new

(Submitter’s Note: the link is to a screenshot that was taken from the, now defunct, website “Raping Girls is Fun”)

[Rapepill] INTRODUCTION TO THE RAPEPILL: THE REASON WHY WE, AS RAPECELS, SAY RAPING GIRLS IS FUN

The Rapecel manifesto
A spectre is haunting the western femisphere —- the spectre of Rape-Culture. All the powers of feminism have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Bluepilled normies, white knight cucks; women's studies professors; Jewish sex offender psychologists; even young, borderline personality disordered femoids, and Chad's embittered, cast-off fucktoys, neither of whom can stop fantasizing about the Chad-rape they wish they could get, yet have no choice but to sublimate those fantasies by immersing themselves in the literature that condemns rape culture. They want to be raped by Chad, and accuse the betas and incels of rape for having the audacity to expect sex in return for their often state-enforced provisioning.
Where is the incel who has not been decried as rapey by his opponents in power? It is high time that rapecels should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Rape-Culture with a manifesto of rapecels themselves.
What is the rapepill?
The rapepill is the sexual component of patriarchism. It is the the understanding that men and femoids are sexually complementary; that sexual polarity depends on the union of a dominant male with a submissive female; that hierarchy is more efficient and stable than rule by a committee of two equals; that providing a stable home for the raising of children is incompatible with the notion of moment-to-moment consent to sex.
The rapepill is based on an acknowledgement that femoids, being emotional and childish (especially during their years of peak beauty and fertility), are not fit to make their own sexual decisions, and that men therefore must make those for them. But the rapepill also says that even if femoids had the same intellectual capacity as men, they would still need to be forced into sexual submission, because the power imbalance between man and woman creates unity in the family behind a common leader. The ability to compel the female to have sex gives the man a reason to stay with her, and creates harmony in their relations.
On a primal level, rape reassures the female that, being the type of man who is strong and assertive enough to take charge of her, her master can also go out into the world and do what is needed to protect and provide for her. She knows she is kept safe from her own self-destructive impulses as he subjugates her under his will, sexually and in other ways. Rape then is symbolic of care for her, because it springs forth from his ownership of her and desire to preserve his property so that it can be used for the satisfaction of his sexual cravings.
What is a rapecel?
A rapecel is a man who cannot have sex without getting accused of rape. As the term implies, he is a combination rapist and incel.
One might argue, "Many so-called 'rapists' don't actually copulate with anyone; they were wrongly accused." Or, members of the more mainstream factions of the incelosphere will try to distance themselves from the out-and-out rapecels by saying "NAIALT (not all incels are like that)!"
But the distinction between "rapist" and "non-rapist," as weighty as it may be in law, politics, and culture, is without a meaningful difference. Femoids can feel raped just by knowing that an incel looked at them lustfully. And with femoids, all that matters are feelings; to them, feeling raped is worse than actually being raped. To a femoid, "rape" is symbolic of every wrong that men do to femoids, because it is the one act that only a man can perpetrate against her. "Rape" encompasses every failing that a man can have in his relations with femoids, which is why when a relationship breaks up, often the femoid will decide that her mate was sexually abusing her the whole time.
Since female consent is an arbitrary social construst, and the female's perception of having consented, or having been raped, can change from moment to moment, and since her perception is all that matters in determining her happiness or sadness, we may as well say that those men who tend to inflict upon femoids feelings of being raped are for practical purposes rapecels. In today's society, all sub-8 men are effectively rapecels, since relations between the sexes are more dysfunctional than ever, making femoids increasingly inclined to cry "rape" because they feel unhappy, and because they know it will attract sympathy and assistance they could not otherwise get so easily. Female nature is to instinctively use deception and victimhood as a cloak and shield against any attempt to impose upon her personal responsibility for her actions.
In times past, femoids were protected from the consequences of poor sexual decisions by being forced to obey their fathers' wishes that they stay virginal until marriage and then marry a man of their father's choice, and stay faithful and loyal to him. Now, femoids have been unleashed to make poor sexual decisions, and if these relationships or lack thereof turn out badly for them, their recourse is to claim, "I was raped," if they want society to step in and help them in dealing with the consequences, and inflict retribution on the man they believe wronged them. In most cases, this will be a man who is not Chad (because they would never cry rape against Chad, since the halo effect makes them continually worship him rather than having contempt for him; and since they always harbor a desire to have sex with him in the future, rather than wanting to get rid of him), nor a truly dangerous man (whom they would fear too much to want to get on his bad side).
Thus, the rapecel is usually a gentle, meek man -- or at least, he starts out that way. He could also be an ugly man who is determined to get what he wants. But note here that under the inflated standards of male aesthetics which characterizes our epoch in which hypergamy has been unleashed, "ugly man" increasingly is a category that encompasses every sub-8 man, as for practical purposes they are just as incel as the sub-4 men of times past. Their acts of sex with femoids are just as likely to be labeled rape as those that sub-4 men used to engage in years ago.
Why do you, as rapecels, say "Raping Girls Is Fun"?
Raping girls is fun because it is what we, as men, are meant to do. The masculine man is all about conquest; what distinguishes him from the female is that rather than talk endlessly, to try to make sense of his feelings, he instead finds pleasure in bending nature to his will, making progress in his work, and rising to ever-higher pinnacles of success and accomplishment. With rape, man extends his dominion to the female, putting her to the use for which she was made, indeed the only use she is good for, and therefore the only use that can truly satisfy her, since compared to man, she is incompetent at everything else and therefore would feel inferior were it not for having between her legs what man wants and can only get from the female.
Rape appeals to our natural, primitive instincts, as we evolved during a time when rape was normal; yet it is not something we should aspire to evolve past, because it is classical, rather than anachronistic. Civilization does not mean we should stop raping; on the contrary, civilization makes more rape possible, as it enables men to combine forces to overpower femoids and force them under men's sexual domination; and rape in turn is a building block of civilization, subduing female rebellion so that femoids can bear children and be compelled to raise them with the children's father, producing physically and psychologically healthy offspring that can then participate in civilized society.
With all this in mind, we can let our consciences rest free of any guilt that rape is wrong just because a femoid says "Stop," "No," etc. We can enjoy ourselves as we thrust into these femoids while they cry out in pain and struggle against us, confident in the knowledge that this is right and what we are supposed to do, and what we as men have been blessed with as our birthright, and have earned through our contributions to society. Once we have taken the rapepill, all that remains is to put our ideas into practice, and that is where the excitement begins, because nothing is more fun than raping girls.

[...]Den Hollander, a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer [...] was known for his misogynistic tirades and the dozens of lawsuits he filed, many frivolous. A Manhattan judge dismissed one of them in May, and a few weeks later, a federal judge in New Jersey named Esther Salas canceled a scheduled hearing in a different suit.

The delay followed years of resentment that he had harbored against Salas over his unfounded claim that she was moving the case too slowly. That, in turn, built upon a lifetime of seething hatred toward women: He accused his mother of preventing him from having a girlfriend, and his ex-wife of marrying him only to obtain a green card.

Den Hollander’s rage turned to violence this month when he showed up at Salas’ home in New Jersey posing as a FedEx deliveryman and opened fire, killing her 20-year-old son and wounding her husband, investigators said. She was not harmed.

[...]Hours after the shooting in New Jersey, police found Den Hollander’s body off a road in upstate New York with a single gunshot to the head.

In his nearby rental car, investigators found a list naming more than a dozen possible targets, according to people briefed on the investigation. Aside from Salas[...], the list included the names of three other female judges and two oncologists, at least one of whom had treated Den Hollander.

An examination of Den Hollander’s life shows how he represented the most violent elements of a male supremacist movement whose discourse online has become increasingly threatening toward women.

He made his views clear in thousands of pages of writing. In his final months, he uploaded the last version of his autobiography, a 1,698-page manifesto that ended with an ominous epilogue about his determination to fight “feminazis” until his last breath.

His beliefs swirled between the worlds of self-proclaimed anti-feminists and men’s rights activists. He ranted about what he perceived to be gender discrimination against men in family courts and other institutions, a focus of men’s rights activists, but also wrote blog posts calling for women to be killed.

After a contentious divorce in 2001, Den Hollander began using the court system to address his grievances, suing nightclubs for advertising ladies’ nights discounts and Columbia University for having a women’s studies program. When he lost in court, as he almost always did, he would sometimes respond with lawsuits targeting the opposing lawyers personally — and even once sued a judge who had ruled against him.

[...]Den Hollander’s turn to violence appeared to be years in the making. In his autobiography, he mused about killing his mother and about sexual violence against a female judge in his divorce case.

[...]Den Hollander grew up in Midland Park, New Jersey, a middle-class town about 25 miles northwest of Manhattan, and had a loathing for his mother, clinging to grudges against her. In his autobiography, he claimed that she told him she wished he had never been born and that she would not let him have girlfriend or learn to play a musical instrument.

Den Hollander described getting in trouble in the third grade after trying to forcibly kiss two girls in his class, a pattern that would continue throughout his life. He later wrote that he was kicked out of a martial arts academy for “flirting” with women.

[...]In 2000, Den Hollander married a Russian woman, Alina Shipilina, in Moscow and returned to New York with her later that year.

The marriage quickly fell apart. He filed for divorce in 2001, accusing his wife of being a prostitute and of duping him into marriage to obtain a green card. She accused him of publishing her diary and naked photos online, citing an incident in which he threatened her with a gun, according to a complaint she filed that was posted on Den Hollander’s personal website.

[...]The divorce consumed him. He failed in his effort to seek an annulment to invalidate the marriage. Standing on the courthouse steps in New York after a divorce hearing, his devastation turned to hatred, he wrote in his autobiography. He said he wanted to bomb a feminist organization.

“Finally,” he wrote, “I knew my real enemies, the ones who plotted my destruction from birth, the ones who smiled so sweetly through their blood red lips — dames.”

[...]His unorthodox legal battles gained Den Hollander appearances on The Colbert Report and Fox News, but his notoriety alienated him from mainstream clients. In recent years, he took contract assignments helping big law firms review documents. One job paid $31 an hour.

He filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and frequently bemoaned his declining income. At a hearing in 2018, he seemed embarrassed by his status, telling the judge, “I get by doing the lowest of lowest of legal work, called document review.”

A legal services firm, Epiq Systems, fired Den Hollander in 2016 after he called another office worker an “illegal,” according to a lawsuit he filed against the company. A spokeswoman for Epiq confirmed that Den Hollander was terminated, without elaborating.

Later that year, he made calls for the Trump campaign as a volunteer, according to his autobiography. He said he was drawn to Donald Trump’s views on immigration.

An official with the Trump campaign said, “We don’t know anything about him, but the crimes in this case are horrific.”

In 2015, in his suit challenging the constitutionality of the male-only military draft, Den Hollander represented a woman who wanted to enlist. It was a legal cause supported by women’s advocacy groups, but Den Hollander had a different motivation. He wrote in his autobiography that women should “finally know not just the benefits but also some of the real hell of manhood.”

When the case was assigned to Salas, he wrote that he was initially attracted to her and wanted to ask her out. Later on, he called her “a lazy and incompetent Latina.” He claimed that she had worked for organizations “trying to convince America that whites, especially white males, were barbarians.”

[...]In one of Den Hollander’s last court appearances, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled against him at a hearing in February 2018. Den Hollander became angry, and the judge urged him not to take the ruling personally.

“It was a pleasure appearing before you, Your Honor,” Den Hollander told the judge, “but it is always personal.”