The main issue behind sexual liberation is not that it created an unequal distribution of sex like Houellebecq affirmed in Whatever. The problem with 60´s sexual liberation and the sexually degenerated spirit of Stonewall is that it imposed over society a certain sexual imperative: a regiment of compulsory sexuality. In late (late) capitalist societies sex is simply inescapable, from the promotion of condoms, kinks, abortion, pills, and pornography to the mere existence of sex education, this regiment of compulsory sexuality imposes a logic of entitlement and expectations towards sex. We incels are simply the victims of this regiment that transforms sex into normality while simultaneously perceiving sexlesness as abnormal.
In this sense, the solution to inceldom is not the equal redistribution of sex like the inheritors of socialist utopianism think, nor does the acceleration of the sexual liberation helps us in any shape or form (lefty incels like to call this "hippiepill"). Redcels are not solving the issue since they're still operating from the logic of sexual compulsion.
However, since sex-positivity is not going to help us, some might be tempted to take the "tradcon" pill. It's true that the regiment of sexual restraint is indeed more open to asexuality than this clown world of Stonewall degeneracy. Yet, pre-60s sexual regiment still bounded sex under the constraint of marraige, the expectations surrounding marriage were strong and oppressive, and it's not like we, 21th century incels, are able to mary anyway. In contemporary society, marriage appears as merely a contract between two "free" members of society: its reproductive and spiritual role is completely devalued due to the 19th century romantic revolution. This explains why such a legal and anthropological monstrosity like "gay marriage" exists. In the end, conservatism still functions within the logic of compulsory sexuality although it is constraint through the connection between marraige and virginity. Therefore, the problem is not sexual restraint or sexual liberation, the problem is sex in itself.
Therefore, the only solution to compulsory sexuality is compulsory asexuality. Our political-ideological program should be based on imposing a logic of asexuality to society. Moreover, this is beneficial to the ideological consistency of the incel movement because it positions our ideas in a great long-standing position of asexual ideology, that goes from the monastical anti-sex nature of Buddhism and oriental Christianity (see the ascetic lifestyle of the Saints of the Desert) to 19th century German pessimism like Schopenhauer and Mainlander. Our program should be partially anti-natalist (more on that later), since the creation of babies presupposes sex, ascetical, and anti-sexual in broader terms.
Nofap, anti-pornography, anti-birth control pills, anti-abortion, anti-condoms, anti-prostitution, and anti-dating apps should be our negative program while complete sexual abstinence should be our positive program. We need to turn into monks and imposed our system to both chads and foids. In short terms, we need to impose an asexual Empire.
Some counter-arguments to compulsory asexuality migth be the following ones:
1) If you are anti-natalist why go against abortion and birth control?
Because we are not only partially anti-natalist but also anti-sex. Abortion and birth control presupposes sex and it also imposes a logic of sexual compulsion due to its constant promotion in society, it also makes sex less risky.
2) How can you maintain an anti-sex society? I mean it´s going to implode eventually due to low numbers.
Our anti-natalism is partial: we believe that it´s possible to maintain an anti-sex society through sperm banks and artificial insemination. This process of artificial insemination is not going to be based on eugenics (which serves as an extension of sexual selection) but rather randomly selected. We are anti-natalist in the sense that we don´t promote marriage (polygamy or monogamy) as a way to maintain the zoological human. That´s why we are partial anti-natalist since we are anti-sex (sex being a huge part of pro-natalist policies).
@thevenon @OwlGod You guys were interested in constructing an ideology.
In this sense, the solution to inceldom is not the equal redistribution of sex like the inheritors of socialist utopianism think, nor does the acceleration of the sexual liberation helps us in any shape or form (lefty incels like to call this "hippiepill"). Redcels are not solving the issue since they're still operating from the logic of sexual compulsion.
However, since sex-positivity is not going to help us, some might be tempted to take the "tradcon" pill. It's true that the regiment of sexual restraint is indeed more open to asexuality than this clown world of Stonewall degeneracy. Yet, pre-60s sexual regiment still bounded sex under the constraint of marraige, the expectations surrounding marriage were strong and oppressive, and it's not like we, 21th century incels, are able to mary anyway. In contemporary society, marriage appears as merely a contract between two "free" members of society: its reproductive and spiritual role is completely devalued due to the 19th century romantic revolution. This explains why such a legal and anthropological monstrosity like "gay marriage" exists. In the end, conservatism still functions within the logic of compulsory sexuality although it is constraint through the connection between marraige and virginity. Therefore, the problem is not sexual restraint or sexual liberation, the problem is sex in itself.
Therefore, the only solution to compulsory sexuality is compulsory asexuality. Our political-ideological program should be based on imposing a logic of asexuality to society. Moreover, this is beneficial to the ideological consistency of the incel movement because it positions our ideas in a great long-standing position of asexual ideology, that goes from the monastical anti-sex nature of Buddhism and oriental Christianity (see the ascetic lifestyle of the Saints of the Desert) to 19th century German pessimism like Schopenhauer and Mainlander. Our program should be partially anti-natalist (more on that later), since the creation of babies presupposes sex, ascetical, and anti-sexual in broader terms.
Nofap, anti-pornography, anti-birth control pills, anti-abortion, anti-condoms, anti-prostitution, and anti-dating apps should be our negative program while complete sexual abstinence should be our positive program. We need to turn into monks and imposed our system to both chads and foids. In short terms, we need to impose an asexual Empire.
Some counter-arguments to compulsory asexuality migth be the following ones:
1) If you are anti-natalist why go against abortion and birth control?
Because we are not only partially anti-natalist but also anti-sex. Abortion and birth control presupposes sex and it also imposes a logic of sexual compulsion due to its constant promotion in society, it also makes sex less risky.
2) How can you maintain an anti-sex society? I mean it´s going to implode eventually due to low numbers.
Our anti-natalism is partial: we believe that it´s possible to maintain an anti-sex society through sperm banks and artificial insemination. This process of artificial insemination is not going to be based on eugenics (which serves as an extension of sexual selection) but rather randomly selected. We are anti-natalist in the sense that we don´t promote marriage (polygamy or monogamy) as a way to maintain the zoological human. That´s why we are partial anti-natalist since we are anti-sex (sex being a huge part of pro-natalist policies).
@thevenon @OwlGod You guys were interested in constructing an ideology.
Last edited:
