractive. Women like brutes.

The lesson we can take from all this is that, again, women cannot be left unsupervised because their minds are flawed, and that prevents them from overcoming their most primitive natural instincts. Here is where the solution to inceldom comes into play. The only solution to the current social hierarchy between chads and incels is by reducing females to the category of property. Females, as I said, are dependent on males. They cannot be independent, because giving women independence leads to the decadence of society, as has been proven over the last half-century. The only solution is a patriarchal system. I, as an ancap, propose an anarchist society based male supremacism. Since women cannot be left unsupervised, they should be treated like property. The way children are the property of their parents, women would be property of their father, and later of their husband. This would mean women could be bought and sold, both as sex slaves or as simple spouses. This would help correct the perverted attitude of females in today's society by implanting an anarchist system where women are prevented from acting in their usual flawed instincts. I, as a White supremacist, would also advocate for reducing non-Whites, fags and mentally-handicapped to the category of property too. However, this could be a universal system. Even non-White users could agree with me on this: women must be put under the control of a man. In any anarchist society, in any part of the world, this should be the socially accepted system. Here, women wouldn't do anything their father or husband doesn't allow them to. This would prevent women from freely going to college and waste their most fertile years on futile prospects such as becoming "independent" or recreationally getting as many degrees as they want to "free themselves from the chains of the patriarchy". If women were, as they are, allowed to do that, they wouldn't start having children until at least 35, way after the ideal period for having children, and because of their biological clock running out, they would often have one or two children at most. Women should be enslaved as a way to guarantee the preservation of the species, and in a patriarchal society, women would be prevented from irrationally pursuing futile interests without the support of their husband or father, and most importantly, it would finally end inceldom, as women could easily be bought by any male and would have no choice on who they marry. Either they would be bought, or they would be forced in an arranged marriage by their father.

Thanks for reading.
Patriarchal society, is not a terrible idea, but it has already been done. The belief you have that men would be able to keep from devolving without women is also not new. The issue you have is that even if you cover women up like they do in Islam, and try for a full blown society like this, the Alpha male instinct will still lead to decadence in society. Men seek approval from other men in fact, and women are vessel to get that validation. The game would continue in a society where we fully dominate women, in fact there would be EVEN MORE Chad-like behavior towards one another, NOT the other way around as you claim. I do admit that the basic idea is very tempting and I don't exactly hate it. But I know that until man-kind faces it's own sins the right way, we will not be rid of the force woman weild. Their power would come back THROUGH the men. Through us! The only way out is of everyone arrives to behave like a Beta male. I don't see this happening if we all have our fill of pretty women. Foids will again begin dictating how men behave with time, we fall back into the same predicament.
 
Revolution Needed 2

Revolution Needed 2

General of I.N.C.E.L. Special Ops
★★★★
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Posts
1,835
Online
10d 7h 30m
In anarchy women are always lower than males, especially in real anarchy which is not acap. Real anarchy has no rules
 
Revolution Needed 2

Revolution Needed 2

General of I.N.C.E.L. Special Ops
★★★★
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Posts
1,835
Online
10d 7h 30m
Bro for every 1 man there is approximately 1 foid. This means that if every man bought 1 foid they would be an affordable price. In your system 20% of the most richest men will buy 80% of the foids for their private sex islands and lolita expresses. This leaves 20% of the foids for the bottom 80% of men. Thats 0.25 foids per man. Only 20% of men would be able to afford the rest if they bought one each. This means 60% of men would be without foids!!!:feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod::feelsohgod: This is actually a worse system than polygamy because it makes polyamary accepted which means that mem can hog foids:feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsrope:. I say one each
anarcho capitalism is the same as state capitalism. How can you create rules to abide by and claim it is still anarchy? In any capitalism there is no justice, there is no equality, there will be losers and winners. For those who like to come up with stupid reasoning that if I am against capitalism that means I am for socialism go fuck yourself. Feudalism, communism/socialism and capitalism and LIFE ITSELF is all about winners and losers. Fuck universe
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top