So I guess I'm gonna have to suspend this campaign. I normally don't believe in doing that, because I consider it a big waste of everyone's time to start a campaign and then not finish it. But what's different this year, compared to times past, is that I have lost the backing of my family. Specifically, my mom, since she's the one who makes the money and therefore the decisions around here.
I ran a fairly similar campaign in 2017, with pretty much the same platform. See
Libertarians disavow 31st District delegate candidate's 'anti-feminist' views. What was different this year was that I was actually starting to be successful. I was starting to attract one or two more orders of magnitude more publicity compared to last year. The logical next step would've been to run for President in 2020. And I could've done that, if my mom had continued to back my efforts.
But the success was what caused my mom to start having problems at her workplace. The CEO sent out an email to the organization noting the connection between my mom and me, praising my mom's record of service to the organization, and distancing her from my views. She says that she feels like co-workers have been treating her with more disrespect, and that she's afraid of losing her job. So, she ordered me to, under threat of getting kicked out of the house if I didn't obey, stop giving interviews to the press and basically suspend my campaign. Actually, she would've preferred that I formally withdraw my candidacy, but she doesn't seem to be putting a pen in my hand and forcing me to fill out the paperwork to do that.
The problem is, even if I weren't financially dependent on her, my political enemies would try to attack whatever other livelihood I had. I would need to either already have a bunch of wealth (like Donald Trump) or have some kind of government neetbuxx or something, but I don't seem to be able to get on government assistance because I waited too long to file for it, and lost the opportunity. If I had an employer, then people would be contacting whatever company I worked for and trying to get me fired. This is how politics works these days -- if people disagree with your views, they try to silence you by destroying your ability to live outside of a homeless shelter. (They also try to get you kicked off the Internet, but that's another matter.)
In a way, this backfires on the feminists, because now if I get, say, only 1 or 2% of the vote, I can blame that on my being forced out of the race. I can say that it was because I didn't get a chance to do the campaigning I was going to do. If they thought they could defeat me in a fair fight, then why did they have to apply so much pressure to silence me? For example, why couldn't DreamHost have let all views be expressed, so that the public could weigh all of them, and decide which was the best? Why couldn't my mom's co-workers have regarded her work there as a separate matter from her son's political beliefs?
The bottom line is that the feminists don't want the incel movement to have any involvement in the democratic process. Historically, the democratic process has existed so that people wouldn't have to go ER; they could feel content that they had voiced their opinion and been given a fair hearing and a chance to try to win the support of the public. I guess Elliot Rodger didn't have the patience to go through that process; he wanted more immediate pussy, and when he couldn't have it, he sacrificed his life for the cause. Well, now we see that the availability of the democratic process as a means by which the incel movement could even attempt to gain power is an illusion anyway. So he was actually justified in what he did, because unless he went ER, he had no other choice but to quietly accept that he wasn't gonna get to bang those hot blonde Stacies that he wanted.
The only reason I was even able to run for office to begin with was that I had nothing to lose. My career, prospects of having a successful marriage, etc., had already been pretty much trashed by decisions I'd already made, and had a habit of continuing to make. I'm kind of a misfit in the work world; I haven't found any trade that I'm good at, and I'm not really all that good at interacting with co-workers, with the public, etc. I was able to get as far as I got in politics by applying a certain formula in cold approach after cold approach.
The thing about my family, and the white race, and western civilization, is that we don't actually have a lot to lose. We're dying out. We're not producing enough offspring to sustain our kind. Now, maybe dying out isn't always bad; for example, I and my race arguably don't have the greatest genetics, if they made us susceptible to ending up in the situation we're in now. But either way, if you're dying out, and can't prevent it other than by addressing systemic problems, then you don't have a lot to lose by devoting yourself to that cause. Maybe our species has even evolved to produce a certain number of misfits for that exact reason.
The fundamental injustice which I sought to correct was that femoids say, "You incels don't have a right to our pussies, and you betabuxxes don't have a right to your wives' pussies; but we do have a right to your resources, so that we can live a comfortable life and have fun with Chad and make babies with him."
The femoids want to take what incels have and give them nothing in return, and they want to take what the betas have and give them as little in return as they can get away with. And they want to give Chad as much as they possibly can, because he's the only man they really love, and want to submit to, once they've been set free to run wild and ride the carousel. Femoids are gonna come up with a million different arguments, a lot of which contradict one another, to support a narrative that portrays them as the victims and you as the villains who want to oppress them. Their whole system depends on lies and hypocrisy, which is why they have to shame and silence their opponents, to keep the truth from being made known.
Nonetheless, the grievances of the incel movement can have a strong emotional (and therefore political) impact, because just about every man, except Chad, can relate to them, as he recalls the sexual frustration of adolescence. We know that among the fondest dreams every heterosexual boy ever had since puberty was to enjoy a girl's love, adoration, affection, and pussy; and we all felt the dismay at knowing we were so close yet so far away from having it.
Girls are physically weaker, and their nature is submissive; yet society elevated them to such a higher status compared to us, by giving them both the rights that were traditionally reserved for men, and the privileges that have always been reserved for females. We remember how this kept the jailbaits' pussies tantalizingly out of our reach, and how the girls misused their power, letting their whims direct them toward making the dumbest decisions.
My vision was to create a new society, where pussy would be as easy to obtain as anything else we get on the free market. Girls need to be property because when property rights aren't protected, there ends up being a shortage or even a famine -- in incels' case, of access to pussy. Men are wired to want to own females, females are wired to want to be owned by men, and that's all there is to it. To feel any other way requires a lot of cultural conditioning to suppress the natural desires and glorify an unnatural desire -- for equality between the sexes -- as superior to what our instincts tell us is right.
That would be fine, if feminism actually worked; we use cultural conditioning to civilize our species in many other ways, for the good of mankind. But feminism doesn't work, so we'd be better off going back to our "primitive" (or as I would call them, "classical") patriarchal ways -- aka, what we had before we began this disastrous pseudo-egalitarian social experiment.
