new

The irony of the ‘entitlement’ argument

A common claim leveled at incels is that they think they’re entitled to sex and relationships. This argument, in reality, is not only baseless but also backwards. Incels don’t claim to be entitled to sex, nor do they claim to deserve sex simply for existing - in fact, the exact reverse is true. Incels recognize that the only thing which, in practice, entitles anyone to sex is a sufficient amount of sexual attractiveness - nothing else. They acknowledge that in the real world, people who are universally attractive can reasonably expect sex, and people who are universally unattractive can not, no matter how entitled anyone in either group acts.

Ask yourself - how do people act who ACTUALLY feel they are entitled to sex, to the use of women’s bodies? They rape. They sexually assault. They make forceful, unwanted sexual advances towards women in reality. Where does this happen? On forums? Or in Frat houses, bars, slums, and within relationships? And yet the greatest, most concentrated vitriol is directed towards the internet words of isolated, suicidal virgins.

To add to the contradiction, the same people who make these claims tell incels that the only reason they are virgins is because they don’t respect women, or because they aren’t nice to women. The irony here is obvious - it is in fact INCELS who recognize that nothing you do, no amount of niceness, or courtesy, or respect, entitles you to sex. If anyone at all believes that certain acts or behaviors entitle one to sex, it’s those who parrot this deluded, banal advice.

Exactly, I can never fully understand why people are so bothered with us saying that looks matter.
If you say that aliens exist, you get a few chuckles here and there, many just ignore you and heck a few normies and stacies actually agree with you. Yet we have zero proof about extra terrestrials existing.
On the other hand, the second you say that looks matter a lot when it comes to dating, boom the whole world comes onto you like a ton of bricks, despite there being ample evidence out there.
The world only wants your money to be spent on women and nothing else. If you are not getting sex out of it they don't give a fuck.

Men function as resource generators for women - be it economic (betabux), social (cucks/normies), or sexual (chad). If you refuse to generate, it’s off to the scrap heap with you.

It's because they're fucking sadistic pieces of shit who twist reality so they can bully lonely, vulnerable men.
People on IT will (correctly) point out that most sexual crimes are perpetrated by existing sexual partners & male friends... neither of those groups contains any incels. Maybe the latter contains a tiny number but it's trivial.
We aren't the ones going around doing these things to women. It's utterly laughable that IT thinks anyone on these forums has the confidence to grope a woman or whatever. Literally laughable.

Simple, many actual misogynists have paid their dues by being attractive to women. Normies do by showering praise and money. Incels are no use as all we do is reveal the truth about the scam, and that’s a no-no. They have to shut that down at all costs, lest the hamster wheels stop running.

Its all mental gymnastics to rationalize that they hate us simply because were low status and ugly

Many of them are as well. But as long as they convince themselves they’re the ‘good’ virgins, they don’t have to face the fact that they are getting the exact same amount of sex as us despite ‘respecting women’.

No-one feels entitled to something they have never had. Poor people don't feel entitled to a millions dollar trust fund like the son of a rich kid feels entitled to his dads money.
Incels don't feel entitled to stacies pussy like a chad who has had hundreds of girls throw themselves his way.
People who have never been popular or received attention don't feel entitled to becoming a holywood celebrity.
Sure poor kids might grow up dreaming of being rich, unpopular kids might grow up dreaming of becoming famous and incels might grow up dreaming of a loving relationship.
But none of them feel entitled to it lmao, it's the other way around. The jock thinks he will become an athlete/slayer, the popular stacy thinks she will become famous, the rich kid thinks he will inherit his dads money and become a successful businessman.

Exactly. It’s like telling an starving Nigerian “um, you’re not entitled to filet minion” when he’s never consumed more than 17 calories at a time.

Kashmir: Suddenly the Left Understands ‘The Great Replacement’

Good news! It’s not a “conspiracy theory” anymore. The media finally understand that government policies affect demographics and that demography matters.

The Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir, known as Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), is the only majority-Muslim state in Hindu India. When India became independent in 1947, Article 370 of its constitution granted special rights to J&K so that it could maintain a Muslim majority.

On August 5, India revoked Article 370, to the dismay of most American media. Hindus, they warned, might take over!

Vox’s Alex Ward, for example, noted that Article 375 barred people outside the state from buying property, and was written to “prevent India’s majority-Hindu population from moving into Jammu and Kashmir and displacing the Muslims who live there.” Mr. Ward warned there could be “ethnic cleansing.” In another piece, Mr. Ward wrote that some believe “Hindus will flock to the region to push out the Muslims once and for all.”

Suggesting that loss of local population control could lead to “ethnic cleansing” sounds like an unhinged conspiracy theory. Mr. Ward himself, in a piece praising Pete Buttigieg’s plan to combat “white extremism,” said the idea “that white people are being replaced” is a “white nationalist” idea promoted by murderers such as the Christchurch shooter.

What’s wrong with revoking Article 370? Shouldn’t all Indians be able to buy property in their own country? Preventing “outsiders” from buying property sounds like restrictive covenants to me.

Mr. Ward or some “extremism expert” should tell the Muslim Kashmiris that there is no “us” or “them,” and that diversity will soon be their greatest strength.

Mr. Ward warns that Pakistan might intervene to maintain the status quo. Is he implying Muslims in Indian Kashmir might have dual loyalties and want the protection of a foreign country?

Even the New York Times now understands the great replacement:

Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character.

The human rights group American Renaissance has made the same argument about the United States for decades.

The Washington Post also gets it: “Critics” reportedly say the Indian government’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party wants to “dilute the concentration of Muslims there and further its project to enshrine the Hindu identity of the nation.” The author also compared the “ethnic and religious undertones” to those in the West Bank, another area where media outlets mysteriously understand the importance of demographics.

The Atlantic worried that without the rule “dating back to colonial times” barring non-Kashmiris from settling, “the demographic balance of the state could shift—and with it, the idea that a vibrant democracy must take special efforts to protect the status of minority communities.”

Should the “status” of the white minority in South Africa be protected? No, said an Atlantic article in 2018. Worrying about the survival of white farmers is a “thinly veiled white supremacist cause.”

Bloomberg’s editorial board said India had made a “mistake.” It wasn’t making Kashmiris “feel like full citizens, in control of their lives and their destinies.” “Democracies as large and heterogeneous as India cannot escape internal tensions,” it said, “but the way to relieve such pressure is to decentralize power and give citizens a greater stake in their governance, as well as more control over local resources.”

That same day, Bloomberg argued for increased federal power in America. “The U.S. needs better intelligence-gathering and more effective preemptive action against domestic terrorists,” it said. Bloomberg also called for more gun control and an intensified fight against “white supremacy.”

When Kashmiris demonstrated against revocation of Article 370, India sent in troops and declared a curfew. Now the BBC even appears to be sympathetic to terrorism in the name of ethnic identity. In an article called “Inside Kashmir’s lockdown: ‘Even I will pick up a gun.’” it quotes without editorializing an angry young man who says of his toddler, “He’s too small now, but I will prepare him to pick up a gun too,” in order to fight what Kashmiris call “dictatorial power.” The article did not call for “gun control” or “tolerance.”

The Associated Press warned that “for many, India’s decision is a breach of trust and an attack on Kashmir’s identity.” Another AP story quoted a local man: “Maybe slowly our identity will disappear.” The AP did not call him “racist,” “far-right,” or “nativist.”

Two weeks ago, Farooq Abdullah, a member of the Indian parliament who represents Jammu and Kashmir, said he would “not allow any changes in the demography of the state.” He swore to resist “any attempt to dilute Jammu and Kashmir’s unique identity.” Imagine an American politician saying such a thing about the United States.

For white people, progressives repeat condescending slogans about the inevitability of population change.

“Migration is inevitable.”

“Borders are just arbitrary.”

“There’s no way but violence and oppression to stop the mixing of different people.”

Yet now we hear warnings about a government trying to “dilute” a native population. Amazing.

Kashmiris are bitter because they thought the Indian constitution guaranteed autonomy. White South Africans thought their land was safe because the constitution said it was. White Americans foolishly think the Constitution will protect their rights. History follows blood, not ink.

Kashmir just got its equivalent of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965. Unless it’s reversed, Kashmir will lose its identity. Still, at least reporters and human rights groups won’t call Kashmir “racist” for resisting.