Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

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.

Violence

Eremetic

Eremetic

Neo Luddite • Unknown
-
Joined
Oct 25, 2023
Posts
3,780
1. Is violence immoral in itself?

Obviously not. Most people recognize circumstances where violence is legitimate, and self-defense against genocide is the best justification of all. Just look at the state of Israel and Jews around the world. Jews pretty much have a moral blank check for bullying and aggression, all in the name of self-defense. Meanwhile, mere verbal advocacy of incel interests is automatically branded hate. Why is that? Because Jews have power, which comes down to violence or a credible threat thereof, and we have none.

People may have some sort of innate moral sense, but the moral sense of the public is not independent of power. The people always pretty much adopt the moral judgments preferred by the people who hold the whip. If the power relations were reversed, people’s moral sensibilities could be changed as well.

2.
Is violence bad because we stand for “the rule of law” against the “barbarism” of power politics?

That is naïve. The people are ruled by law, but the government obviously is not. We are ruled by men, not laws. The men who rule make laws for the rest of us. And the people who rule us now have legislated conditions inimical to the long-term survival of our people.

Law is not independent of power, and power just means violence or the credible threat of violence. Law is a product of power. The people who have power make the laws. The people who don’t have power obey them. If Incels gain power, we will make different laws. Until then, we obey their laws because they have more power than we do.

3.
Is violence bad because it will turn people against whoever uses it?

Again, this is naïve. Like I said, people may have some innate moral sense, but most of the moral judgments that come out of their mouths and guide their actions are shaped by the people in power.

People are not innately “anti-violence.” People condemn violence against non-whites because the television and the newspapers tell them to. They do not lose any sleep over that fact that on an average day in America, 100 white women are being raped by black men, because they are kept unaware of that fact, and if they were aware of it, they would keep their mouths shut and not “go there” for fear of being branded racists.

The moral sensibilities of the public are manufactured by people in power, and power reduces to violence or the credible threat of violence. If Ince had power, we could spin the propaganda dial the other way and people’s moral sensibilities would follow.

4. Is violence a bad idea because it might bring bad publicity?


Do I really need to spell this out? No matter what we do, no matter how nice we are, we are never going to get good publicity from a media and government controlled by our enemies. Again, good publicity is not independent of power, and we all know what power is. The people in power are capable of telling lies about us and making them stick. Yes, the internet has weakened the control of the establishment somewhat. But do you really think, when push comes to shove, that they are going to allow themselves to be “tweeted” off the stage of history?

Incels will only get good publicity when we have the power to control the media. And we all know what power is.

5. Is violence a bad idea because the state might arrest or kill those who use it?

Should we never use violence because we might get hurt? People who think that way are natural slaves. The people who rule us are of course willing to use violence, even if they might get hurt (or, more often, their underlings might get hurt), because that is how people gain and keep power.

If Incels are serious about gaining and keeping power, then the people who rule us naturally conclude that we too are willing to risk using violence. Our rulers are not going to be fooled by putting legalistic disclaimers on Incel Forums.

Furthermore, the government arrests and imprisons dissidents who have not advocated or committed violence. Matt Hale will spend the rest of his life in prison, even though he did not advocate or commit violence. (It was a federal agent who did that.) Edgar Steele did not advocate or commit violence, but he will probably die in jail, even though it is increasingly clear that he was framed by federal agents and informants.

Folks, if this is getting too scary for you, you need to bail out now.

The Lesson so Far


We are pacified by pious illusions about limited government, the rule of law, and fair play. We are doped with religion, sex, and TV. But ultimately we are ruled by violence and the threat of violence.

If you believe that the system needs to be replaced or radically overhauled, or if you merely believe that we need to throw the bastards who are running things out, our rulers will try to stop you, because they know that none of these things will happen except over their dead bodies. They believe that your very thoughts and aspirations, even if entertained merely in the privacy of your own skull, bear the seeds of violence against them.

They will begin with soft measures: mockery, shunning, job discrimination, and the like. But if you persist, and if you constitute a credible threat, then they will work their way up to harsher measures. This has always been the case for example america was founded by violence, expanded by violence, held together by violence, ruled by violence, and exports its violence all over the globe.

Being naïve, or merely pretending to be naïve, about the nature of politics and the people who rule us will not save you. Naïveté will probably just get you in more trouble.

A Credible Repudiation of Violence


Merely verbal disclaimers of violence are silly and pointless. If Incels wish to repudiate violence in a credible way, then they should purge their ranks of mentally ill people, the kind of people who flip out and go on shooting sprees.

Incels, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. Incels would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.

We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility.
 
nigga where are you copying this from:feelsPop:
 
About the end, it doesn't matter if you have mental illness or not. Don't depend on anyone and let the person who represents them actually represent them, a person with mental illness would be the best thing to represent us. Since it would show the lottery of genetics and how we lost it.
 

Similar threads

Gott _mit _uns94
Replies
6
Views
260
Gott _mit _uns94
Gott _mit _uns94
copemaxx9002
Replies
3
Views
164
wasted12years
wasted12years
Sheldor
Replies
2
Views
220
ReconElement
ReconElement

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top