brutal same for me although im not from france.
i dont see the point in roping though.
I have 9mm
A
Stop the lifemogging that we have to suffer each hours of our miserable existences
If you are a NEET and you live with your parents you cant understand
That doesn't answer my question, I just asked what your height was. You don't have to tell me, but I told you my height and this reply just dodges the question: I didn't say frame. One can change their frame by either losing weight if they are overweight or working out and building muscle and bulking up if they are scrawny and unattractive as a result of that. One cannot change their height. Therefore, if a guy is suicidal due to not being able to get a relationship, it's different than if he is a shortcel than if he is not. This is why I asked what your height is. This is about as clear as I can be.
Why can NEETS "not understand?" This is a stupid notion. "You can't understand what I'm going through because you're a NEET!" I am a NEET and my existence is miserable.
I don't want suggest anything brothER, but Saint Marc Lépine was also a framcel arab, yet his actions made him immortal martyr for Blackpillists.
Yup, I am thinkin of doin the same this summER. What you gonna take? I'm going for test, but first i have to try a few months of natty to see if I need them at all. It could just be that until today I have not trained hard enough.
I would probably end up doing so just because I can't stand the heat
I am sincerely interested in your thoughts on this subject:
Why do you think committing suicide is letting them (normies, broader society, the system its rulers and institutions, people who variously don't give a shit about us and hate us, etc.) win?
It's interesting because actually a lot of guys argue that committing suicide is rebellious against them.
I think it could be argued that "staying alive in spite of everything" and killing oneself can both be construed as rebellious. There are valid arguments for both views.
The second question: in the case of deciding to stay alive, whether or not what one does or does not do within their life would make it less or more rebellious, and what courses would make that the case. Or is it that merely being alive constitutes "the rebellion," regardless of what one does? (this is clearly generally what guys here who say this think, but the question is: is this actually the correct view, or are they saying this to simply justify being "lazy" and not bothering to do things that would make their existence rebellious, or more rebellious if we adopt a view that incorporates both perspectives?)
Another matter: in the case of those who do decide to kill themselves, if some ways of doing this are more rebellious than others. Is going on a massacre more rebellious than merely taking one's own life? Does it matter if it's indiscriminate/civilian targets, or whether or not one targets something else? Would Elliot Rodger have been more rebellious if he managed to get inside the sorority and shoot foids? I am of the opinion that some targets are more rebellious than others, and don't think targeting civilians or just one sex of civilians over another is rebellious at all. I honestly won't pretend to think alike to how most Americans do about either 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. In that case, targets of power like the Pentagon and a government building were targeted due to legitimate grievances. (famous writer Gore Vidal wrote an entire book on both subjects where he agreed, called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace)
In the case of thinking suicide rebellious, there is undoubtedly some truth to this, even if you disagree with the conclusion: because the reason society discourages us from killing ourselves is obviously not because they care about us, but is a combination of the general instinctual social reflex to not have the humans in the society around you kill themselves, and the obvious fact that the system wants more wage-slaves and consumers, so it would never go completely out of its way to make it as easy as possible for anyone who wanted to kill themselves to be able to do it. The system would never do this, it would contradict its own interests to. (Of course, how can the two be separated? The entire point is capitalism molds every aspect of life in society) Mainly, it would mean less wage-slaves and consumers than there would otherwise be. The system pushes people to suicide, but of course also discourages them from doing it: the existence of all these depressed and crippled people around who would have killed themselves if it was easier also creates an industries/markets/profit potential and jobs. (psychiatry + medical + coping mechanisms.) This is why e.g. if you search it on Google you get a "Help is available message" and of course it's not as easy as it could be to get access to methods for the most efficient/painless means.
- Also, it must be said: I am aware of the developments of legalized euthanasia like in Canada and do agree in the years to come we will see more of this: it does not refute what I said whatsoever, in fact the way this will happen only demonstrates my point because I don't think under capitalism we will ever see just a complete elective instant free convenient access to painless suicide. I once read a post from a guy on Belgium in Europe who got access to euthanasia from medical professionals relatively easily, but he did have to still prove mental illness. (schizophrenia, in his case.) He also admitted he would not kill himself if he had money, but that he didn't see working as worth it in his situation. He said he was sexually abused as a child, happy with the decision to kill himself and was looking forward to it and clearly was telling the truth.
Last edited:
TYPO: Belgium on reddit is what I meant to type.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
