New Leucosticte's post on
incels.me
"I view white supremacy as just a means to an end. The goal is to maintain America's status as a first world country, rather than letting it degenerate into a third world country like Haiti or Zimbabwe, which wouldn't serve any race's interests (other than maybe whatever non-white despots took over). I have nothing against, say, interracial marriage; I think it should be up to fathers to decide which men their daughters should marry. Some non-white husbands might be better than some white husbands.
Allowing incestuous marriage is just a logical extension of that same general idea. It might be logical for a dad to decide, "My daughter would be better off of I impregnated her than if I left her to Jeremy Meeks to impregnate." Some studies suggest that inbreeding causes offspring to have lower intelligence, but Jeremy Meeks's offspring might not have high intelligence either. Also, maybe the girl's dad doesn't feel like hanging out with Jeremy Meeks at family get-togethers (if the dude would even stick around in the girl's life), or maybe he doesn't feel like having to help his daughter raise another man's bastard kid (if Meeks didn't hang around).
I'm just saying, let each father make his own decisions about what's best for his daughter, based on his own judgment, familial traditions, etc. Eventually, natural selection will encourage the spread of the best genes and familial culture, and cull the family lines of those who make poor decisions for their daughters. We tried the social experiment of letting girls make their own decisions, and it didn't work.
Some would say, "Just like familial decision-making needs to be centralized by letting the father choose what's best for his family, the nation's decision-making needs to be centralized in the national leader(s), who will choose what mating practices are best." So, e.g., a legislature might pass laws against incest, in an attempt to force patriarchs to do what's eugenic.
I think the arguments for a national authority to make those kinds of decisions for families are weaker, because individual families can build walls to separate themselves from other families, and each family has its own patriarch and its own goals (e.g. perpetuating the family line) that may conflict with those of other families. This is in contrast to the situation within a family, where the household's goals and resources are shared and females must look to the patriarch for leadership because they lack their own leadership capability.
Institutions like the church serve as a middle ground between having a centralized national authority, using police to enforce its laws; and devolving authority to individual patriarchs. The church imposes social pressure, which families are free to ignore if they don't mind losing out on the benefits of being part of the church. But it also provides a community for those who value the shared culture.
The way incels fit into all this is that you have a much better chance of getting pussy, especially virginal pussy, if fathers can take into account your less superficial characteristics and make a decision that they think is going to be in the long-term interests of their daughters. Once we conclude that girls can't make their own sexual decisions, and need their fathers to make those decisions for them, then it's easy to say that girls should be allowed to marry at a young age, because the father is going to be old enough that he's competent to give the okay. It gets rid of the whole argument, "But she's too young to make that choice" if we acknowledge that older females are incompetent to decide too.
White supremacy, by the way, doesn't have to be explicitly codified in the laws. It's not explicitly codified now, for example, but it's one of the unstated goals of, say, having an Electoral College that gives the white rural states more representation. Our system also gives wealthy candidates like Donald Trump a lot of advantages when it comes to getting elected, which helps filter out those who didn't have what it takes to be successful in business. (Curtis Yarvin suggests implementing neocameralism as a way of harnessing capitalist forces to more efficiently choose better leaders and give them incentives to look out for the long-term interests of the country.)
I'm not a wealthy candidate like Trump, but what I do have is a willingness to speak what I see as the truth, and I have nothing to lose. If all you have is one poker chip, you may as well go all in rather than cashing out and walking away with just that. Why be volcel and LDAR, instead of fighting for the right to jailbait pussy? I could focus on wealthmaxxing (and maybe I will shift my focus to that at some point), but even the wealthy aren't allowed to have jailbait pussy. And now we're getting to the point where the wealthy and powerful can't even hit on the females who work for them.
Virginia's 10th congressional district is the wealthiest district outside of Silicon Valley. My message to the powerful men of this district is, "Look, I know the establishment has been good to you in a lot of ways, giving you a seemingly comfortable life in a suburban neighborhood. But one thing you don't have is some virginal jailbait pussy, and I'm the only candidate who will stand up for your right to have it. And another thing you don't have is any control over your own daughter, to marry her off to a good man at a young age, so that when she's a teenager, she doesn't rebel against you by giving her pussy to a bunch of lowlifes."
To the middle class normie, I would say, "Look, I know this life is driving you nuts, where you work all day and then gotta come home to this harpy who bitches at you and won't even open her legs to you half the time. Meanwhile, you gotta pay for her student loan and credit card debt that she took on before your relationship, when she was getting fucked by Chad, who didn't pay her way for anything because that's a role reserved for her eventual beta hubby (i.e. you).
"Meanwhile, she's become arrogant because of her seemingly impressive career (which boils down to glorified paper-shuffling), and she's probably fucking any alphas she meets in her line of work. This shit is for the birds, man. We need a return to traditional sex roles, so that instead of having to put up with this, you can get some fresh jailbait in your life that won't give you such a hard time."
To the females, I would say, "Look, you know you're not happy being a Strong and Independent Womyn. You would rather have a man take care of you. Well, if you want that, then you need to accept male leadership and stop chopping off men's balls, because emasculated men are not going to be able to look after your needs effectively."
But my appeal is mostly to the men. When they lead, the females will follow, because that's all they know how to do. But females will never follow any man who isn't strong. The way you show strength is by setting a goal and then striving after that goal with determination and ingenuity. So in this case, we say, "We want jailbait pussy, and we're taking it, by whatever means necessary." Kinda like Lester Burnham in American Beauty, who quit taking any shit from his wife, and musclemaxxed to go after his daughter's friend. Except we should actually use the political system, or whatever we need to use, to take that jailbait.
One of the reasons I made Incelocalypse's slogan "The Day We Make The Jailbaits Our Rape-Slaves" was to put that on every page, so that it would be really unmistakable to even the casual reader of Incelocalypse what we were after. A political platform has to be simplified to its essence, and in this case, what it boils down to is an image of sliding into some virginal jailbait pussy.
That's our goal, and it's a worthy goal, because it's by doing that (and constructing the patriarchal structure that enables and supports that) that we build strong families and replenish the human race, so that all the other work of civilization can continue. It's an aspiration that's currently beyond the reach even of most normies, because of how degenerate our society has become. A 19th-century man would have said that it's absurd that one wouldn't be able to get some virginal jailbait pussy. He definitely would not have seen anything abusive or perverted about wanting it.
Even though jailbait pussy is off-limits today, the tantalizing nature of it permeates our culture, even in the term itself, "jailbait," suggesting it's something tempting, and in the magazines and porn sites about "teen" or "barely legal" girls. The idea of getting jailbait pussy has a strong emotional appeal to it, and emotions are what move the masses to political action.
In America, we're pretty much satiated with everything we could need to fulfill our animal urges, except one. Are you hungry? You can go down to McDonald's, or your favorite fast-casual place, and get the supersized value meal or whatever. The only thing you can't get with your money is jailbait pussy. What a tragedy, to not only be forbidden from fulfilling a natural desire, but to be shamed for even wanting it, and to be regarded as basically a rapist for even looking at an attractive young girl lustfully.
They're pieces of meat, dude; what's the big deal? Nothing wrong with salivating over something cooking that smells good, when you're hungry. (Thus, there's nothing really all that weird about checking out the barely prepubescent girls who are about to blossom.) And there's nothing wrong either with preferring to enjoy it while it's still fresh and hot, rather than leftover."
Treating plants and animals as property has given us an abundance of cheeseburgers, pizzas, tacos, etc. so that no one needs go hungry. When we treat girls as property, there will likewise be an abundance of pussy. Let's go forward and establish patriarchy."
