In an utterly hyperreal segment of ITV’s “This Morning,” a gang of British boomers attempted to grasp the rising terror threat of I.N.C.E.L. This comes after the Plymouth shooting, which is being blamed on incels.
I’ve never really witnessed anything like this before in my life. They brought on that cunt Laura Bates and the terrorism expert (???) Professor David Wilson, and framed the entire incel movement as a rising terrorist threat of men who want to commit random murders because they’re mad they can’t get laid, and effectively called for some kind of counter-terrorism crackdown against men who can’t get laid.
Everyone is now a terrorist – Trump supporters, anti-vaxxers, incels – whatever. Anyone who takes any issue with the reigning liberal order is now getting kicked into the bucket of terror, and the masked footsoldiers of ZOG are going to hunt them down and throw them in concentration camps, where they can’t cause trouble for irate fat women and homosexual kiddie fiddlers.
The incel issue is not especially complex or confusing. The word means “involuntary celibate.” This should be considered a tragic condition, but instead, these men are attacked and blamed personally for not being “successful with women.” This is clearly some kind of absolute mania. None of the people in this clip even tried to sympathize with the incels, and I’m not aware of any media figure ever trying to do that.
Why would they not try to sympathize? Obviously, they’re not all murderers. The number of incel terrorist attacks is much lower than the number of Islamic terrorist attacks, and every time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, the entire media goes into action propagandizing people to believe that not all Moslems are terrorists, and actually, Moslems are just misunderstood, and actually, maybe the terrorist did have a point with regards to US foreign policy and the failures of the refugee admission program.
But “Professor Dave” said that anyone on an incel forum is a terrorist, de facto.
The basic fact of total reality is that 100 years ago, every man who was not some kind of mutant freak got married. Up and down the line, men were matched up with women within their own circles. Women had it better than men, generally, as an especially pretty girl from the lower classes could marry up a lot easier than a professionally successful male from the lower classes. But the general thrust of a marriage-based order was a focus on society as a whole, an understanding that families are the center of society, and for families to flourish, human sexual behavior had to be regulated and framed within legal and social norms.
The sexual revolution abolished this ancient sexual order, allowing women to have “free sex” with whomever they wished, which would ultimately lead to the destruction of the family in total. Women now have unlimited sexual options, while also working to restrict the sexual options of men, so as to further empower themselves.
No matter what a woman tells you about her education and work history, no matter what she tells you about her worldliness and enlightenment, every woman knows that when it comes down to it, the single thing of value that she possesses is a gooey hole between her legs. Because that is all a woman has, she is necessarily required, within a society that prizes status, to use that disgusting hole to maximum effect. The sexual revolution gave her full capacity to maximize the use of that hole, to use it as a weapon to climb over the bodies of the men she is able to suck into the orbit of that hole.
The difficult fact for boomers and other believers in the sexual liberation agenda to recognize is that incels are only one symptom of a rot that is destroying all levels of society.
Namely: the fact that more or less all marriages now end in divorce. (Feel free to hit me with statistics about how it’s “only” 50-60%, but you do not understand that people do not get married and divorced at the same time, which means that those statistics are irrelevant. The people who are still married just haven’t gotten divorced yet.)
As is the case in something like 100% of situations, all of those five men’s divorces were initiated by their wives.
The idea that there is something men can do to avoid divorce is utterly insane. And yet, we go one step further – and say that divorce is the man’s fault! He didn’t do enough for the woman!
Of course, because of the rate of divorce, and because of the fact that young and fertile women would rather spend their time on an adventure than get married and have children, very few millennial men are even bothering to get married – even if they are not “incels.”
However, listen to this: the purpose of “getting laid” – the biological purpose – is to produce children, to form a family and raise the children. And in our society, that process is blocked, even for those at the very highest ranks of society.
So what is really the difference between an incel and Brad Pitt?
The difference is base and largely meaningless: Brad Pitt can walk into a bar and walk out with a hot chick any night of the week. That might make him more comfortable, but ultimately, as long as it is impossible for him to have security with a family, the fact that he can physically engage in the sexual act is not much consolation in the game of life.
Focusing on the most extreme cases – total incels, who are willing to admit they are incels, and then get angry about it – is ignoring the fact that we have built a society that does not work and is simply not sustainable.
There is nothing worse than being the child of divorce, or of an unmarried mother. It crushes the soul. Most of the angriest incels probably are children of single mothers, which is why they’re so hung up on the problem. I don’t think the Plymouth shooter actually necessarily identified as an incel, but you’ll note that he killed his single mom first. I have zero doubt that she deserved it.
Of course, with abortion and other forms of birth control, we’re reaching a point where women are just outright refusing to breed at all, which I guess eliminates the single motherhood issue.
If you look around at this society, what you are looking at is a sexual paradise created for women, by women. Every element of this current social order is designed to maximize the value of pussy, and therefore enable women to leverage that pussy to maximum effect. Even the promotion of homosexuality is a part of this: homosexuals have female values and reinforce the gynocracy.
This system is bitter, it is hateful and it is sadistic. It is designed not only to empower women, but to punish men.
If the incel issue is an isolated problem, unconnected to the total collapse of the family and society as a whole, then why not simply legalize prostitution?
Prostitution has been legal all throughout history – banning it was one of the first things women did when they were given political enfranchisement.
And there is always going to be a certain percentage of women who are willing to trade their pussy for cash on the barrelhead.
So why did women ban hooking?
Because if prostitution is legal, the value of pussy drops to the hourly wage of a brothel worker. When you can go to the brothel and get laid for roughly two days’ pay at minimum wage (which is what prostitution ends up costing in any country where it’s legal), then there is no such thing as an “incel.” Everyone is then promoted to the level of Brad Pitt, where he is not directly restricted from sex, but certainly restricted from marriage.
Feminists block prostitution because they feed on male thirst. If this wasn’t the case, then any discussion about incels would revolve around the immediate need to normalize prostitution. But that question doesn’t come up in TV segments. Laura Bates is never asked “well can’t we just set up medically-inspected, state-regulated brothels and get these guys to chill out?”
Imagine if this befuddled boomer had just popped the question.
If a befuddled boomer or anyone else did ask Laura Bates that questions, her head might fill with fluid and pop like a zit. Or she might become an anti-incel mass shooter. It’s so obvious, but it’s never asked, because it is already assumed that the vaginal overlords have already made the call on prostitution – it’s an atrocity, they say. A crime against humanity. Prostitution is only valid when there is someone in the room with a camera, filming it to post on the internet for sexless men to masturbate to. Anyone who would dare even ask about the legal status of prostitution in relation to the incel issue is clearly themselves an incel, and therefore a terrorist who must be immediately hauled off to a camp and reeducated by being forced to watch transsexual pornography.
All of this is to say: none of this is sincere. It is all just another ridiculous, absurd hoax, which is very easily deconstructed with basic facts.
Any reasonable society would view the collapse of the family as a crisis, and start enacting policy to counter the trend. But this is a vaginal utopia, and any problem that is created by the completely unrestricted and utterly out-of-control sexual behavior of women needs to be solved with the cold steel of Johnny Law. If men cannot get along with female liberation, if it is causing them psychological disorders, if it is causing them to commit mass shootings – then put them in camps, or just kill them outright.
Nothing will stand in the way of the total liberation of the female from the bonds of the patriarchy.
Any question you have about why the entire Western world is now exclusively devoted to the sexual liberation of women, at the expense of the entire civilization, is not simply an anti-Semitic trope – it’s a full on anti-Semitic canard.
So I’d advise you to keep your mouth shut, watch your porno, and deal with the fact that you will die alone.