Deleted member 42964
Today I am dirty, tomorrow I'll be just dirt.
-
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Posts
- 483
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.
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: