Radical patriarchism

From Kings Wiki, masculinity and nationalism
Jump to: navigation, search

Radical patriarchism is an ideology at the opposite end from radical feminism in the feminist-patriarchist spectrum of ideologies pertaining to relations between the sexes. Radical patriarchists believe women should be treated as property and call for such proposals as legalized marital rape and legalized uxoricide, with all violence against women being either legalized (if carried out by her owner) or else treated as a crime against her owner. Leucosticte explains:[1]

Radical patriarchists make no distinction between rape and any other kind of sex between males and females, because we recognize consent is an arbitrary social construct, subject to reinterpretation on a whim. The idea that females have a right to refuse sex is an idea that was made up to serve the Feminine Imperative, wherein she could lay claim to betas' and incels' resources without giving betas pussy on demand and without giving incels any pussy at all. We know that it is man's role to take females by force, and that females prefer for men to do this, because it makes them feel comforted that they are with a strong, dominant man who will confidently lead them, seize what he wants from this world, and not put up with anyone's shit (including theirs).

Here, we don't let normies dictate what's "disgusting" or "horrifying." What's disgusting is the degeneracy of our current era. What's horrifying is the thought of Chad's getting all the prime pussy, while we get none at all, until we bring about some change in this society.

We know that there are only three options for how relations between the sexes can work:

  1. Males dominate females, have lots of passionate sex with them, and make many children
  2. Females dominate males, have only occasional, tepid sex with them, and make only a few children
  3. The sexes stay separate, and the human race dies out from lack of mating

There is no fourth possibility. The #MeToo movement is intended to give us a combination of the second and third options above. But we are determined to claim our right to the first option, because it is the only path to human happiness for both sexes. If females refuse to cooperate, it is because they are putting us to a test of our mettle; if we cannot even overpower a female, how can we be mighty enough to protect her and provide for her? It is our task to work together to pass the collective shit test that is known as feminism and thereby prove our worthiness to enjoy young girls' pussies, by forcing our way inside of them. Rape is the time-honored way of putting females in their place and making them our property; and they cannot help but yield to our mastery once we have taken their maidenheads because it is the way of females to submit to their conquerors and even love them, for their attraction is to power above all else.

Here, we know that the age of consent was originally enacted as a way of preserving a maiden's virginity till marriage, so she would make a suitable bride. We also know that the traditional remedy, if a man took a girl's virginity before marriage, was that he had to marry her. Just like if you were to take petals off a rose at the florist shop, you would have to buy it, if you deflowered an unmarried girl, you had to pay the bride-price to her father and make her your wife. There was nothing predatory about this; it was just your taking what you wanted, for the benefit of everyone involved.

Since we don't believe in female consent, we naturally don't believe in an age of female consent either. Once marriage becomes a transaction between father and groom, with the bride being treated as property to be transferred from one guardian to the other; and once all distinctions between marital rape and any other sex between husband and wife are abolished, then her age is no longer of such pressing importance. Indeed, what we should be more concerned about avoiding is marriage to brides who are too old, rather than too young. Young females need sex and affection, yet they can only pair-bond properly to their first love, so they must marry young or else develop a bitter and unpleasant personality from being cheated out of intimacy during the years when the flower of their youth was in full bloom.

We recognize the right of fathers to have incestuous relationships with their daughters. We know that this will make men just as overjoyed at the news their wife is expecting a girl as they would have been upon hearing that she was bearing a son who could share in his manly activities and pass on the familial culture to the next generation. Women don't age well, and so it is natural that a man would desire a younger version of his wife. We know that a daughter is her father's rightful property and that men tend to take good care of their property. We know that a certain amount of inbreeding can have some genetic advantages, such as avoiding outbreeding depression, allowing for the expression of helpful recessive alleles, and purging harmful recessive alleles. We know that defective offspring of incestuous unions can be culled at any rate, if we allow for mercy-killing rather than being overly sentimental about wanting to save every life, however wretched and useless.

  1. https://www.incelocalypse.today/thread-33-post-132.html#pid132