I have visited the Wikipedia article about involuntary celibacy (‘Incel’) and am extremely dismayed by its anti-male bias. Then I googled the word and, again, I hit extreme anti-male bias from the mainstream media.
I’d like to add some balance to the defamatory zeitgeist that surrounds us, which has failed to recognise that a feminism run amok has produced a legion of celibate males. (Before the latest waves of feminism, when I was young Western civilisation still had marriage as a rock-solid institution: almost every Jack had his Jill.)
Part of this post is so important that I’ll use it as a ‘mantra’ in-between other posts, as I have done with my ‘uncategorized’ entries:
My brief message to those young Aryans who are masturbating because the anti-white System has ‘liberated’ the fair sex from you is simple:
Help us to reclaim Aryan countries by reading this site: a sort of FAQ on how to destroy the System. After we win you’ll able to abduct the Sabine woman of your dreams and the torture of involuntary celibacy will be over!
If you are intellectually inclined and want to be educated before committing yourself to armed revolution, read two texts of diametrically opposing style: the first one by Roger Devlin, a respected academic in the white nationalist movement and the second one, my paraphrases of a MGTOW blogger.
If Devlin’s paper impressed you, other articles by him can be read: here.
Categories
18 replies on “Involuntary celibacy”
Most men I know have lost their virginity. As far as I can tell it isn’t necessarily their inability to have intercourse but the fact that they can’t find a girl who’s worth keeping around. Most white women I know are whores, plain and simple. If she’s fucked less than four or five people, you’re not in bad shape.
That’s the state of Aryan womanhood for you.
The way I see involuntary celibacy is very simple.
It has nothing to do with a man’s virginity. It has to do with the psychotic breakdown in the West called feminism.
For us, sex is like food. When there was marriage, in the home there were two refrigerators: the real refrigerator and the metaphorical refrigerator. Every time we were hungry, we opened the real refrigerator and grabbed what our stomach requires.
The metaphorical refrigerator is the woman’s body. Every time the husband was hungry for Little Red Riding Hood (many of us were hungry every day), we just opened the legs of the metaphorical refrigerator and fulfilled our needs. There was no societal psychosis (laws against rape within marriage–cf. my favourite scene in Gone with the Wind) and sex roles were in place.
Currently very few whites have that metaphorical refrigerator. In the country where I live, only the Mennonites have it. The others are crazy. If a man wants sex now, the wife can legally deny it (and let’s not talk about the easy women whom we date).
Sex for whites must be a right for everyone who marries in a healthy society. Transvaluing values means reinstating marriage as the central institution of the ethnostate. Even Nietzsche saw this since the 19th century!
I agree with what you stated, but I don’t think daily intercourse is very healthy. Maybe some sexual acts but certainly not daily fucking unless you needed to prove a point.
Yes: sexual acts. But for adolescents in a pre-tech culture, right after marriage the first four months of a couple taste like the fucks of the century…
I had thought things might be different in Mexico, land of machismo. What’s the world coming to when a man can’t even rape his wife? In pussified America, which has long suffered under matriarchy, the current state of affairs seems a natural progression, only a logical next step, but now the feminist contagion has spread to Mexico too? It’s enough to make one lose all faith in humanity, provided one were ever foolish enough to have any.
But if the utility of marriage is only in providing us men with a metaphorical refrigerator which we may open at our whim, what’s the difference between a wife and a prostitute? Or in other words, why own a refrigerator when you can rent one?
You raise an important question.
Mexican Nobel Prize in literature Octavio Paz, who lived a few blocks from my place when he died, wrote La Llama Doble based on this premise: ‘The original and primordial fire, sexuality, raises the red flame of eroticism and this, in turn, sustains and raises another flame, blue and tremulous, that of Eros, eroticism and love: the double flame of life’ (my translation). I still have that book in my library. Before Paz another talented writer, Denis de Rougemont, wrote L’Amour et l’Occident but I’m closer to Paz’s poetic prose.
Brutal translation of Paz’s sexual philosophy:
After a few months of savouring a delicious Caperucita after the Honey Moon (red flame), wolfie starts to realize that the object of his desire also has a soul and starts treating her like a person (blue flame). This goes far beyond a prostitute. The trick in human sexuality is the balance between the two flames. But presently the blue flame reigns:
3rd World Mexico is imita monos: a country that imitates the monkeys of the First World. In recent times Mexico has become so feminized that fags are promoted on TV and there are new laws empowering women as in the American Democratic Party.
The belief that there is such a thing as the soul is pernicious and unscientific, since it implies we are something other than our bodies. It’s also the root of the Christian idea of free will, from which anti-racism follows as a logical consequence. For if we are not our bodies, then human will is free, and a mere biological fact such as race can make no difference at all in behavior. Under such a view, niggers and kikes can start acting just like whites any time they want to. But once it is admitted that humans are only their bodies, there are very good, scientific reasons to think they can’t.
Beyond this, even Christians aren’t deluded enough to speak of the souls of plants or animals. Does a carrot or a paramecium have a soul? There is no way within evolutionary theory to account for such a thing. Therefore I conclude soul is an illusion, the primary function of which is to sustain man’s hope for life after death, along with his egotistical presumption that he is not just another animal on planet Earth.
As for love, I’ve already noted in other comments that what is called love is always reducible to self-interest. A parent loves its child because it contains its genes, and the child loves the parent because it’s in his interest to do so, lest it stop providing him with food and nurture. Likewise with human pair bonding. People have an instinctual need to reproduce, just like other animals, and pair bonding facilitates the satisfaction of that need.
The world described by Darwin is a world of struggle, a war of all against all, in which all life ultimately ends in death and corporeal dissolution. In such a world, if there is a human emotion that could be said to characterize it, it’s hate, not love; and if there were a God who created such a place, he must be a sadist, interested only in producing suffering.
Yes: I know.
But Paz was a secular poet and didn’t believe in post-mortem survival. Taking advantage of the liberal license for writers though he used language loosely, including the word ‘soul’.
IMO what you say about a child loving his parent only for self-interest is only partly true. I wonder if you have read what I say about the film Artificial Intelligence in DOW?
I believe you are referring to /r/incel.
Many who make fun of the males on these sites are themselves insecure of their own maleness. Never mind the fact that a term like “incel” is one of those alarm terms that people shout whenever they come across a man who is in any way a holder of dissident opinions about women. I shouldn’t take such people seriously until we are killing them.
How often, do you think, are the cases where the man is a bigger pussy in a relationship? I.e, the cases where the man makes his woman commit an abortion or leaves the family out of fear of responsibility?
I’m just trying to listen to the attorney – some kind of hypothetical “racially-motivated feminism” that I don’t admittedly encounter on the net.
I do myself believe that giving men power back will make them less degenerate – I can’t imagine forming a family in a feminist society, where a cheating wife won’t be stoned to death (and where the husband doesn’t even have the right to sex, like you’ve pointed out).
By the way, when men have extramarital affairs, does it strengthen the marriage or ruin it? I actually don’t get it, will it offend the wife like feminists postulate, or will it only strengthen her belief in her husband’s prowess and her choice of him?
P.S. There’s a good saying I’ve found on incel.me – don’t ask the prey about how to catch it, ask the hunter.
Unlike anti-incel folks like Hunter Wallace (who luckily married a very conservative woman in Alabama), the question is crystal-clear to me: He who does not fuck won’t fight.
If we don’t even have the right to fuck our own Scarletts as Rhett did after that famous stair scene, we won’t behave like Rhett in the real world!
Simple.
Try to convey this obvious truth to the masturbating whites of today and you will hit a wall. Bedroom in order, or other feminized Jordan Peterson memes, should not mean what this cuck wants us to believe but raping cute Scarlett when she misbehaves.
Southern nationalists who admire Dixie but are unwilling to transvalue values back to the times of their civil war are phonies.
I can’t read Spanish, so I’d like to know more about your Four Words slogan (“eliminate all unnecessary suffering”) in the context of your foregoing reply on brutal male behavior. True manliness is always excessive for its energetic abundance. The Eternal Masculine creates while destroying, and destroys while creating, is an antithesis agent, a side in universal friend/enemy confrontation. Also it is natural for Man to sacrifice his life to save his women, children, animals and possessions, but Man sacrifice them all if his Ideal command him to do so. Where is a frontier between unnecessary and necessary suffering? Or I’m on the wrong track of thinking?
Part of my two books in Spanish are translated in Day of Wrath (DOW). Most of DOW has been reproduced in this site.
‘Unnecessary suffering’ means, say, the unnecessary torture of animals in the slaughtering houses and in labs. It also means to prevent the fate of those children who have been, literally, driven mad by extremely abusive parents (the ‘trauma model of mental disorders’).
On the other hand, Rhett raping Scarlett is a necessary suffering of Scarlett (though in the film the next day she woke up quite happy after the raping). It is necessary because whites must breed to thrive: the opposite of feminism.
In your opinion, is there a place for the necessary suffering in Parrishian nymphal paradise from your blog’s sidebar?
Of course. You see, there’s a sci-fi novel of Arthur Clarke that I purchased in San Rafael long ago, right after it was published. Before the sun turns into a nova the earthlings have to move to another solar system. The front cover of my paperback depicts the Thalassians enjoying life precisely like that Parrishian paradise but… in the novel there was an accident and a young lad lost his life.
All Thalassians deeply mourned their loss, but a premature death is a necessary or unavoidable suffering even in an earthly paradise.
link
If you want a virgin girl, AND get rid of Christian axiology, I’d advise you to attack and raid the Amish. Their ritual of rumspringa brings forth a steady stream of hedonistic weakling PACIFISTS into the White race.
The decent Amish girls should not be touched after the revolution: only the non-Amish sluts, especially as the Day of the Rope allows even older soldiers to marry quite young, though spoiled women by force (the rape of the ‘Sabine’ women).
The Amish and similar groups have inbred so much their overall health suffers. And are no threat to the cuck consortium.