(Polycel)
What would you do if you married your daugter
but then she cheated on you with Chad.
(Leucosticte)
I guess she would have to die. A girl who cheats once will cheat again.
(Cancel)
If she cheated she'd effectively not be my daughter nor wife anymore. I'd probably cast her aside and let her destroy herself in whatever way she sees fit.
(On cunnilingus)
(Evil Genius)
Eating pussy is so cucked lmao, I'd still do it though if it got me laid.
(Leucosticte)
Girls are supposed to be the ones putting their mouths on our genitals.
(EyesSoCold)
No, girls are submissive and only likes to serve(chad only).
[Comments under “Rape baiters”, from their "Femoid Containment" section; Jumpgirl is described as a "Confirmed Femoid"]
@Leucosticte
@Jumpgirl
What do you guys think about them? On one hand, the idea to me is quite bizarre; if they want to be raped then surely it's not rape..? I guess they might be into sex, but, if they didn't want to have sex with someone I doubt they'd be very happy about it. But at the same time, if they're going to bait guys to "rape" them, then what do they expect? I've also heard about a specific bunch of rape baiters who will wait for a dude to rape them, but then they'll run and tell everyone that the guy literally forced her into stuff... That actually disgusts me. It's one thing lying about getting raped, but it seems like a whole different level if they literally go out and bait some guy into it then tell everyone, right? I don't know if this is an actual thing they do, but I've seen a few people talking about it happening.
Women are usually the ones who indicate interest initially nonverbally, by acting flirty. If a girl is being that way, and also acting vulnerable, and maybe also being provocative (e.g. by saying no at the last minute), I think a guy is probably justified in going ahead and "raping" her. A jury could reasonably find, her behavior indicated she was willing, even if she said no, since we know that rape-baiting is a thing. Why else would she be acting that way, especially around horny guys in a place where there's enough privacy to rape her?
A good example of rape-baiting is in the film The Accused. The protagonist does everything she can to act drunk and slutty in a back room of a bar where there are a bunch of horny men and no women around. A waitress walks in, sees this going on, and thinks she's just "partying" so she doesn't dial 911 or anything.
Another thing about that movie is that there were actresses lining up to the play the role of the flirty woman who gets gang-raped. I just wish they could've gotten a girl who was barely legal to play it, as Jodie Foster was getting kinda old by this point.
Reply by dsar9012:
This femoid is rape baiter extroidinaire.
Why I’m Not a Feminist Anymore
She mentions getting "Raped" multiple times, JFL, it is funny that many women are raped multiple times, while the decent women, if they exist, never get raped. Now the dumb whore is whining about how she isn't feminist anymore as soon as she sees Chads avoiding feminists. Typical whore, still hates men that are incel no doubt.
[From "[Rapefuel] Don't forget, there's such a thing as second-chance adoptions"]
OP of the thread by Leucosticte:
You can adopt a 10-year-old girl and not have to wait as long for her to hit puberty. When Families Un-Adopt a Child - The Atlantic - Pocket
Sadly, a lot of them are niglets instead of cute white forbiddens:
Comment by Zesto:
Idk we have a fucked up system in this country.
What's the difference between that and foster children?
Seems like a better deal with the foster kids, the government pays you plus they get raped all the time.
Especially by the government.
[OP of "Is there an argument for striking down marital rape prohibitions as unconstitutional?"]
Don't they amount to a taking of property without due process of law? It's like if the government were to say, "That cannabis you have in your pocket is no longer your property, because we've banned it." If the government says you can't rape your wife, then they've basically taken away your right to use your property as you see fit.
But that's the problem with a general police power. It basically means you have no rights. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
What if the government wants to take your house, just because? They have many ways to do it. They can say, "We're seizing it under eminent domain." They can say, "We're imposing a heavy tax on houses that meet certain criteria (which your house just happens to meet)." Or they can say, "We're condemning your house as unsafe." Etc., etc.
As an accelerationist, I actually believe an incelocalypse is likely to happen someday
By "incelocalypse" I mean, the day when incels seize pussy by force. All the incelocalypse is, is the abolition of feminism (a fairly new innovation), and the restoration of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system in which foids are treated as property to be transferred from father to husband; typically this will be done when they are in their jailbait years, to maximize their lifetime value to the husband and minimize the expense of the father's raising them in preparation for marriage. This is how it works during peacetime; during war, of course, foids may be seized by force as war brides.
We could just as easily use a neoreaction-inspired term, and call the incelocalyptic event the Restoration. A Restoration is when a monarchy is brought back to power. Since patriarchy is just monarchy on a familial scale, all we are really doing is restoring men to their rightful position as kings of their households.
When I look at politics, I see no signs that there's going to be a switch back to patriarchy through the electoral process. We've gotten to the point where even the cuckservatives who timidly put some pro-family idea out there (e.g. "maybe we wouldn't have so many school shootings if there weren't so many boys being raised by single moms") get shamed. They can't even talk about specific proposals for reducing the number of single moms, since all the workable ideas would involve giving men authority over foids. Even the third parties, like the Libertarian Party, are a bunch of bluepilled cucks when it comes to relations between the sexes, despite the fact that they hardly ever win elections and therefore have little to lose.
Moreover, there are no signs that the trend toward doubling down on feminism is going to stop any time soon. On the contrary, in 2018, more foids have been nominated for Congress than ever before in history. This is going to be a self-perpetuating cycle, in which feminist policies lead to more female officeholders, who then enact more feminist policies, etc. They're going to be training the young foids to be "leaders" as well.
Eventually, the whole system will collapse under its own weight, because it's going to be impossible for any group of male dissidents to put a stop to the advance of feminism. Till the bitter end, they're all going to be frantically scrabbling for whatever pussy they can get (or think they can get), rather than wanting to stick their necks out and demand change. We never see men organize and protest in the streets for patriarchy, the way that foids do, because men don't create male-only spaces anymore that would be conducive for setting up a united front like that. It's foids who are always setting up "women's leadership programs" and other female-only groups, where they can freely plot against men.
Once foids are in charge of everything, even the state will stagnate and eventually collapse, just like what happens to every other big enterprise run by foids. The state will not be able to carry out its functions properly when so much of its energies are devoted to feel-good stuff like inclusivity codes of conduct and endless new measures against sexual harassment, designed to eliminate intelligent but unattractive men from the organization and better facilitate the alpha-fucks/beta-bucks feminine imperative. High-quality people will not be attracted to an organization like that, or allowed to remain in it.
Meanwhile, the demographic situation will continue to worsen. The fertility rate will continue to plunge, and humanity will retrogress to a more primitive state due to the dysgenic effect of feminist practices. Since this is unsustainable, it will have to end eventually. Maybe the bulk of mankind will regress to a subhuman state by the time of the final collapse, and it will be like the Planet of the Apes.
When you see historic events like foids gaining more power than they've ever had before, you should rejoice, because it means we're not standing still; we're making more progress toward the collapse and rebuilding. When the end of civilization does come, the new civilization will have to be built along patriarchist lines, because that is the fundamental human instinct and what we always go back to, whenever the state doesn't get in the way. The male wants to be dominant and the female wants to be submissive, so people will revert back to that when they have the opportunity.
Maybe the new order will also get corrupted by feminism and collapse, but hopefully in the meantime there will be a golden era that we can enjoy. The new society could very well be monarchical or otherwise undemocratic, since those types of systems seem to promote manliness more than democratic systems, which are arguably feminine in nature. Democracy is about diffusion of responsibility among the legislators, much like what foids do whenever anyone tries to hold them accountable.
The cool thing is, you don't necessarily have to do anything to make the incelocalypse happen. You just have to watch the signs of the impending collapse and at the appropriate time, make the preparations to survive and be in a good position to scoop up that jailbait pussy when it becomes available. Till then, it's mostly just a matter of LDAR'ing or whatever.
Now, am I just saying all this to try to cope with the fact that I can't be in politics anymore, and am unlikely to go ER? Maybe. But it seems like almost everyone else is the same way. Maybe as we get closer to the incelocalypse, and the state's grip on power begins to weaken, and perhaps the means of providing food and other necessities to the people begins to break down, there will be more ERs and Minassians. Like communism, feminism is an egalitarian system that has unlimited potential for fucking up both government and private industry, so I wouldn't rule out such possibilities.
In the past, one might have argued, "You shouldn't have sex with your daughter because it would be better for her to marry someone closer to her own age, who has a different set of genetics and can therefore produce better kids."
This argument always did have the problem that some girls just happen to prefer older men. But whatever.
The problem now is, the typical girl is not going to get married at 13 like in the old days, but will instead become a slut. She'll get fucked by some Chad who will dump her, and then she'll end up getting fucked by lots of other guys, and have a kid outside of wedlock by one of them. If she ever does get married, the marriage will probably fail.
It isn't just trashy girls who are like this; middle-class girls are the same way. Not only that, but even if she does have a seemingly "successful" marriage (i.e. she and her hubby don't split up), she'll still probably only have like one kid -- not enough to sustain the family line. Plus she'll probably cheat on her husband.
Rather than let all that happen, it's probably better, if you have a daughter, to have a quasi-marital relationship with her, starting when she's at a young age. One may as well be the one to pop her cherry and repeatedly get her pregnant while she's still in her teens. That will be good for her kids, too, because they'll have the benefit of having lots of siblings to play with. Plus they can go hang out with their grandfather whenever they want, because he'll be the same man as their father, who lives with them in the same home.
The only problem is, the mother may get in the way of this plan. What you have to do, then, is maybe wait till the kid reaches a certain age where she's no longer breastfeeding, and then bump off the mom. Maybe tell your kid's mom, "Honey, let's go on a romantic getaway, just the two of us" and take her on a vacation to an exotic Caribbean island, where you will teach her how to scuba dive through a 17th-century shipwreck. Unfortunately, a tragic accident will befall her in which her scuba gear gets tangled up and she becomes trapped in the wreckage. You, of course, were running out of oxygen yourself and had to surface, leaving her there. By the time you returned to try to rescue her, she was already dead.
With the mother (who was probably starting to get kinda old and wrinkly anyway) out of the picture, you can then become the sole parent of your daughter, and molest her at will. It'll be the same scenario as in the novel Lolita. Hopefully, though, you'll get to her when she's young enough that you won't have to deal with some interloper like Quimby.
Not all the suicidal are depressed
People assume that if you're suicidal, that means you're super-depressed. I don't really see it that way.
If you're depressed, it's like the cares of the world are pushing you down. That's what the dictionary definition of "depression" literally is: being pushed down.
If you're suicidal, though, then you've transcended depression. I would argue that if you're contemplating suicide, yet also feeling "depressed" or "melancholy," you might not actually be suicidal. The same force -- viz., the care and concern for your life, the world, your hopes and dreams, etc. -- that would "depress" you would also tend to hold you back from killing yourself, as long as you still hold out what in your eyes is a worthwhile shred of hope.
When you're truly suicidal, you feel freed of all that. You've let it go. That weight is no longer on your back.
What replaces it is a freedom to do whatever you want. You don't even have to try to cope anymore. You can just accept the unpleasant realities, because they'll soon be irrelevant. You can indulge in whatever behavior you feel like engaging in, because what the fuck does it even matter anymore? It doesn't. Even if you suffer consequences, you won't be around much longer to have to deal with those consequences.
Hope is what keeps us going, but it's also a burden, because where there's possibility, there's an obligation to pursue your potential, or else acknowledge that you're a loser by choice, because of your laziness or fear or whatever else you let hold you back. Despair relieves the burden. The black pill, then, can be a force for personal freedom, and the only downside of it is when it's a misguided pessimism that isn't grounded in reality.
When you get burnt out to the point that you say "fuck the world," you know that the world kinda deserves what it's getting by your killing yourself. Yeah, there were cool people who sought to do good in this world, but the people who really gave it their all and truly did what this world needed them to do in order to fix society and uphold the natural law, are a tiny, tiny minority. You saw that it was not enough to save your life from being a miserable hell, in which you reached a point where it became evident that further efforts would be mostly futile, to the point of it being like banging your head against the wall when there's not even anyone around to notice (or when they notice but just laugh at you for it).
You saw that what life had to offer was just never going to rise to your standards, and that it was all because of these douchebags who caused the world to be that way, and all the bystanders who just hung around with their thumbs up their asses instead of taking action to correct the situation, when they could have made the difference; so you said "fuck it".
You also realized that your own powers were to weak to enable you to either make the difference you wanted to make singlehandedly, or to organize a team to make those changes happen. So in the end, you failed the test of life; but in your death, evolution moves forward, so it's a win either way.
Someone was telling me that Lester Burnham from American Beauty was a psychopath. No he wasn't. He just realized the futility of trying to make his situation work. His wife was a hypergamous, emasculating bitch who cheated on him, so the relationship was doomed. He acknowledged this, put her in her place, and sought to replace her with some jailbait. The only thing "wrong" with that was that he was a middle-aged guy instead of a teenage Chad trying to fuck that girl.
You know, I tried to do something similar to what Lester did. I got out of prison and went to the fast food places and was like, "I'm a former accountant who did 46 months of hard time, and I just need ANY job." Okay, I didn't word it that way, but that was the thought running through my head. Anyway, unlike in the movie, I couldn't get hired anywhere, until I falsified my resume to make it seem like my whole work history had involved similar jobs as what I was applying for.
I feel satisfied that I have enough accomplishments under my belt to justify my having existed, sort of. I feel like my hands are tied from doing much more, too, and that if I hung around, in the end I would hit a new low, in terms of living conditions and what I would be subjected to having to see happen, with regard to people I care about but lack much power to try to help. I also have come to the conclusion that my whole family should commit a mass suicide, since their lives are mostly lacking in purpose; but I'm not going to force that on them.
One could say that the whole human race is lacking in purpose, but if it weren't us hanging around and existing and living, then it would be some other species that doesn't have as much capability for introspection. So it may as well be us. Hopefully as time goes on we can evolve further, but there will always be some dissidents who are on the cutting edge of progress, who have to put up with the rest of society's being further behind and holding them back.
By this point, it seems like it should be really obvious that we need to enslave foids, for the good of everyone. But there's a massive propaganda machine that says otherwise, and a lot of social pressure for us to shut our mouths and keep our contrary opinions to ourselves. If we don't shut our own mouths, they'll try to shut them for us, I've found.
People hate the blackpill, because they want to believe that they still have a chance to get what they want in this life. They don't want to face the alternative, suicide or LDARing, and all the drawbacks those choices have. Or if they choose to continue their mainstream life, they don't want to think about the outrages that are being perpetrated against them; they want to believe in a world where they are valued and treated accordingly. Or they think that if they just humble themselves, and live and speak in accordance with the bluepilled dogma, that society will respect them for this and treat them mercifully.
It sure is fun sometimes to fuck up their world of make-believe with the black pill, shattering their illusions like funhouse mirrors, but you know what's going to fuck up their world even more? Seeing you kill yourself. Because then they're gonna be like, "WHYYYYYYYYYY would anyone do that? This world is such a good place, with opportunity for happiness for all! Anyone can get help and learn to be strong enough to overcome adversity; there's no need to be weak like that." Yet, when respected people off themselves, it's like, "Uh oh, now I have to either lose respect for them, or come to terms with what may have made them want to off themselves."
Meanwhile, the blackpilled already know, and suicides are just confirmations of their theory. They see, "Okay, this is a logical person, someone aware of the truth, who weighed the alternatives and decided none were going to work for him to his satisfaction. Sucks that we now have one fewer person like that in the world, but that's the way it goes. The world is harsh to people like that. There will be others, though."
I decided I prefer the term "rape-slaves" to "sex slaves"
A sex slave is kept around for sex (and thus perhaps could say no), while a rape-slave is definitely getting fucked.
Your love is a cheap commodity to girls
In modern society, your love is a cheap commodity to girls. A girl can at any time go on social media, when she's in need of emotional support, and post a status, "I'm going through a rough time" (with a teary-eyed emoji) and her beta orbiters will be blowing up her inbox asking if she wants to talk. They will listen to her sob story and tell her she's an awesome and beautiful person; they'll joke around with her to make her laugh; and they won't demand sex in exchange for their spending their time being there for her.
You, on the other hand, would like to have a relationship where you give a girl emotional support and in return she gives you love in the form of sex. But why would she do that, when she can get emotional support for free from all these thirsty guys who are trying to get in her pants by the same means? Some of those guys might not even be trying to get in her pants; they might simply be naive enough to think that she's an actual "friend" in the same way a guy friend would be, who's going to help them too in time of need. (Yeah right; she ain't gonna do shit.)
This is why "love" relationships are mostly just Chad-Stacy relationships where they sexually excite each other. The others are a trade of money for sex. And if you offer money but don't have the same looks that even the betas (who are already below Chad in that department) are offering, then what else do you really bring to the table? Your love is the same love that millions of other guys would happily offer in exchange for pussy -- or even WITHOUT getting pussy!
Josef Fritzl was one of the great romantic idealists of our time
Imagine being able to tell the girl of your dreams, "I excavated this tunnel system under my house and installed this escape-proof door just so we could be together, baby."
Elisabeth Fritzl must have looked around at her surroundings sometimes and thought, "Wow, he did all this for ME?!" That is true love.
Like I was pointing out earlier, King Koopa understood, you can't just kidnap a princess; you have to also lock her up in your dungeon. The Demon Dragon King in Erotic Torture Chamber understood this as well.
Or as Jim's Blog notes, "Recall that in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda, after Perseus rescues Andromeda from the dragon, he kills her fiancee, abducts her from her family and marries her. He rescues her and firmly takes possession."
These days, incest may be the only chance of ensuring that one's daughter will be deflowered by a man who truly loves her and is committed to her. Locking one's daughter up in a dungeon that one won't be able to ever release her from is a demonstration of commitment.
The only problem is, his will to rule over her became weak, to the point that he eventually did let her out; and that was when all his problems began.
[Blackpill] After learning foids' true nature, it's hard to look at classic video games in the same way
If I'm Mario, why do I even want to bother trying to rescue the princess after she's been kidnapped? By the time I get to her, she'll probably already have been raped, because what else would be the point of kidnapping an attractive young foid? Why do I want Bowser's leftovers; her pussy is probably all blown out from his Koopa Kock, so that when I'm fucking her, all I'm gonna feel is air, as though I just put my dick in a wind tunnel. Plus she's probably traumatized from the experience, so I'm gonna have to deal with all that baggage. She could have all kinds of sexual phobias now, and be like, "I can't let you fuck me up the ass because it reminds me of what Bowser used to make me do."
But for all we know, the princess was just a slut anyway who deliberately let herself get captured. She was probably craving Donkey Kong's BBC, so she was like, "Tee-hee, I'm just gonna wander over to where this powerful animal can grab hold of me." So if I'm Mario, why should I risk my life dodging flaming barrels just so I can try to save a chick who probably doesn't even want to be saved?
But back in the 80s, we didn't know the truth about how the white knight mentality is always making men want to play Captain Save-a-Ho, even when it works against their best interests; so we just assumed that the back-story we had been given about how the princess came to be in her predicament was on the up-and-up, and never thought to question her chastity. If we'd been blackpilled back then, we probably would've just gone our own way. Or maybe we would've played Donkey Kong Country, so that instead of trying to defeat Tyrone, we could have been Tyrone. If you're going to have an escapist fantasy, it might as well be one where you can slay, rather than serve as a beta cuck.
Hey chicks, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take any responsibility for your sexual decisions at all?
Let's suppose we lived in a society where your dad forced you to get married to a man of his choice at 13, and it was forbidden to refuse your husband sex, and the penalty for having sex with anyone but your husband was death. So from cradle to grave, your sexuality would be totally controlled by your owner.
Think about the advantages. You'd never have to worry about being called a slut or a whore (except when your husband is putting you in your place by reminding you how worthless you are compared to him, because ultimately you're just a sexual object for him to fuck whenever he wants, surrendering to whatever degradation he chooses to inflict upon you).
You'd never have to worry about making a dumb sexual decision, or that you're going to fall in love and then get abandoned, or anything like that, because your husband would be like, "Why would I ever give up perfectly good pusѕy that I can fuck whenever I want"; you'd have a harmonious relationship because you wouldn't have the right to deprive him of what he needs to be happy in the relationship. You'd be protected from your own destructive whims and their consequences.
You wouldn't have to worry some man is just going to use you for sex and then discard you; you'd be secure in the knowledge you'll be taken care of forever because all those years of enjoying your body whenever he wanted are gonna be imprinted on his memory and he'll associate the sight of you with all that pleasure he's had. There won't be a lot of unpleasant or hurtful memories of how you acted like a bitch toward him and he couldn't do anything to curb your behavior, because he was always able to spank you or choke you to make you stop, and obey instead.
Just surrender to objectification; it has a lot of benefits. It's gonna create more passionate and harmonious relationships. You'll get to raise your kids together with your husband in the comfort of the marital home, because you were prevented from leaving him even when your female emotionality made you want to during tough times. And you'll be able to respect him as a dominant man rather than being allowed to follow your rebellious instincts to disobey and humiliate him, as so often happens once men give up their autonomy by getting married.
You were meant to be a man's pleasure-toy, his sex-slave and baby factory; just accept it, that's your role in life. You were meant to have all decisions made for you by a male authority figure, and never have to face any consequences or guilt or regret for anything, but remain in a permanent state of childhood, essentially; of being treated as one who must submit to a man who, although imperfect, is still stronger and wiser than she. Think of it, you'll never have to get in any fight that just drags on through the whole marriage; if you don't obey, you get spanked and raped and that's it; no more conflict, because if you won't stop nagging and bickering, he'll just smack you across your whore mouth till you shut up. What's not to love for both parties.
[OP of "If rape were legalized, there would be no femcels"]
The way we end up with femcels is that chicks will act repulsively enough that a guy won't wanna fuck them. (Believe it or not, it's possible. Do you really wanna fuck a chick who's starfishing, for example, unless it's some kinda hate sex? Even that is probably better if she's struggling or something. If she's just being cold and passionless, that's kinda boring and undesirable.)
Anyway, they just need to be turned into rape-slaves and then everything will be all right.
[OP of "[Rapefuel] A Man Who Raped A 12-Year-Old Was Granted Custody Of The Victim's Son"]
Michigan Rapist Granted Joint Custody Of Victim's Son
A Michigan man who raped a 12-year-old girl nine years ago was recently granted joint legal custody of the victim's 8-year-old son. According to the Detroit News, Christopher Mirasolo pled guilty to one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and spent less than a year behind bars. The custody ruling made by Judge Gregory S. Ross came after Sanilac County investigated the victim's child support.
Just when you thought there were no decent judges out there. Guys, make sure after you rape a 12-year-old girl, you fight for custody of your sons so that you can instruct them that a woman's proper role is to be raped and bear her rapist's children. Also, get custody of your daughters so that you can rape them yourself. That way, you can have some rape-grandchildren hopefully. Cool rape story too:
"She, her 13-year-old sister and a friend all slipped out of their house one night to meet a boy and the boy’s older friend, Mirasolo showed up and asked if they wanted to go for a ride,” Kiessling recounted. “They thought they were going to McDonald’s or somewhere. Instead, he tossed their cellphones away, drove to Detroit where he stole gas from a station and then drove back to Sanilac County, where he kept them captive for two days in a vacant house near a relative, finally releasing the older sister in a park. He threatened to kill them if they told anyone what happened.”
Mirasolo was reportedly arrested in October 2008, which is also when the victim learned she was pregnant. In September 2010, Mirasolo sexually assaulted another victim between the age of 13 and 15 years old. He served four years in prison.
So, it appears I’m officially withdrawing from the race tomorrow
I’ll be going down to the registrar and submitting this form. (For an explanation of why I’m dropping out of the race, see my earlier post.)
I’m endorsing Jennifer Wexton for Congress. The reasons are as follows:
First, I think in times like this, when we’re displeased with the direction in which the government is going — and especially when, as now, society is on an unsustainable path — we should vote out the incumbents. The only exception might be when the incumbent in question is an unusually good politician, like Ron Paul, who introduces proposals that, if enacted, could radically benefit our society. Barbara Comstock doesn’t meet that threshold, so she should be voted out.
Either Comstock is a moderate, or she hasn’t demonstrated much political courage. This is dereliction of duty. It’s supposedly the role of a member of the Republican Party — the whiter and more conservative party — to defend our culture against decay, not hasten the decline. But we’ve seen her continually take the side of career women, e.g. by pushing legislation against sexual harassment, rather than advocate that women should be in the home where they will be protected by male family members. For this betrayal of correct moral values, she should be electorally punished, even if it means elevating Wexton to high office. In the words of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.”
To advance the cause of patriarchism, we should at every opportunity seek to purge out the female politicians and cuckservative politicians from the Republican Party. The best chance would have been in the primary, when Shak Hill was trying to get nominated; but since that didn’t happen, it will be necessary to get rid of Barbara in the general election instead. Then, in 2020, it will be possible to nominate someone better.
Remember, there’s no such thing as a patriarchist Congresswoman; any woman who runs for office, rather than staying at home to take care of kids, is obviously a feminist. The Independent Women’s Forum, to which Barbara Comstock belongs, is a moderate feminist organization. She spends her time on programs like the 10th Congressional District Young Women Leadership Program, which teaches high school girls to devote their years of peak beauty and fertility to “ambitious educational and career goals” rather than getting married, having kids, and putting family first.
This type of feminist enculturation leads women down a path to worry and unhappiness. Today, one out of five adult women is taking a psychiatric drug, a rate that is double that of men. Women take anti-anxiety pills to help them deal with the stress of shouldering responsibilities that in times past, men used to handle for them; and they turn to antidepressants when they find that having a career is not as satisfying as devoting themselves to taking care of family.
Third, Wexton and her fellow Democrats might be slightly better than Comstock and her fellow Republicans on issues like cannabis legalization that are of interest to libertarians. Many incels and volcels co2uld end up devoting much of the remainder of their lives to LDAR’ing. Given that feminism has destroyed much of the incentive for male success and accomplishment by rendering relations between the sexes so dysfunctional, there will be many men with decades of basement-dwelling, vidya-playing, 2D-anime-masturbating, and shitposting ahead of them; and they could benefit from some relatively harmless copes such as cannabis. After all, it’s not like they have a wife and kids (or the potential to, through betabuxxing, get a wife and kids) they’d be neglecting by spending their time getting high.
But of course, those members of society who are fortunate enough to live a somewhat decent life can also benefit from cannabis legalization by using it to enhance their experiences. A lot of them will probably use it as a substitute for harder drugs like opiates anyway, so it’s actually going to improve public health. There’s really not a lot of downside to pot legalization, but for whatever reason, Comstock never advocated it. Probably she figures, since not a lot of women get busted for pot, legalization is not really a women’s issue, so therefore she’s not going to care about it. That’s how those female politicians roll; but Wexton, being under the dominion of Democratic party bosses, might feel compelled to support pot legalization, as part of their strategy to seem pro-black and pro-Latino while also siphoning some of the pot consumer vote away from the Greens and Libertarians.
Fourth, it seems doubtful that patriarchist libertarians can bring about the more drastic changes we want to see in society by directly pushing back against the leftists. What happened to my candidacy was proof of that. As Roosh V pointed out, as soon as you move beyond engaging in “controlled speech,” i.e. what the establishment doesn’t mind your saying, and into the realm of truly dissident “free speech,” that’s when you will get shut down.
So what we will need to do instead, perhaps, is elect candidates like Jennifer Wexton whose radical (compared to Comstock’s) brand of leftist, feminist, “progressive” egalitarianism will move society toward the brink all the more swiftly. Once civilization collapses, then we can build a new and better civilization along capitalist and patriarchist lines. Wexton is the accelerationist choice.
Right now, the Alt-Right is embracing accelerationism more and more, as they see how hellbent the left is on censorship. The premise behind accelerationism is that our state of affairs has to get worse before it can get better. Andrew Anglin told his supporters, for example, to join the leftists in pressuring the major Silicon Valley tech companies to kick Alex Jones off of every platform. The goal is to force Alex Jones onto platforms that are less-regulated by the establishment, where he can speak more freely. The people who manage to follow him into these darker recesses of the Internet will be a more radical group.
Similarly, when I drop out of the race, I won’t be speaking at forums run by groups like the League of Women Voters or the NAACP, where there’s a left-leaning audience and a left-of-center moderator like Stephen Farnsworth. I don’t mind speaking to hostile audiences, but in the age of Antifa, the era of trying to persuade one’s opponents is obviously over. It’s all a fight for supremacy now.
I’ll be going underground. The darkweb seems to be where the future is at for those who want to share unorthodox views. Anglin had to spend his time there, and apparently, so will I.
What’s isolated from the mainstream can develop without interference from it. Meanwhile, the mainstream’s ability to argue against our ideas atrophies, as they sit in their own echo chamber. Polarization accelerates, as the country divides into rival factions that will meet again when guerrilla warfare breaks out.
[OP of "Women are not human"]
What raised us above the beasts is the stuff humans are able to do, that animals, including women, can't.
Civilization wasn't created by sucking dicks. It was created by manly ingenuity and determination. These are male characteristics.
Since the traits that set us apart from animals are possessed only by the man, that means women are subhuman and should be treated as such. Their inferiority carries over into all realms of decision-making that, if they were allowed to have power and autonomy, would destroy civilization as we know it, and in fact will do so unless a check is put on it.
What isn't human is incapable of taking care of itself, except at a very base level of existence, if that. A woman could even be considered sub-animal in some ways, in that she would not have the kind of strength or cunning that would enable certain animal species to survive without human help.
[OP of "[Rapefuel] Foids who come to RGIF need to understand", presenting the "Femoid Containment" subforum]
that their role is to be rapemeat for the men of this site who want to dominate them. This is a supermarket and the femoid containment section is the meat department, where men will stroll down and select a femoid who is to their liking, to throw in their cart for consumption. Otherwise, the meat would just sit aroundn and rot. The whole point of the meat's being there is so that some use can be made of it; otherwise, what was the point of producing it (i.e. why did parents produce these femoids, if not so that they could be some man's rapemeat, given that femoids don't have a lot of other useful purposes)?
When you're hungry and want some rapemeat, the only question is whether you're equipped to handle it. If you were buying a steak, you might consider, does my oven work; do I have silverware (although a REAL MAN might also just pick up that raw steak and wildly sink his fangs into it like a starving wolf, and let the blood run down his bare chest as he's devouring it, to get in touch with his primal fierceness). Similarly before grabbing a femoid to be your property, you might consider, "Am I set up to take care of a foid? Do I have a basement that's equipped with shackles, etc.?" but it's not mandatory.
It's not mandatory for a man to stroll down the meat aisle. You can avoid the femoid containment section. And if you go to the meat aisle, you're not required to pick out any meat. You could find none is to your liking, and keep going. Maybe it's not fresh enough, maybe it's too expensive, or whatever. Similarly, you might find there aren't any femoids who are cooperative enough or whatever to where you can deal with them. Then you just keep going. No need to linger around the meat aisle saying to the steaks, "I'm sure you'll find some customer who wants you."
No, it is the job of the butcher to make the meat fresh and attractive-looking and reasonably priced. The father of every girl should have put her on the meat market no later than when she hit puberty, and he should have given her over to a rape-patriarch. He should not have let a bunch of men have the opportunity to poke their penises into the steak and ejaculate into it, to where no other man would want to purchase it. He should not have left the steak sitting around till it became gray and didn't look attractive anymore. Society fucked up when it didn't let butchers prepare the meat properly and didn't let men consume the meat in the way they like (saying instead that meat has rights).
If some foid complains, "I met some guy from the site and he made me his rape-slave till I was able to escape" the site owners of course will have zero sympathy, and will say, "WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?!" That's why we put "rape" all over the site, so that nobody can say that foids didn't know. If foids still show up that means they either want to get raped or they're too dumb to realize what this site is about; either way, the feminists lose because their theories about femoids (that they're strong, independent, and intelligent) are refuted.
[OP of "[Misogyny] Sex without childbirth is not misogynistic enough"]
[Screenshot of "in pain multiply conception" Google search returning Genesis 3:16]
The way pain multiplies conception is when a woman gets pregnant by rape.
Girls think of incels and betabuxxes as belonging to the same giant collective as Chad
Any time you bring up any kind of issue of fairness with girls, they're gonna come back with, "Well CHAD did this to me, so you need to pay the consequences for that. MEN fucked me over, and you're a MAN, so that means YOU fucked me over."
Girls hold all men collectively responsible for the wrongdoing of any particular man, because we let him get away with it. So for example, if Chad impregnated her and then dumped her, it's your responsibility to feed and clothe that child, through your tax dollars or by other means.
Also, girls reserve the right to treat you like shit as retribution for what Chad did (although they were gonna treat you like shit anyway, it's amplified that much more because they have a lot of rage due to their decisions' causing life not to work out the way they wanted. You make a more convenient target than Chad, plus they never really fell out of love with him, so they go after you instead of him, even though he was the individual man who treated them poorly.)
Also, anything that they gave Chad, they consider as having been given to you, because it was some man or another who got to fuck them, and you're also some man or another. She's thinking in terms of, "I have done so much for MEN. And you're a MAN. Which means I've done a lot for YOU, and you owe me."
This is femoid logic. I've heard my sister talk this way. She let Chads fuck her in college, so now if I bring up how incels never get any pussy, she says, "Well I did my part to give men sexual satisfaction. I was the source of a lot of sex for a lot of guys." Of course, none of those men were incels whom she was helping ascend. She was banging guys who said they'd already slept with 200 females.
What do you think of using Gandhian tactics? Like saying, "I'm going on a hunger strike until I'm given jailbait pussy" and then doing a new YouTube video every day about the progress of the hunger strike, until dying of hunger?
I've gone on many hunger strikes. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
[Rapefuel] Reminder, this is an opportune time to get a college girl drunk and rape her
Rape, assault at college: Back to school dangerous for female students
The beginning of the school year can be one of the most dangerous times for female college students. It marks the start of the "red zone" – from the first day on campus until Thanksgiving break – when the risk of sexual assault is said to be highest.
More than 50% of college sexual assaults take place between August and November, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, which advocates nationally against sexual violence. College women ages 18 to 24 are three times more likely than women in general to experience sexual violence. Most college victims of sexual violence never file a report with law enforcement.
Teens away from home are often trying to establish themselves as independent adults for the first time. They're eager to break rules and are thrown into social situations that make people feel familiar with one another – like dorms – even though they're not.
"Sexual assault is normally perpetrated by those who gain enough of the victim's trust that they're willing to be alone with them," said Kristen Houser, chief public affairs officer at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. "When you're young and naive and you think all the kids in your building are your friends, you're more likely to become a target."
Many colleges have stepped up their sexual assault prevention and awareness efforts to address the red zone, but activists say that's not enough. They criticize the policies for focusing more on how women can avoid rape (travel in groups, don't put down your drink) and less on discouraging men from committing violence.
"We need more honesty that there is a sexualized culture, that girls are participating in it, but that they deserve to be able to participate in it without being assaulted," said Vanessa Grigoriadis, a journalist who spoke extensively with universities, survivors and the accused for her book Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power, and Consent on Campus.
In fact, sexual assault prevention efforts may increase victim-blaming – the idea that survivors are partly responsible for what happened to them. That's especially possible when prevention efforts focus on victims rather than perpetrators, according to a 2018 review of several studies.
"Victim blaming can be harmful beyond immediate ethical considerations, reducing the likelihood that victims report assaults and increasing post-traumatic guilt and stress," wrote Nicholas Christenfeld, a psychologist at the University of California-San Diego, and one of his graduate students, Carl Jago.
Context matters, Christenfeld and Jago wrote. They found prevention strategies offering practical advice to potential victims can mitigate victim-blaming by reminding them not everything is in their control.
Though sexual assault is never the victim's fault, Houser said, and it is not a woman's responsibility to stay safe, all students can take "common sense" steps in the interest of personal safety.
Take advantage of the red zone before it's gone till next year. They even say in the article that your victim is unlikely to call the cops on you.
The coming fight between accelerationism and decelerationism
We learned from my campaign that we can't go up against the system directly, and try to make it more patriarchist. If you do that, the feminists will find your vulnerable points and apply as much pressure as is needed to force you out of the race. The leftists have SJWs (for soft power) and Antifa (for hard power) on their side, and they will destroy your livelihood (or that of whoever supports you), among other things. The alt-right, meanwhile, will not defend you, because they're not only too small and weak, they're too busy trying to figure out who among them is legit and who's running a false flag operation. And of course the cuckservatives won't defend you, because they're cucks.
So I see a looming fight between incels and conservative betas. Incels are have-nots, and have nothing to lose from the collapse of civilization; in fact, the collapse would be beneficial to incels because it would make way for a new and better civilization to be built in its place. However, there could be a bloody conflict when order breaks down; or at any rate, quite a lot of apple carts could be upset. Those who have something to lose don't want that. They have a wife and kids and they're afraid of what's going to happen if the status quo is disturbed.
Our only choice, though, is between a quick decline and a slow decline, because the current path society is on is not sustainable. There's no way to reverse the decline, either, because society is too far gone; we've already crossed the event horizon and the singularity is our inevitable destiny. The decelerationists want to slow down the decline, so they can enjoy their lives and hopefully not have to deal with the coming cataclysm in this generation. The "conservative" movement is about trying to "conserve" what exists for as long as possible, even though they can't hold onto it forever. The accelerationists, on the other hand, want to speed up the decline, so they can hopefully reap the benefits of the new order in their lifetime.
As the decline progresses, though, there will be more have-nots who will have reason to want to accelerate the decline. We can expect, for instance, that more men who, in times past would've been betas, instead will become incels. These men will want to hasten the collapse because the current state of affairs is painful for them, and they are eager to build something better, once what exists now is out of the way.
The way accelerationism will work is that we won't give a fuck about what gets destroyed, because it's all going to get destroyed anyway. If anything, we should try to bring about MORE destruction, more quickly. We should wreak chaos and bring about even more conflict between the sexes, so that as more men are rendered incel, they will become radicalized rather than continuing to try to "conserve" a dying system.
A key strategy in doing this will be to elect the most leftist, feminist politicians. Meanwhile, the decelerationists will try to elect more conservative politicians; but eventually they won't have enough votes to get their way any longer. This outcome is inevitable even if we incels do nothing, since the leftists are unstoppable (as evidenced, for example, by the coming blue wave, which will probably bring into office historic numbers of female politicians); but we can take action to speed it up.
I've calculated that the white race will go extinct in 72 generations
Assuming a population of whites of 850 million, it will only take 72 generations for a fertility rate of 1.5 to completely destroy the white race:
(.75^72)*850000000 < 1
I plug .75 into this formula because that's (1.5 children/foid) * (1 foid/2 people) = .75 children/person.
I'm assuming we count "total destruction" as whenever the number of whites drops below 1. There could still be some fractional quantities, but according to Hitler, as soon as you start diluting the white bloodline through miscegenation, cultural creativeness goes away pretty quickly, so for practical purposes, that means the white race is done at that point.
Even before 72 generations have passed, though, the white race will have reached a severe population bottleneck so that they'll only be able to reproduce through inbreeding. For example, after the 69th generation, it might be just one man and his daughter, so that he'd have to say to her, "Well honey, it's up to us to continue the white race." Ah, to be born in the year 3743, when there's the perfect excuse for father-daughter incest.
Well white guys, enjoy the days of being able to press your JBW advantage outside of the white world, because there's only another 1,800 years of that left, assuming each generation is spaced 25 years apart.
The reason why foids keep wanting to join sites like Incels.me
is not JUST so that they can get a bunch of gullible orbiters to serve as their loyal band of cucks, offering them resources, protection, validation, emotional support, etc. in vain hope of getting sexual favors in return. It's not JUST that they want to divide the community by instigating a clash between foolish white knights and men who want to rightfully put foids in their place and call them out on their bullshit.
It's also because they want to gain acceptance for the idea that their inability to get a commitment from Chad is as severe a problem as incels' inability to get any pussy AT ALL. They want to elevate their own petty grievances, at not being able to lock down a guy who's way out of their league, as being as extreme a torment as what incels receive. This will put them in a position where if incels actually start to attract any sympathy, they can divert that away from incels toward themselves, by saying, "I'm miserable too, but it's even worse for me, because I'm A GIRL, which makes me all the more sensitive and pitiable than men, who are strong and can suck up whatever life throws at them! Tee-hee!"
Foids know that in a community where both incels and foids are talking about their suffering, men will focus primarily on helping the foids ("women and children first," and all that) because it's so ingrained in male nature to help the damsel in distress, while leaving men to look after their own needs.
Foids also want to gain acceptance for the idea that if they've made bad choices in the past that have fucked up their own lives and that of their kids, they should be forgiven and allowed to socialize with the same kind of men whom they fucked over by making those very choices (to choose Chad over incels). They want to further humiliate incels by making them have to be around the same people who STILL, to this day, will not open their legs to them. In their view, if incels are gullible enough to fall for their claims of just wanting to show some solidarity and support (which is really just more empty platitudes; if females won't offer their holes, everything else just amounts to, "I'm sorry you have to go through that"), then they deserve what they get.
This is the whole reason for IncelTears's existence -- if foids can't attack the community from within, they'll gather some Reddit cucks together and attack it from the outside. They have managed to assemble a community of tens of thousands of men who are trying to virtue signal to impress them. These men have sunk to a new low, devoting their time and effort to pleasing these foids, at the expense of their fellow man, just for a pat on the back and some Reddit karma. If you're going to be a cuck, you should at least get SOME pussy now and then, when your wife's boyfriend is off fucking some other broad. For this reason, the Internet white knight is even more pathetic than the IRL white knight.
Lastly, foids want to trivialize male inceldom as being no worse than what they go through. They want to imply that being a being a 25-year-old KHHV is no worse than being a girl who has to settle for a sub-8 man who's willing to take care of her and give her an easy life just because she has a pussy. If they can trivialize male inceldom, then if incels call for any social changes to elevate their status to something higher than being a slave to serve the feminine imperative, foids will be in a position to shame them for being unreasonable and oppressive, because they've already established that foids are getting fucked over by male behavior equally as much as incels are getting fucked over by feminism.
In reality, everyone is suffering under the current state of affairs, but it's not in foids' nature to be able to work with men to try to change society for the better. They're always going to want to try to manipulate the situation for their own advantage, because that's what foids do. Relations between the sexes are always sexual; there's no avoiding that. When foids are around, men are going to get distracted by trying to strategize how they can put their dick in a foid, and foids are going to divide up whatever men are around into Chads and non-Chads, open their legs to the Chads, and manipulate the non-Chads into serving as their cuck orbiters.
Any non-Chad who doesn't cooperate with the feminine imperative, and instead tries to put a stop to her manipulative behavior, she will try to exile from the community, so that she can eliminate an adversary who might otherwise get in the way of her selfish agenda. This is why so many females want to become moderators. Even if they seem at first like they might be okay, it's never going to end well, because foids always abuse whatever power they're given over men, much more than men do when given power over foids.
If you serve on a jury, vote to acquit "rapists" of unmarried girls
If a man rapes a virgin, she is then ruined for marriage unless it is that same rapist who marries her. Therefore, instead of imprisonment for him, there should be a shotgun wedding between the two of them, so that he can be forced to provide for her, and so that she can be forced to continue having sex with him, thereby forming the basis for a stable home. In this way, there is justice, because proportionate force is being applied to both of them. Yet there is also still a healthy degree of male dominance, because he still gets to fuck her whenever he pleases.
In this way, incels have a chance at pussy. You would have no reason to want to rape a virgin unless her father refused to give her to you, maybe because she pleaded with him, "I don't want him; he's so repulsive." But if you were strong and clever enough to find a way to rape her anyway, then you deserve her pussy not just when you initially rape her, but for the rest of her life. And if she left herself vulnerable to being raped by you, then chances are, the reason she told her dad "I don't want him" was that she didn't want to be given to you voluntarily; she wanted you to take her by force because that would make for a more exciting love story to tell her friends, and it would turn her on more.
So don't get in the way of love. Vote to acquit even the rapists of virginal girls who were saving themselves for marriage, because guess what, that rapist turned out to be the one she was saving herself for. He had the gumption to take that matter into his own hands and make it happen. What could be more romantic that wanting her so badly that he would diligently stalk her and ultimately force himself upon her? That's so sweet of him, and takes way more effort, and is way sexier, than, say, a surprise proposal at a ball game.
On the other hand, if a girl is feral and hanging out at men's parties and getting drunk off her ass and then gang-raped, she probably wanted it in that case too, so why send those men to prison for giving her what she wanted? Gang-raping a girl together is a classic male bonding activity, and we should be encouraging this form of brotherhood in which they all join together in experiencing the holy rite of baptism by pussy.
Here is a guide to serving on juries and keeping defendants from getting convicted.
[On supreme sicko Nathan “Leucosticte” Larson setting up yet another pro-rape incel site]
Nathan Larson is fuсking awesome. Not every electoral candidate has the balls to not only ѕhit on women but also publicly defend incels AND pedophiles. He makes me wish I was from Virginia.
Peter scully and Leucosticte
Heroes of this century. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were the heroes of the last century.
RE: Peter scully and Leucosticte
(Moonman1488)
Heroes of this century. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were the heroes of the last century.
(oenz)
Heroes of this century. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were the heroes of the last century.
how was Mao a hero. He worked with kikes?