I really wish there was a broader discussion on what constitutes an 'incel' beyond just being a virgin that wants to get laid but cannot... even though that's the literal definition of it. I don't often mention that, though, because I'm occasionally worried that people might take that as me saying that we should establish ourselves as something distinct from 'virgin males' at large, in the same way that Plebbitors try to make a distinction between them for the sake of insulting us without collateral to other 'struggling males.'
That's not at all what I want, but unfortunately, I'm not articulate enough to make it clear what I mean. It's an idea I've had for a while now, and it's related to my belief that there are inherent 'loser' qualities betrothed to ALL incels (including non-blackpilled ones)—and it came from one of SlayerSlayer's threads. If I tried my best, I would define and explain it as something like this—
All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.
Incels have always existed amongst Man, because life and nature are inherently competitive. In more primal times, there was the weaker, more feeble man who could not stop the stronger and more physically capable man from stealing his resources he worked incredibly hard to gather. He was the loser that was taken advantage of so that someone else could win and thrive. And what was he to do in spite of that?
Even as Man came to organize into groups for a collective benefit, the weaker and incapable man still existed, and he was taken advantage of in way of contributing his entire strength and ability to the group, for little to no benefit. He gets fewer scraps of food, worse shelter, worse clothing, and nobody in his group respects him enough to give him the light of day—and it persisted until his death. He had lost at life the moment he was born.
Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private. And should the government give us the ability to beat them for it, they would be afraid perhaps, but that wouldn't ever change the fact that they still find us disgusting and that we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.
I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way... that 'inceldom' is something greater than most people care to discuss. There is nothing you could give me to 'fix' me as a person—for that, I would have to not be 'me.'
That's not at all what I want, but unfortunately, I'm not articulate enough to make it clear what I mean. It's an idea I've had for a while now, and it's related to my belief that there are inherent 'loser' qualities betrothed to ALL incels (including non-blackpilled ones)—and it came from one of SlayerSlayer's threads. If I tried my best, I would define and explain it as something like this—
All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.
Incels have always existed amongst Man, because life and nature are inherently competitive. In more primal times, there was the weaker, more feeble man who could not stop the stronger and more physically capable man from stealing his resources he worked incredibly hard to gather. He was the loser that was taken advantage of so that someone else could win and thrive. And what was he to do in spite of that?
Even as Man came to organize into groups for a collective benefit, the weaker and incapable man still existed, and he was taken advantage of in way of contributing his entire strength and ability to the group, for little to no benefit. He gets fewer scraps of food, worse shelter, worse clothing, and nobody in his group respects him enough to give him the light of day—and it persisted until his death. He had lost at life the moment he was born.
Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private. And should the government give us the ability to beat them for it, they would be afraid perhaps, but that wouldn't ever change the fact that they still find us disgusting and that we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.
I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way... that 'inceldom' is something greater than most people care to discuss. There is nothing you could give me to 'fix' me as a person—for that, I would have to not be 'me.'
Last edited:
