L
Lebensmüder
Soon to be deleted account
★★★
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Posts
- 5,202
There is no contradiction about that (contrary to what journos/redditors say). Women are sex-positive when it comes to attractive men; they act like nymphomaniacs around attractive men and can barely hold themselves back (truly eyefucking him and nearly melting in his presence), for them they are cumsluts or whatever degenerate word they use, meanwhile they behave like asexual nuns and want to be treated as a saint by the rest, if they even make eye contact with her she feels violated.
When love is "free" (from social pressure/financial pressure) only chad gets it. Women would willingly only associate with absolute A-class of men in terms of looks/neurotypicality; the rest was only barely tolerated due to being indispensible for the own welfare in the past (with their newfound freedom they can just nowadays openly say how much they hate average/below average men, "Kill all men" means "Kill all subchads").
The truth is: Women wouldn't even want these men to exist. In the past they were seen as a necessary evil and now that so(y)ciety has finally made men obsolete they are getting rid off them.
When you remove certain factors (like money/jobs) from the competition, the influence of other factors (like looks/neurotypicality/etc.) only increases. The game remains the same with other axiomes being used as a metric to quantify your worth.
Women would never have associated with these men unless forced, the lie is that people have common interests, this is not the case, the interests of non-chad-males and women/chads are mutually exclusive, the luck of one is the bad luck of the other - and these people don't care for our luck - so why should we care for theirs? Power and the ability to dictate what people do is everything that matters, when you deny yourself that don't think that others will do the same for you, when you say that there is a bareer you aren't willing to cross you invite others to cross it because in that moment you say that you will give up as soon as that happens.
The greatest lie is that freedom is universal; in a completely free economy monopolies would arise, which would (by deliberately avoiding to provide essential services) force people to do/pay whatever they want (effectively destroying their freedom indirectly), they never have to put you into jail or hurt you directly, they simply can choose not to act (thereby using their "freedom" not do something), the same thing happens with social freedom only that it knows only popularity/looks/neurotypicality/etc.
The greatest restriction of your own freedom is the freedom of others. When all laws in a field get removed only the A-class in a given system truly has freedom while the rest is commanded around (the same thing why anarchy is a joke, stratification is the only state humanity knows and just new criteria for it would arise in a "free" society). Therefore restrictions of freedom must be made to preserve the freedom of all people and prevent a completely dichotomous stratificaction of society into losers/slaves and winners/masters (which we nowadays see), which was in the past done via monogamy where both men and women gave up parts of their respective freedom in a contract (a restrictive society gives an average man a place to belong, nobody would willingly associate with him unless forced in that way, it creates grey in a world that would be under complete freedom black and white, it's like taxes and social welfare, the necessary redistribution of ressources to preserve social peace and enable prosperity of all, because why should people willingly accept their lot in life and not rebell when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain).
Whoredom means that women associate freely with men and can choose whatever they like - and this is only chad, which means that a single chad has multiple partners while the rest has absolutely none. In a sexually repressive so(y)ciety it would be easier getting laid for the average/below average man.
journos/redditors - there is no contradiction between women being whores and women fucking only chads, women are whores for chads, prudes for average normalfags (that's why dead bedrooms are a thing) and asexual/holy nuns for the below average males that shouldn't even be allowed to make eye contact with them. Our ideology is entirely coherent.
When love is "free" (from social pressure/financial pressure) only chad gets it. Women would willingly only associate with absolute A-class of men in terms of looks/neurotypicality; the rest was only barely tolerated due to being indispensible for the own welfare in the past (with their newfound freedom they can just nowadays openly say how much they hate average/below average men, "Kill all men" means "Kill all subchads").
The truth is: Women wouldn't even want these men to exist. In the past they were seen as a necessary evil and now that so(y)ciety has finally made men obsolete they are getting rid off them.
When you remove certain factors (like money/jobs) from the competition, the influence of other factors (like looks/neurotypicality/etc.) only increases. The game remains the same with other axiomes being used as a metric to quantify your worth.
Women would never have associated with these men unless forced, the lie is that people have common interests, this is not the case, the interests of non-chad-males and women/chads are mutually exclusive, the luck of one is the bad luck of the other - and these people don't care for our luck - so why should we care for theirs? Power and the ability to dictate what people do is everything that matters, when you deny yourself that don't think that others will do the same for you, when you say that there is a bareer you aren't willing to cross you invite others to cross it because in that moment you say that you will give up as soon as that happens.
The greatest lie is that freedom is universal; in a completely free economy monopolies would arise, which would (by deliberately avoiding to provide essential services) force people to do/pay whatever they want (effectively destroying their freedom indirectly), they never have to put you into jail or hurt you directly, they simply can choose not to act (thereby using their "freedom" not do something), the same thing happens with social freedom only that it knows only popularity/looks/neurotypicality/etc.
The greatest restriction of your own freedom is the freedom of others. When all laws in a field get removed only the A-class in a given system truly has freedom while the rest is commanded around (the same thing why anarchy is a joke, stratification is the only state humanity knows and just new criteria for it would arise in a "free" society). Therefore restrictions of freedom must be made to preserve the freedom of all people and prevent a completely dichotomous stratificaction of society into losers/slaves and winners/masters (which we nowadays see), which was in the past done via monogamy where both men and women gave up parts of their respective freedom in a contract (a restrictive society gives an average man a place to belong, nobody would willingly associate with him unless forced in that way, it creates grey in a world that would be under complete freedom black and white, it's like taxes and social welfare, the necessary redistribution of ressources to preserve social peace and enable prosperity of all, because why should people willingly accept their lot in life and not rebell when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain).
Whoredom means that women associate freely with men and can choose whatever they like - and this is only chad, which means that a single chad has multiple partners while the rest has absolutely none. In a sexually repressive so(y)ciety it would be easier getting laid for the average/below average man.
journos/redditors - there is no contradiction between women being whores and women fucking only chads, women are whores for chads, prudes for average normalfags (that's why dead bedrooms are a thing) and asexual/holy nuns for the below average males that shouldn't even be allowed to make eye contact with them. Our ideology is entirely coherent.
Last edited: