Hey, ProudIncelistani, just this one individual alone (who, yes, happens to be female, though we would have felt no need to draw particular attention to her gender if you hadn’t turned up) we hold in higher regard than every Incels member in the world combined (if you want to prove me wrong, then you go and do something similar for refugees and post the mainstream news link when you are done):
A lone student activist on board a plane at Gothenburg airport has prevented the deportation of an Afghan asylum seeker from Sweden by refusing to sit down until the man was removed from the flight.
Her successful protest, footage of which spread rapidly across the internet, shines a spotlight on domestic opposition to Sweden’s tough asylum regime, at a time when immigration and asylum are topping the agenda of a general election campaign in which the far right is polling strongly.
“I hope that people start questioning how their country treats refugees,” Elin Ersson, 21, told the Guardian in an interview. “We need to start seeing the people whose lives our immigration [policies] are destroying.”
Swedish plane protester Elin Ersson: ‘I knew I couldn’t back down – I had to do what I could’
…
This September, Sweden will hold a general election, and immigration has already dominated the debate. Polls have shown strong support for the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats, which has links to white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups. Ersson is concerned the country is shifting to the populist far right.
…
The tragic postscript is that she believes the young man she was originally trying to stop getting deported was taken to Stockholm and put on a flight there. “This is how deportations in Sweden work. The people involved know nothing and they are not allowed to reach out to their lawyers or family,” she says in a text the next day. “My ultimate goal is to end deportations to Afghanistan.”
To Ersson, besides offering you our sincere praise for taking a stand, our advice is the same as always: what if the Sweden Democrats do come to power in a few months’ time, or at any point in the future? Or what if the other parties in Sweden adopt their enough of their policies (as they have already started doing as the election approaches) as to become indistinguishable from them in practice? What if, either way, Sweden one day becomes like Hungary, just as Italy (only a few years ago the most pro-refugee country in the EU) has sadly become in the blink of an eye? The state will then not care about your pacifistic protests against deporting refugees any more than the IDF cared about Rachel Corrie’s (oh shit, PI, another female!) pacifistic protest against demolishing homes. You, just like every other leftist, need to be as well armed as possible so you can physically put bullets through rightists when this becomes - as I predict it will - the only way to effectively protect refugees. Are you and your cohorts ready to do this? If not, how long until you become ready? Because the clock is ticking. (Again, look at Italy: the anti-refugee state is now violently turning away refugees at the coastline, but pro-refugee activists are not killing the coastguard Rehabs, therefore refugees are dying:
You say your ultimate goal is to end deportations to Afghanistan. Very well. You say you will not back down and have to do what you can. Very well. Then please believe me when I warn that the only realistic way to achieve your ultimate goal is ruthless, relentless Ahimsa against the far-right until every last one of them is permanently wiped out. If you do not believe me, then do not complain if you fail.
(And for PI’s record, I have zero interest in having sex with Ersson, nor did I write this blog post with the motive of improving my chances of having sex with her. FFS, even if sex with her were the only way to persuade her to buy firearms(!!!), I would send RP to get it done rather than go myself. And no, I do not want to watch them either. And yes, I am saying all this mainly to illustrate the level of discussion that PI wants to drag us down to.)
It’s ridiculous how bad this incel bullshit is, how diametrically opposed to nobility and how misdirecting and focused on irrelevant crap, and yet PI still thinks it has “common points” with Aryanism. He’s even using the alt-right’s go-to “insult” to refer to Aryanists now, yet not long ago, he refered to us as “gods” on the Discord server…
By the way, AS, can you take a look at the contact-form email account? There’s something that needs your attention.
These Incels are just proving Freud and the Jewish worldview correct by putting sexual intercourse in the forefront of human existence. Read some Jung or Serrano and FFS, do some interesting things with your life, you know, become an interesting person, and you might just get laid.
Or better yet, you’ll realize it’s not that important. Direct your bodily energies toward higher goals.
@Hypnotix & Miecz
“PI still thinks it has “common points” with Aryanism”
“These Incels are just proving Freud and the Jewish worldview correct”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve
In the Jewish book The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, Eve is Adam’s “second wife”, where Lilith is his first. In this alternate version, which entered Europe from the East in the 6th century, it suggests that Lilith was created at the same time, from the same earth (Sumerian Ki), as Adam’s equal, similar to the Babylonian Lilitu, Sumerian Ninlil wife of Enlil. Lilith refuses to sleep or serve under Adam. When Adam tried to force her into the “inferior” position, she flew away from Eden into the air where she copulated with demons, conceiving hundreds more each day (a derivation of the Arabic djinn). God sent three angels after her, who threatened to kill her brood if she refused to return to Adam. She refuses, leaving God to make a second wife for Adam, except this time from his rib.
…
The creation of Eve, according to Rabbi Joshua, is that: “God deliberated from what member He would create woman, and He reasoned with Himself thus: I must not create her from Adam’s head, for she would be a proud person, and hold her head high. If I create her from the eye, then she will wish to pry into all things; if from the ear, she will wish to hear all things; if from the mouth, she will talk much; if from the heart, she will envy people; if from the hand, she will desire to take all things; if from the feet, she will be a gadabout. Therefore I will create her from the member which is hid, that is the rib, which is not even seen when man is naked.”
…
the Apostle Paul promoted the silence and submission of women due to Eve’s deception by the serpent
…
Eve’s being taken from his side implies not only her secondary role in the conjugal state (1 Corinthians 11:9), but also emphasizes the intimate union between husband and wife, and the dependence of her to him.
Basically Incels are Adam types who want women to be subservient. By demanding a return to female subservience, they in effect worship Yahweh whether they are aware of it or not. The part in bold is the story that gets endlessly retold on Incels.me over and over again every day! Incels perpetually re-experience what Adam experienced when Lilith rejected him, and respond by demanding Eve. They will side with Yahweh if that is what it will take for them to get Eve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible
New Testament Professor Ben Witherington III says the Hebrew Bible is a predominantly patriarchal document from a patriarchal age. It “limited women’s roles and functions to the home, and severely restricted: (1) their rights of inheritance, (2) their choice of relationship, (3) their ability to pursue a religious education or fully participate in synagogue, (4) and limited their freedom of movement.”[12]
…
New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III says “Jesus broke with both biblical and rabbinic traditions that restricted women’s roles in religious practices, and He rejected attempts to devalue the worth of a woman
…
Scholars agree certain texts attributed to Paul and the Pauline epistles have provided much support for the view of the role of women as subservient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_patriarchy
the biblical patriarchy movement is “committed to preserving as much of the patriarchal structure of Old Testament law as possible.”[7]
It is fairly obvious that Incels belong to the Tanakh-Paul a.k.a. anti-Jesus camp.
I am known for never underestimating enemies. We should not underestimate patriarchists, who form a significant subdivision of the right-wing backlash. Just as with ethical arguments against racism, the ethical arguments against sexism (which are mostly the same arguments anyway e.g. treat people as individuals, imagine being on the receiving end, etc.) used to be so obvious that it had become unnecessary to repeat them, with the result that many people have never studied them and possibly don’t even know what the arguments are. Just as with WNs, the patriarchists now turn up and behave as though no such arguments exist, and become successful in recruiting. As much as it insults our intelligence to have to re-fight battles that earlier generations of leftists had already won , the cost of not doing so is too high.
@AS @Miecz @Hypnotix
“Hey, ProudIncelistani, just this one individual alone (who, yes, happens to be female, though we would have felt no need to draw particular attention to her gender if you hadn’t turned up) we hold in higher regard than every Incels member in the world combined”
Watch the tables turn.
http://aryanism.net/culture/aesthetics/food/
Be prepared to eat your own words. Turn them into gruel, if you can. Your days of cucking to women are numbered.
“if you want to prove me wrong, then you go and do something similar for refugees and post the mainstream news link when you are done”
Hah! Better yet, I’m willing to go one step further! Why not an World Empire called “Incelistan”, where no such wars to produce refugees can happen in the first place be established? If you are sincere in your efforts to end this war and stop the crisis, then join in arms with me, lest I see your real intent…
“And for PI’s record, I have zero interest in having sex with Ersson, nor did I write this blog post with the motive of improving my chances of having sex with her.”
Where did I say you had that intent? Even you know it’s over, you’re just cucking to foids so that Aryanism can be more “palatable”. What’s next?! Condemning Hitler so we’re more “palatable”?! It is the task of all Incelistani Aryanists to save Aryanism! INCELISTAN ZINDABAD! UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY!
“FFS, even if sex with her were the only way to persuade her to buy firearms(!!!), I would send RP to get it done rather than go myself”
Watch as the next ER uses that fiREarm she won’t wield against hER. That man will be CHOosing to MAke a diffEReNCe for a bettER futuRE…
“And no, I do not want to watch them either.”
Sure. Don’t you know that I myself am Narendra Modi?
Your points here are points that YOU would normally have a problem with! If a jew tried to argue against sterilizing/detaining jews by citing that Emil Maurice was a jew, you’d respond in a sober and logical manner. If a gypsy tried to use some influential gypsy to argue against their sterilization/detainment, you’d laugh! But when it comes to foids, your bhagwati, you toss Aryanism itself out the window! What makes this case so different?! Now you see why we Incelistani’s have to be here?!
“and yet PI still thinks it has “common points” with Aryanism.”
Not only are most of the points common, I now see the task is even more dire to save Aryanism. I cannot leave; Aryanism must be saved!
“He’s even using the alt-right’s go-to “insult” to refer to Aryanists now”
Aryanist: “I support Hitler!”
Moron: “Both you and the Alt-Right support Hitler! You’re a tribalist!”
See the oddity there?
“refer to Aryanists now, yet not long ago, he refered to us as “gods” on the Discord server…”
Bro, I had no idea the Gods were this cucked. If the Gods refuse to save Aryanism, then perhaps their subject must!
“These Incels are just proving Freud and the Jewish worldview correct by putting sexual intercourse in the forefront of human existence.”
Not quite. We already knew that foids use tribalism and sex as control methods; The jews are slaves to it.
“Read some Jung or Serrano”
I read both before even being an Incelistani kek
“and you might just get laid.”
If you are a sub8, no amount of self-improvement will let you escape the betabux realm. If you are a Chad, you don’t even NEED to self-improve!
“Or better yet, you’ll realize it’s not that important. Direct your bodily energies toward higher goals.”
I can multitask. In Incelistan, tribalists and women are both screwed. Why choose between jew or WN to sterilize? Why not both?
“It is fairly obvious that Incels belong to the Tanakh-Paul a.k.a. anti-Jesus camp.”
If a jew told me that 2 + 2 = 4, I’d agree. If a jew told me that tribalism is right, I’d disagree. Even Aryanists can agree on basic things with jews, like “1+2 = 3″, or “The sky is blue” or “Bananas are yellow”. You don’t need to disagree with LITERALLY EVERYTHING your opponent says.
@ ProudIncelistein
You remind me of the guys on that weird planet in Alien 3. Anyway, stay strong and just when you reach your lowest point, a glorious Valkyrie just might save you if SHE sees good in your heart and soul.
In the mean time… @ Everyone
I’ve come up with a
revolutionarybasic method of debating the likes of Richard “Big Dick” Spencer, Andy “Asian Fetish” Anglin (if he’s still kickin’), and Milo “Not Halal” Yiannopoulous.https://swordofelysium.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/debating-the-alt-right-cartoon.jpg
Ok, off to teach my all-female student Tai Chi class, I go.
Gender Bolshevism is for what Incelistan strives.
@PI
“If a jew tried to argue against sterilizing/detaining jews by citing that Emil Maurice was a jew, you’d respond in a sober and logical manner. If a gypsy tried to use some influential gypsy to argue against their sterilization/detainment, you’d laugh! But when it comes to foids, your bhagwati, you toss Aryanism itself out the window! What makes this case so different?!”
Because women are not a tribe in the first place. In fact, you yourself carelessly admitted this:
In Incelistan, tribalists and women are both screwed.
which would seem to imply that many women are indeed not tribalists.
We of course oppose matriarchists (e.g. men not allowed to vote/earn their own income/go outdoors unaccompanied/etc.):
https://dogsharon.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/a-mans-place-is-in-the-kitchen/
but matriarchists are just the mirror image of patriarchists. If you claim that we cannot effectively oppose matriarchists without opposing women as a whole, then by the same logic we cannot effectively oppose patriarchists without opposing men as a whole. Yet you do not ask us to oppose men as a whole. Why not?
The nearest we come to general antagonism towards women is that we oppose femininity: we believe that more feminine women are worse than less feminine women. But at the same time we oppose masculinity: we believe that more masculine men are worse than less masculine men. Therefore at no point do we favour one side over the other. What we want is a society of minimal sexual dimorphism.
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/sexual_dimorphism.gif
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0356/71/1413927084027.jpg
“Even Aryanists can agree on basic things with jews, like “1+2 = 3?, or “The sky is blue” or “Bananas are yellow”. You don’t need to disagree with LITERALLY EVERYTHING your opponent says.”
Yes, but “1+2 = 3?, “The sky is blue” and “Bananas are yellow” are not VALUE statements, whereas patriarchy in the Tanakh is a policy recommendation consequential to implicit values. If the Tanakh says: “Men are on average more interested than women in inventing new machines”, I would agree. But I do not VALUE a world with more and more machines. Therefore I do not want patriarchy (which would likely lead to more funds being allocated towards machine research).
More pertinently, the Tanakh recommends patriarchy precisely because women are on average less tribalist than men (which is even what we expect biologically, as women are on average more neotenous):
https://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ (top row, middle vs right)
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20160611_EUC640.png
and the Tanakh VALUES tribalism, hence prudently recommends patriarchy as a way to secure tribalism. Whereas Jesus opposed patriarchy, not because he thought women would be just as reliably tribalist as men, but because he was opposed to tribalism itself.
@Miecz @AS @Lucius Rhine
“Because women are not a tribe in the first place. In fact, you yourself carelessly admitted this:
In Incelistan, tribalists and women are both screwed.
which would seem to imply that many women are indeed not tribalists.”
http://aryanism.net/about/glossary/
If we look at the definitions of “Aryan” and “Arhat”, both of them imply Nobility and Morality. But “Arhat” is on a totally different scale from “Aryan”, hence the tip of “Use Sparingly!”. In the same way, both “Tribalist” and “Female” imply ignobility and evil, but “Female” is on a wholly different level of evil. A tribalist will fight the Aryan for the most part (excluding Jews in SOME, but NOT ALL cases) externally, rather than breaking it down from the inside, yet internal destruction is a specialty of femoids. They, being too weak, cowardly, and pathetic to destroy it from the outside for their greedy cause, will take to breaking from the inside. This r/Braincels post should help:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/93gsnh/rbraincels_in_a_nutshell_xpost_rincelutopia/
“We of course oppose matriarchists (e.g. men not allowed to vote/earn their own income/go outdoors unaccompanied/etc.):
https://dogsharon.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/a-mans-place-is-in-the-kitchen/
but matriarchists are just the mirror image of patriarchists. If you claim that we cannot effectively oppose matriarchists without opposing women as a whole, then by the same logic we cannot effectively oppose patriarchists without opposing men as a whole. Yet you do not ask us to oppose men as a whole. Why not?”
Because Masculinity is good, whereas femininity is bad. Masculinity is the call to action and struggle, femininity is the parasitic cancer that kills the innocent.
You may ask: “But what about Masculine tribalists like Conan the Barbarian?”
The response is that their Masculinity is fine, their tribalism is not. You can look at Masculine anti-tribalists like Bhagat Singh, who’s Masculinity only helped push Hindustan to it’s independence. Femininity is the great evil, Masculinity is the savior. Death to all women.
You also seem to think that femininity is simply a mindset, but in reality, those XX chromosomes (I’d like to see you fight for trannies kek) is the Seal of Satan himself.
“The nearest we come to general antagonism towards women is that we oppose femininity: we believe that more feminine women are worse than less feminine women.”
The problem is that they are women. Femininity is just a catalyst to their evil.
“But at the same time we oppose masculinity: we believe that more masculine men are worse than less masculine men.”
You have no case against Masculinity.
“http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/sexual_dimorphism.gif”
We should go Parabolic, not Linear. There are countless cases in evolutionary history of species regaining lost traits, same thing here. (No, I’m not supporting Nature, I’m just stating a fact)
“https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0356/71/1413927084027.jpg”
This one isn’t opening for me. Are there any alternative links for this?
“Yes, but “1+2 = 3?, “The sky is blue” and “Bananas are yellow” are not VALUE statements,”
Then take things you’d agree with the false left on. G. (Obviously you don’t agree with the false left, but there are many things that you even stated in your articles that you share common).
“whereas patriarchy in the Tanakh is a policy recommendation consequential to implicit values.”
See above.
“precisely because women are on average less tribalist than men (which is even what we expect biologically, as women are on average more neotenous):”
https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/SoulfulDisgustingIslandwhistler
Women are the biggest tribalists of all. They create tribes as a way of sucking up resources from thirsty betacucks and put them to war. Women should be given no “rights”, “freedom” or even “mercy”. Also, fun fact: All foids worship white cock. JBW, baby. If that ain’t tribalism, then nothing is…
“https://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ (top row, middle vs right)”
If a WN told you “Muh h’whites is higher IQ then them blackies!” then you’d respond correctly. If a jew told you “Muh (((chosen peepulz))) is higher IQ then all u goyim!”, then you’d respond correctly. But when your bhagwati are under attack, Aryanism is the last thing to defend in your mind. Foids didn’t vote for Clinton because they were more noble or any of that horseshit, they voted because of the “first femoid president” crap. Again, more in-group preference, what’s that called again? Not too Noble if you ask me…
“Tanakh VALUES tribalism, hence prudently recommends patriarchy as a way to secure tribalism.”
Patriarchy in reality destroys tribalist societies, because in no way is a society created by foids to leech off of betacucks anything to keep. I’ve argued this before, see it in my WN debate thread. It’s just that Patriarchy is a good model for keeping alive good Nations, femininity can only kill everything. Just because the Jews said something, doesn’t mean it’s correct.
” a glorious Valkyrie just might save you if SHE sees good in your heart and soul.”
God’s a dude, he on my side. I don’t need no Valkyrie roastie whore…
“Gender Bolshevism is for what Incelistan strives.”
Incelistan is the only way to freedom.
All of you KNOW that all women are evil, yet choose to spare them from the same treatment as Jews, knowing that in both cases the subjects are both rotten to the core, why? You acknowledge sexual selection, hypergamy, and the overall evil that is in every woman, yet want to save them, why? If we brought up the genetic evil of Jews, you’re all up in arms against them, but when the Femoid Question is brought up before you, you fight to defend the ignobles against the evil Aryanist-Incelistanis. Why?
@PI
“Foids didn’t vote for Clinton because they were more noble or any of that horseshit, they voted because of the “first femoid president” crap.”
I already knew you would say that, which is why I also linked to the results of Hofer vs van der Bellen (both male candidates), which you have unsurprisingly ignored. If you were correct, there should be no female bias in favour of van der Bellen in this case. But there is. Therefore you are wrong.
But even if you insist on discussing US results only, here is Romney vs Obama (both male candidates again):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/156848/obama-remains-women-presidential-pick-romney-men.aspx
My assessment of present-day voting patterns is in fact very similar to that of right-wingers:
http://images.comfortingquotes.com/2014/06/wpid-quote-by-ann-coulter-if-we-took1.jpg
http://images.comfortingquotes.com/2014/06/wpid-saying-from-ann-coulter-it-would-be1.jpg
The only difference is that they want to win elections whereas I want them to lose elections.
“Patriarchy in reality destroys tribalist societies”
Every colonial power was patriarchical. If you were correct, the colonial era would never have happened. The colonial era happened. Therefore you are wrong.
(On the other hand, the success of the Suffragette movement coincided with anti-colonialism gaining momentum. Pure coincidence? I doubt it.)
“You have no case against Masculinity.”
Masculinity is adulteration of Original Nobility (just as femininity is). Masculinity is, among other things, the reason why (male) Incels exist in the first place. Most eventual Incels did not mind celibacy back when they were young children, yet find it increasingly unbearable as they mature, when all they are actually experiencing is a mere CONTINUATION of the same lifestyle that they should have already become used to since childhood. The only thing that has changed is that they have become more masculine, hence it is their own masculinity which is to blame for their own suffering.
And don’t get me started on this:
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/why-arent-more-men-vegan
In fact, within the vegan community I have long criticized this type of propaganda:
https://www.arespectfullife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Vegan-Men-Have-13-HIGHER-Testosterone-Levels.-1-1024×512.png
https://veganbetterplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Vegan-men-are-more-manly.jpg
https://static1.i4u.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/main_image_large/images/2016/01/peta-super-bowl-50-ad.jpg
I argue that instead of the cowardly False Left approach of trying to sell veganism to people who value masculinity, we should go with the radical True Left approach of admitting that veganism IS INDEED unmasculine (which is of course biologically true), but then make it positive by devaluing masculinity itself.