All do respect why are atheist people in this forum God please place me next to them at judgment day lol so many perverted versions of christianity only one acceptable version you either believe in Jesus and live for him or perish in hell
Re: twoxroasties wants you to be a compassionate cuck when your wife cucks you, births some chad's spawn, bails on you, and then leaves you to raise chad's spawn. women are a meme.
(C0nserve)
I had my suicide planned in case the day he would realize I wasn't worthy of his love because of my genetics would come
Roastie on leddit experiences 1% of the hardships of incel lifestyle and wants to rope already
(Brainlaid)
If you ever ascend, DNA test your kids.
Anyway, women don't have consciousness or empathy, she just isn't fucking capable of putting herself in someone else's shoes. It's all about how SHE FEELS and what happens to her.
(Administrative_Worth)
In their minds, them tricking yiu into rasing offspring is actually moral. You see that kid needs resources, it's a kid, it's pure, it's innocent, it deserves fulfillment. Plus she knows it's hers. Therefore she has even more bond to see it succeed and receive resources. Always get your kids tested. Honestly even chad should. Believe me, women cheat, a lot. If they think they can get away with it, and the guys worth it, they cheat. Fact of life.
(Deoxysxx)
I cant even call that man a cuck, he is more of a man than the real father
I'm happy to read this comment in this sub. I also wouldn't leave a little child behind if I have taken care of it for so many years. Cuck or not, if people can show mercy to random people through charity, then you can take care of one more kid. It's not the kid's fault.
Random charity does not mean being legally financially tied against your will to a person you were deceived into believing was your biological offspring. Don't even compare the two. They are nothing alike.
(grilledcheesaroo)
I can. He is a fucking cuck that willingly took unnecessary stress & partially ruined his own life over a whore's bastard daughter.
And you're no better, you fucking cuck. If you don't kick both the whore & her cheat trophy out; you are a fucking cuck. I have no respect for either.
His older parents tried speaking sense into this father but they raised a soft little feminized wimp.
(41PercentIsNotEnough)
Lmao all the comments defending him, this sub is infested by normies, fakecels, and cucks
To each their own
[A peace sign in rainbow colors]
Every color has its place. An ethnic home for every race.
[Comment under "This "Periodic Table of Dictators, Despots, and the Despised" rates Stalin's "evil" as a "9/10" - more than all 94 others on the table except Hitler"]
@Onlyinmizzou
you can't be simultaneously pro-secret police and pro-democracy. as a socialist, it is unacceptable to be anti-democracy.
nonsense. the point of proletarian dictatorship is that it's dictatorship for the capitalists, democracy for the workers. what you are talking here, is liberalism, is nonsense, is bourgeois equality. i will quote lenin at length to back this up.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm
The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.
The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).
Who is right?
To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.
The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.
In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.
In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.
Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.
Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.
Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.
Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.
We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:
“Equality between what sex and what other sex?
“Between what nation and what other nation?
“Between what class and what other class?
“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”
Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm
But why not reach this goal without the dictatorship of one class? Why not switch directly to "pure" democracy? So ask the hypocritical friends of the bourgeoisie for the naive petty-bourgeois and philistines gulled by them.
And we reply: Because in any capitalist society the powerful tell lies to either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while the small proprietors, inevitably, remain wavering, helpless, stupid dreamers of "pure", i.e., nonclass or above class, democracy. Because from a society in which one class opposes another there is no way out other than through the dictatorship of the oppressed class. Because the proletariat alone is capable of defeating the bourgeoisie, of overthrowing them, being the sole class which capitalism has united and "schooled", and which is capable of drawing to its side the wavering mass of the working population with a petty-bourgeois way of life, of drawing them to its side or at least "neutralizing" them. Because only mealy-mouthed petty-bourgeois and philistines can dream — deceiving thereby both themselves and the workers — of overthrowing capitalist oppression without a long and difficult process of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters. In Germany and Austria this resistance is not yet very pronounced because expropriation of the expropriators has not yet begun. But once expropriation begins the resistance will be fierce and desperate. In concealing this from themselves and from the workers, the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners betray the interests of the proletariat, switching at the most decisive moment from the class struggle and overthrow of the yoke of the bourgeoisie to getting the proletariat to come to terms with the bourgeoisie, achieving "social peace" or reconciliation of exploited and exploiters.
in fact, you yourself make this point, so i do not understand why you say that you cannot be for secret police and for democracy now!
Every state that has ever existed has forcibly silenced its enemies. It is unavoidable. In the same way the the US silenced labor unions and socialists who sought to subvert the government in the early 20th century, socialist countries silenced western-backed counter-revolutionaries. Others can provide more detail into how specific socialist countries dealt with dissent, but I hope that at least shows you why this argument is dubious at best.
@Onlyinmizzou
but stalin's legacy was, in my opinion and in the opinion of many leftists, mostly counterproductive.
you would call the ending of the NEP and the building of a planned economy, the liberation of europe, unprecedented achievements in healthcare, education, literacy, space, farming, the supression of revisionists, counter revolutionaries, kulaks, etc etc - counterproductive?
it is not "great man theory" - it is looking at history as it actually was! the only liberalism here is to disregard stalin, to deny facts, to refuse to look into the actual situation! the USSR is like a machine - you cannot pick and choose which bits you want to praise, you must take it in it's entirety. you cannot simply call some crucial elements "bad, counterproductive".
infact i will ask directly - what do you think was "counterproductive"? what actions? what specifically
Your children being ugly is a valid argument to be completely honest.
If I were to marry an ugly girl who drastically improved her features through cosmetic surgery it would be like shitting all over my genetic bloodline. If it becomes commonplace it would assist in allowing people with inferior genes to multiply aka shoot higher than they are worth. If your face is a 3 then you should compensate with other things. Just think about the implications of plastic surgery in that dynamic. A 6 can upgrade themselves to a 7.5 paying just a little money while having done nothing to improve themselves as people while still carrying the genes of a 6.
Also there is even scientific proof that genes do in fact contribute to personality traits. I'm afraid I wouldn't want my son to have an insecure, shallow, beta loser personality either. I think plastic acceptance nonsense is one of the dumbest liberal asshat jokes of this generation. Why are you trying to combat the shame of fakeness by trying to alter public opinion on the subject? Because it doesn't fit into your own personal paradigm that's why.
These are the kinds of thoughts that enter my mind when considering whether to date a fake plastic woman. And don't get me started on the plastic men who walk around looking like clowns with shiny bbcream on their faces. They make me chuckle. I don't even consider them human.
[In the thread] FAQ for newcomers: Yes the cucks are literally brainwashed. Yes by zionists. Yes they actually in their heart of hearts think marxism will prevail. No, it never will. Yes they require physical removal. Yes you can handle that. posted by hinduyankee]
Posted by BadGoyWithAGun
• Yes, physical removal means the physical removal of globalists, international cliques and rootless cosmopolitans misruling our peoples
[Posted by revenjack]
I can handle it! Removal Approved
List of people I hate:
1.My parents for giving me shitty genes
2.Myself for believing I had good genes and for attempting to seduce a girl out of my league
3.Every Greek male who is above me in looks and height
Female cognitive dissonance: pursuit for a "meaningful" relationship.
1) Complains that men treat her as sex object and wants someone to see her as a person to have a relationship with.
2) Meets a sub 7 male. They share common interests and become close.
3) Friendzones him in pursuit for Chad.
4) Gets pumped and dumped.
5) Go back to step 1.
I've always suspected normie fathers of daughters have an incestous infatuation with their daughters due to their sexual desperation which can give rise to all kinds of sick degenerate sexual fantasies. Thus why so many cucks today say they prefer daughters, whereas incels prefer sons just like the guys of old. very common to see mainstream normal fag cucks theses days showering their affections upon their daughters.
Men should never put their daughters on a pedestal. It is downright sexual.
On a side note, you will notice Chad's have very conventional sexual tastes due to having their needs properly fulfilled. For the most part, they don't go for weird crap like poo porn, beastiality and creampies. Normies in denial however, are prone to these deviant sorts of behaviour due to their lack of self confidence, delusionality and projection.
How do you normies feel knowing that your girlfriend posted her cunt all over the place and that her ex is still jerking off to the video of fucking her in the ass?
Does it turn you on?
Thank you. Finally I get a good answer without someone blowing their top and calling me a racist. You've outlined a very useful framework here.
My problem is, my father was a self-hating White man. That was more of an issue for me than having a White worshipping mother.
I've seen race relations fail in my parents' marriage and countless other examples of Hapas. That's caused me to believe in separation as the best answer. There can be some cohabitation, but too much probably causes serious problems for the reasons you've explained.
And I'm not 100% against miscegenation because there are always exceptions. But I see most instances of miscegenation having serious problems like my own family. That's why I'm against supporting multiculturalism.
But most people on this sub seem to support multiculturalism. They see the problem as external racists telling them that they're no good because they're mixed race. I can see how this is a problem, but it wasn't so much for me.
What I see as the problem are those promoting miscegenation. These liberals promote a multicultural worldview as if race-mixing has no consequences. I hate that narrative because it feels like a lie; race-mixing does have serious consequences, and most of the time the results are bad.
Being a racial minority in another race's nation is a shitty deal. There's really no way Europeans would want to willfully become a minority in any European diaspora nation, and why should they?
The fact that Europeans have been essentially "ruling" (at one point literally, and in a more modern sense: that other races have been forced into European political/cultural systems) over other races in the "New World" has created an underlying Euro-resentment (which is clearly completely justified). The worst thing that white America ever did in the post-Revolutionary era (for everyone involved) was open the gates to South Indo-Americans, Asians, Africans and Arabs. Once modern minorities become the majority, and political power shifts, white people will fall victim to this resentment. If white people think they're being treated unfairly right now (lol), then just wait until 2050.
Multiracialism is a farce, and the nation in which it takes place doesn't matter.
Yeah, multiculturalism is garbage. I mean, to me, I just can't comprehend why someone would want to live as a hated minority. It's like, the feeling of being able to step outside the house or turn on the TV and see people who look like you is just priceless. As is the feeling of living in a truly supportive environment - which, of course, can only happen among your own kind. It's just that sense of acceptance/belonging. Whites ain't ever gonna go out of their way to support or promote Asians.
Besides, not to mention, in multicultural soceities, people look out for themselves (or, possibly their group - often split into both race and gender - i.e. Asian women vs Asian men, as opposed to Asians as a united group), rather than the community as a whole. It's like, if the situation in Asia was respectable, I'd book a one way ticket to Malaysia right now...afterall, I'd actually feel proud working and contributing to the society/economy, for both myself, others, and for future generations. As for here in the UK? Honestly, I couldn't give two shits. I've never felt British, nor do I have any desire too. The country could go ends up for all I care. Likewise, most minorities are the same - hence why they move to 'rich' countries (in terms of wages at least...though often NOT in terms of standard of living - i.e. even Malaysia --> Sweden is a HUGE downgrade in terms of standard of living in my opinion - small houses, shit weather, infrastructure that's 200 years out of date etc), yet send half of their wages back home.
Lol you keep inventing and changing your lies again and again and again. Asians don't do well in Socal, and every person whom I have known have reported that the interracia relationships are low and Asians are the bottom of the barrel there, and get ignored by other race women (especially white women) for even black guys. Mongoloid down syndrome features are ugly and uneasthetic to other race women in general, and asian mongoloids usually get the bottom of the barrel of other race women in general, unless he is rich or well connected, in which case he still would get slop of other race women. Because white women are the minority in areas like socal, their value skyrockets and they tend to look down on Asians more. And the "exotic card" is over hyped and hyper exaggerated beyond any shadow of a doubt on the internet when reality is different, and it's not major of a factor. Generally the more mongoloids there are in an given area, the less likely women of other races are to take interest in them, and that pretty much applies to california as a whole. I have never seen an 8+ women of a non-Asian race go for or like an mongoloid ever before.
What the fuck. Westerners are still more beautiful than koreans without plastic surgery though. So maybe you koreans need it.
The reason for this phenomenon is because Asian women tend to be more submissive than the current iteration of white women, which for men is an attractive trait, especially for beta males who have a hard time taming current white women.
The solution is to restore tradional values in the West - We must restore the role of the traditional, submissive housewife/mother to a respected position in society and we must also discourage promiscuity and careerism, which destroys the female capacity for a proper marriage.
This is why, regardless of one's belief in a higher power, religion is such a highly necessary tool for the preservation of the white race and for our civilization - without it, we see the shift from the K-selection strategy which built our civilization to the R-selection strategy of savages. We need religion in order to maintain the necessary morals for society's survival among the masses. Hitler wrote about this in Mein Kampf, I've posted the relevant quotes in religious threads here before.
Well, I have personally been in situations where I did not know that the male had sexual interest in me and I thought he was only interested in being friends, then they attempted to make a sexual advance that was quickly shut down. I simply expressed clearly that I was not interested in sexual intercourse with that particular individual, this however does not mean that I was not afraid in doing so, because it is a frightening situation saying no to someone who can overpower you physically.
I would surmise that a large number of females are not as brave. Just because I was afraid to say no, if the sex did happen, it was not "rape", it was just unwanted sex, which is not the same. "Rape" is a criminal act that has an intention.
I have learned, from experience that explicitly detesting sexual advances is the only consistent means of letting a male know that you are not having sex, even one action implying consent is enough for the majority of males to keep going.
It is far more optimal, to teach both genders about consent to avoid women cry wolfing "rape" because they had unwanted sex and to stop women from having the unwanted sex, additionally it is optimal for people not to put themselves in any dangerous situation.
This is a moralizing. The people who do best with women are attractive, there are plenty of people who do well with women that view them as opponents, enemies and inferiors, I would even surmise that most men do view women as inferior.
He's not wrong. Feminism seems obsessed with promoting degeneracy above all. Encouraging women to have loads of promiscuous sex, kill their own babies, cheat on their husbands. Want to get an education in science or engineering or medicine? Want to become a good mother and raise good children? Nah, fuck that. The best thing you can do is be a whore and do drugs and swallow cum at college.
You may, but men tend to think differently than women so it's less likely.
The behaviors I described are mostly the result of women feeling as if their partner-objects are not providing the utility which they expected (or were promised), and as women's love for men is usually based on some assessment of men's utility to them, when it is lower the men tend to get treated like any other object which isn't providing the expected utility, poorly.
Men more frequently love women for who they are, or at the very least, for a different set of utility. So there is a much lower likelihood that you will have the same problem.
In prehistoric times, life was very tenous... An alpha male was not guaranteed to be alpha forever, he would get sick or injured eventually and I think women evolved to branch swing to the strongest male when an alpha showed signs of weakness. The women who stayed with a broken, diseased alpha male were at a disadvantage over the women who cut their losses and moved onto the next guy. Loyalty during the hard times was likely selected against.
Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.
My Explanation for How the "Normie Platitudes" Originated...
1. Standpoint Theory.
This is an idea used by Marxists and Feminists. The rundown is that incels and noncels have different lives and thus develop different experiences and attitudes about the world. Further, a noncel will have difficulty identifying with an incel's plight. Think of it this way: You know that severely impoverished people exist, but can you fathom what it would be like to live like them? You probably take clean water and shelter for granted because of your economic position. In the same way, sex and relationships for noncels are easy or at least possible, thus they assume that their experience must be true for all people. This is why you hear "take a shower and socialize" as if that will fix everything. For them, it DID work, but not due to it's own devices: They were simply more attractive than you are. The first person who said "Be yourself" was likely a Chad, because that's truly all he would need to do, and he probably didn't understand that non-chads do not share his genetic privilege, or he was willfully ignorant, which leads to my next point:
1. Denial of the Nature of Sexual Selection.
Sexual Selection is one of the fundamental pillars of our understanding of how sexually reproducing creatures evolve. However it comes with a very uncomfortable implication: If mating is nonrandom and based on genetic inheritance, than there must be some members of the species that have the qualities being selected for and others who do not, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. This flies in the face of "there's someone for everyone" because it implies that there must be some members who are the objective losers of the mating game. It also implies that if someone has a spouse, that person is attracted to them for reasons which they have no control (looks) rather than for their honest achievements which they have worked for. We want to believe that women love us "for who we are" and that we ALL have a chance at pair-bonding, despite all evidence of the contrary. This is why you're often told that it's "your fault" you can't get laid for whatever reason.
1. Denial of the Nature of Sexuality Itself.
Sexuality is much like which foods we like or what colors we like in that it is malleable, but ultimately INVOLUNTARY. We don't choose which aspects of a person we are attracted to, what things are turnoffs, etc. Why would anyone purposefully choose to be a pedophile, for example? This truth has another bad implication: If we wind up having an attraction which we do NOT like, there's nothing we can do to change it. This is important because it explains why women are called "shallow" for being attracted solely to looks. We don't like the idea that our love is based on eugenics-esque factors which we have no control over, and would prefer if people loved based on "personality." Thus, if someone demonstrates attraction based on "bad" factors, we say it must be their fault somehow, as if they chose to be attracted to bad boys or skinny women, because to do otherwise would open the door to criticizing sexuality itself. This is where "Personality is what really matters" and "you're chasing the wrong women" comes from: It's a criticism based on the wishful-thinking of how sexuality works rather than the reality.
(Submitter's note: Yes, the sections are really all numbered 1.)
If you look at an incel's situation objectively without preconceptions and without bias, the group really deserve a holocaust-type memorial to remind people of the suffering.
The title should really end with "to remind people and the world of the plight of countless incels that exist today."
A good female psychologist should let an incel fuck her
While discussing his psychological problems of course.
The Ballad Of Stacy and Chad
Stacy and Chad
Chad and Stace
Stacy's a "sexually free" woman
So she gets turned on by Chad spitting in her face
She rims his ass while stroking his cock
Chad loves domination and he's hard as a rock
Stacy embraces her "independence" and likes being a "sub"
She learned this lifestyle from reading "Fifty Shades of Grey" while giving her pussy a rub
Vanilla sex is for losers and ugly girls anyways
BDSM games are the only ones that Chad plays
She gets excited, Chad is going to cum
She screams "Master, please don't use lube shove it raw in my bum!"
I hate watching porn
But I have to. It's so degenerate. So disgusting. I am being forced into cuckoldry by watching other men have sex with women. My mind is being warped by the sickening things that they do. By the disingenuous sounds that they make. I have to poison my mind just so I can concentrate on something other than women and focus on what I need to do. It's so tragic, that I should have to destroy my innocence and humiliate myself simply because society rejects me.
Listen white monkey boy, humanoids have been evolving toward more neotenous flat faces. East asians are more phenotypically advanced than caucasians because of this. Neoteny is the driving force of evolution. You are basically a nigger to me.
hmm , not really. i'd say white women are tougher and more tenacious than asian women, but they're not as good and creative as they think they are. Their visual-spatial abilities are weaker than men by a standard deviation, hence the lack of prominent engineers, architects and master painters. The female IQ bell curve is less spread out, meaning for every 5 or so guys with an IQ above 130 there is one woman, and this discrepancy becomes larger the further you go down the bell curve.
Do you think the lack of female intellectuals and patent holders in western society is due to discrimination like the feminists say, or do genetics and evolutionary forces play roles too?
Asian men have more robust mandibles than caucasians, masseter muscle hypertrophy is also much more common. For some reason they have a weaker lower thirds and their chins are less projecting than caucasians.
I think Asian mens zygomatics bones are more blocky and square, while caucasians are more curvaceous, as they rhythmically sweep around the skull. in other words pretty gay looking.
The caucasian skull is definately more archaic, as primates have been evolving towards neotenous flat faces. In asia most east asian women are replused by the primitive features of caucasian men, their body odour, hirsuteness, neanderthal like browridges and less evolved features combined with their loud, boisterous, low IQ, promiscuous r selected, narcissistic personalities just doesn't fit in well in such a sophisticated society.
In any racially homogeneous nation the ethnic majority naturally privileges their own racial in-group.
The Han Chinese almost never have to think about race because they almost never encounter other races.
Being the majority in their own nation, it can be said that it's their priviledge to not have to think about race and it's impact on their life.
Same goes in white majority nations. The white majority naturally (sub-consciously) privileges other whites above non-whites.
I'm NOT problematizing priviledge like most shitlibs do. I'm using SJW rhetoric on Arm-bees (a self-described "former SJW") in order to get him to see (and learn to appreciate) his own unseen priviledge.
My point is to make him realize how good he really has it, and for him to realize what he has to loose by ignoring race.
[Comment under "Normie fathers of daughters are pathetic"]
To all fathers who have daughters: understand that all females are filthy whores from birth, including your daughter. Your daughter wants to be plowed by Chad from the moment she learns about sex. She is a fucking degenerate and no amount of protection will keep her from being a degenerate. She was born one.
Normie fathers of daughters are pathetic
They all beta orbit around their daughters, our modern society taught men to worship them. They are in love with them while their wives lose their looks and become bitter and asexual. They find in them the innocence they always wanted from their girlfriends, and then try hard to protect their "princess" from evil Chads who will fuck them and turn them into same whores who made beta fathers' lives so miserable. Just hear them talk about their daughters, it's so obvious their dicks are hard when they go on about how beautiful they are and how they'd do anything for them, how they love them more than anything.
All that happens is that the bitch daughter grows up stuck up feeling like a prize, that is confirmed by all other beta men, and then to everyone's surprise she still gives her cunt to be busted by Chad and beta father is cucked once again. It's hilarious.
The only logical thing females do is go after the best looking men
Asides form that they are irrational and instinct driven.
Women only have Four hobbies/interests, and all of them have the exact same list of four hobbies/interests
Travelling
Shopping
Taking photos of themselves
Gossiping/bitching about other women
Yup, that's the fullest extent of their limited intelligence.
i think hes talking about the serotonin transporter gene. The short allele is associated with social conformism, anxiety and depression -hence the higher suicide rates, hive mindedness and melancholic personalities of asians.
So when asians are narcissistic it's not done in a regular fashion, it's done in a collective way. maybe because they lack the l-homozygotes that whites have.
[Comment under "Women and children being raped and slaughtered as South Sudan conflict worsens famine threatening millions"]
Nice, maybe this whole Africa problem will take care of itself
Women and Chads don't need hobbies, nobody gives a fuck what they do or like. Incels who have strange hobbies will be shamed for them because of their inceldom. For example: If your hobby is watching anime all night, you will be laughed at. If you say your hobby is watching anime with your gf all nigh, it sounds way better.
If a female turned into a heterosexual male but otherwise kept the same mind and personality, she'd be the most brain damaged incel out there
A female living like a hetero male would never be able to attract a single female. With all that incredible in depth knowledge they think they have about their species, they'd only repulse. Their personal dishonesty and submissive nature would turn them into such betas that other women wouldn't even want them as gay friends.
On top of that, men would never want to be friends with them either because without a cunt no one in their right or fucked up mind would be able to listen to them talk.
That combined with no more attention and random niceness from strangers, people fascinated by their artistic selfies or bits of wisdom, catcallers, helpful acquaintances etc would lead to complete mental breakdown and severe loneliness that would lead her either to suicide (unsuccessful at first, but when it gets no attention or sympathy maybe a successful one), or mental asylum.
I don't even wish special torture or creative scenarios to harm women, i'd just like each of them to meet reality, not the one orbiters and white knights built for them.
More proof that women cannot be incel: necrophilia
Now I don't condone necrophilia as it's disgusting, but the fact that it exists is further proof that women cannot be incel. We are literally less desirable than the corpses of women.
I have American centered myopia, but I can grudgingly admit, that in the face of their persecution and impending genocide, non-democratic racist apartheid was far preferable for the Afrikaners. Abandoning it really was a naive betrayal of their own people. At the level of existential conflict, the only morality that matters is your own survival and loyalty to the tribe. The Afrikaners have been there as long as whites have been in the United States. Under the same rubric we should be forced to give up all our belongings and property to Native Americans or blacks. I'd much rather kill or die than do that, whatever moral argument you could come up with, legit or not.
It's humiliating, but in many ways, I'm sure the Africans were better off economically under apartheid, and without European colonialism they would still be small scale agriculturalists or hunter-gatherers. I might differ in that I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I'm not sure modern South Africans are willing to pick up the spear again, and they're obviously in many ways dependent on whites to maintain the infrastructure of modernity.
Perhaps the ultimate lesson is, it's a bad idea in the long term to place yourself as a domineering minority where you will have to exploit an alien majority to enrich yourself and maintain order...especially across racial lines...eventually there will be some kind of uprising. And if you must, there's no sense in being half-way evil, "humane" oppression will still be unforgiven.
Agreed. It's already happening with recent alt-right converts who go full "gas the kikes" after overdosing on red-pills in a matter of months. I really get the sense that there will be hell to pay when the normies realize the extent to which anti-white animus has been embedded in the culture, institutions, law, etc. - often by cynical, self-interested tribalists of competing ethnicities under the false veneer of universalist values. Already, the western political establishment would rather have their citizens subject to mass slaughter by terrorists and have their women assaulted by savage rape mobs than act with the common sense self preservation to halt the flow of alien, hostile migrants. Migrants that will eventually dominate politically while biologically replacing and culturally eradicating their own current majorities - all for shallow moral signalling and short-term political gain. This is such an extreme betrayal....not to mention much more aggressively "racist" than the positions held by the vast majority of nationalists, ethnic or otherwise....that the big reveal is a powder keg waiting to blow.
I've followed the alt-right since the inception around 2010/2011, and have managed to keep my head on straight without falling into over-whelming knee-jerk hatred, which can cause the same sorts of reality distortions that leftist ideology can. Knowing the reality of HBD doesn't change how I treat people or judge individuals.
Regardless, basing your world view on a set of easily refutable factual inaccuracies is a shaky footing that forces you to rely on hysterical social shaming and censorship to prevail - witness the left's current tantrums. Their head is too far up their own ass to realize none of this shit is necessary and there's plenty of convincing ways to argue against violent ethnic cleansing campaigns even if sub-saharans are genetically predisposed to lower iq's and higher testosterone levels, or whatever.
Personally, I hope the dam bursts sooner than later. I'd like a moderate Alt-right(ish) movement to prevail so western civilization and the white people who created it are not eradicated from the earth, but also without persecution or hostility towards minority groups. If the pendulum swings back too far, I think the alt-right will either become an impotent freakshow that is nothing more than a speedbump on the road to globalist Brazilification, or if successful, will create something even more terrible than the predicament we're currently in.
@EyeCrushUSA
@MightBeANovelty
It doesn't matter if Assad gassed 72 or 1 Million people. It's not OUR FUCKING PROBLEM and we have no moral obligation.
Why the fuck is some Syrian worth 2M dollars. The strike costed $150M for just 72 Syrians.
Says a lot about you that you value human life like that.
Yea, I don't give a shit. Should we bankrupt our nation because muh human lives. News flash, if we spent the same amount per American, the budget would be $600T. Save their asses and then they come as "Refugees" and rape our women. They wouldn't even spend $10 on you and we're ok with spending Millions. Pathological Altruism is a disease.
Why should some Syrian be worth $2M tax money?
The Sexual Revolution of the 60s was worse than the Holocaust
Sure, in the Holocaust, a lot of people died and it was pretty uncomfortable. But it was over in a couple of years and ever since then J-words have been living with unparalleled special treatment that only women exceed.
The Sexual Revolution was far worse. It undone centuries of social progress. Every achievement we'd made since the 1780s just disappeared. It condemned literally millions upon millions of men throughout the ages to a life of inceldom. It destroyed standards and morals by normalising shit music, drugs and the "club and casual sex" degenerate lifestyle. It was the progenitor of feminism which is and always has been an anti-male/anti-ugly male hate movement.
In short, the Sexual Revolution was our very own Holocaust but we're unlucky enough that it never ends, and we must live in the concentration camp of the degenerate modern day for our whole lives with the knowledge that things will only get worse. Already polyamory is being normalised and considered by sluts to be a valid form of relationship. Serial monogamy (basically the same thing) was normalised a while ago.
We're absolutely fucked, incels. Chad has won. We are hated because we're ugly, and that's the top and bottom of it. Personality means nothing if a slut can go to a club and have sex with a different alpha male every night.
[Commenting under ""We do not stand alone". Nazi propaganda poster promoting the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" and presenting eugenics bills or measures abroad, Germany, March 1st, 1936"]
Too bad this didn't work out. Now we're left with blacks ruining every major city and rampant white trash in the suburbs.
The Male to Female ratio in terms of contribution to the civilization of mankind through out history has been incredibly one sided. Men and their contributions are 99% of any decent history book. Same goes for science. Females may as well be a a different species all together when compared to the opposite gender. The achievement gap between both genders is bigger than the gap between Chad and Incel looks. Tremendous gap, the biggest contribution women have made was when they were comfort women. Even then that was really the brilliant idea of man. We need to make comfort women a mandatory service for all women for at least 1 year of their lives. That should be their tribute/thanks to men for what we've given them and our civilization as whole.
Lookism with criminals: Thomas boggs VS Richard ramirez. As a male, your only value is your LOOKS.
-Thomas Boggs. Single crime: attempted sexual offense with a knife, snapping after being fired. Shown to regret it.
His pic: https://puu.sh/vduvb/af1869d063.jpg
-Richard ramirez: 11+ completed rape crimes, lots of them with murdering. Burgalry, more murder. Shown to not regret or apology at all.
His pic: https://puu.sh/vduBt/bf9ef9abdb.jpg
AND GUESS WHAT PEOPLE COMMENTS ABOUT EACH ONE OF THEM:
-Thomas Boggs:
http://puu.sh/vdvL5/bdc3ba3267.png
-Richard ramirez:
http://puu.sh/vdvM5/e4b81e95cd.png
REMEMBER, while people are bashing and desiring hell for Thomas Boggs for ONE SINGLE CRIME that he did when he snapped out and that he didnt even complete, people are admiring another guy who commited 11+ COMPLETED rapes (like the ONE SINGLE RAPE boggs did that people desire him the worst for) + murders of many of the raped women.
Also its funny because the sex crimes of boggs are NOT listed in the documentaries the comments are on yet people look for reasons to bash him so they research on him. Meanwhile every video of richard ramirez contains all his crimes yet people find excuses for him.
In addition, while boggs gets shit on a lot by the fact that the girl was 15 years old and gets labelled a pedo, one of the girls that ramirez beat up, raped and stabbed to death was 9 fucking years old. Fucking double standards.
There are many many more examples about each one of the guys. but shows how LOOKISM is FUCKING REAL.
YOU ARE YOUR LOOKS.
THERE IS NO SELF IMPROVEMENT.
THERE IS NO HARD WORK.
THERE IS NO INNER SELF.
Males have made a bigger impact as a species
DISCLAIMER!!: I am not trying to sound like some woman hater, I am just saying this because I feel it's necessary to say :)
this has been on my chest for quite a while. I normally never thought about i, but after seeing how much our world has been tainted by feminism and what it has done to all of us. I am just going to say it. Men have made more of an impact on this planet than females ever had, yet they act like they have.
Hunter-Gatherer, Computers, Printer Press, Compass, Mona Lisa, Colossus of Rhodes, Pyramids of Ghiza, The Phone, The Car, Lightbulb, Penicillin, Internet
Yet, I am somehow a woman-hater for being happy that we did this. No No NO! men can't even say that we made such an impact because it will hurt the feelings of others, even though IT'S A FACT!
Men are humble about it too! They are like, "Yeah, so what" Feminists/Females will create some reusable candle and act like it is the second coming of Christ. Like dude, no pls.
(Emphasis original)
Normie Men/Betabux are 100% Controlled by Fear
These guys are pathetic. They make up the majority of the male population too. Watch their body language next time you're out on the high street. They look pained. They are modern day sherpas for women. You can just see how their lives have to move forward within a very narrow bandwidth of acceptable behaviour. Denial is strong amongst these types. They will laugh off any such accusation they are controlled, yet the one thing incels and normies have in common is they are living under a female-dominated society. You CANNOT be a "normal man" and be free in such a society, unless you are of the Chad-level aristocracy.
Normie males have a much longer list of copes than incels require. They will tell themselves they are validated because they have a GF/wife. And yet, here's a plain truth: she wouldn't love you if you weren't giving her a lifestyle she is currently enjoying. It's incredibly conditional. She's dating you for your resources. She doesn't love YOU. It's that her lifestyle is at a certain level that's acceptable. All the while, she's being further poisoned by society that tells her she could do better. Always better. Always. Always. She reads about this every single day. She becomes resentful. She learns of her friend who is now single and is having a great time. It's only a matter of time before the "relationship" (that never REALLY was) is terminated with the betabux beast of burden. We know this, everybody knows this. Most women initiate relationship break-ups and divorces. Happens all the time. It's common knowledge. That's what I mean when I say normie men/betabux are controlled 100% by fear. The implied threats all around them is what controls them.
You know why normies come to /r/incels? FEAR. They are mesmerised by the level below them. People can't help but stare the thing they fear right in the face. For a man, it's female rejection. A man is not a man without a woman who loves him (fact). Very few men will truly have a woman love them (fact). Ergo, the vast majority of men live lives of quiet desperation and despair.
Of course, there's layers and layers of bullshit piled on top of the truth. "No, she said she loves me everyday!". Words cost nothing. She knows society protects her and not him. She knows she has the upper hand. She knows society tells her on an hourly basis that she could do better. While he's paying the mortgage (or vast majority of it in the best case for the man), he's acceptable - for now. But even that might not be enough. He can still pay the mortgage after he's kicked out and Chad moves in. Happens all the time.
We are not the problem. The dating market is
We are not the problem. We never were. Do you want any evidence? Search for a female who is your looksmatch and see who she is dating. Or take her pic and go on an online dating platform. Write the things you would ride for yourself in the profile: Same hobbies, same personality, same everything. I bet you any amount of money, you will get messages. You will find guys willing to date you. So why should we be the problem if a female version of us doesn’t have any problems getting laid?
We are not the problem. The dating market is. The market that enables female privilege, the market that values pussy so much more than it values cock, the market that allows female to raise the standards for guys day by day and trap them in a hamster wheel: Improve yourself, get a career, get better looking, get richer while women push the narrative that the 400lbs landwhale is a curvy goddess. So you are running in this hamster wheel, chasing the standards women set while in the end you get someone who is two leagues below you in looks but simply has more value than you on the market.
Why are normies so defensive over the very people who bully them?
There are some normies on this sub (you know who they are) who are your typical run of the mill fedora wearing neckbeard ugly nerd with no life (thus why he spends all his time posting on Reddit). They get no women and get no love. They are oppressed by chads. Why then do they feel the need to defend the chads who bully them or the Stacey's who ignore them? And they defend them with immense passion, to the point of replying to every single incel comment and sub comment, and purposely finding each other's comments to upvote. I can't get my mind around it. Anyone can explain this phenomenon?
