I'm thinking that in the 19th Century men enjoyed a seller's market. Women could enter into business, but only if married. Women couldn't own property (in some areas if not all). Women were strongly incentivized to find a mate. The alternative could be devastation.

Now that's changed. Women are no longer threatened with poverty if they don't marry, thus the emergence of the incel.

Unless the topic of the OP is really just psychobabble.

Internet culture is something I've intentionally drenched myself in. I've been familiar with the term "incel" for many years...

"Involuntarily celibate"... The term became ubiquitous in some internet circles a few years ago, around the same time as a mass shooting carried out by someone claiming to be motivated by sexual rejection.

In the threatening videos he uploaded prior to carrying out his murder-suicide spree, he explained (with a kind of cringe that turned him into a "meme") that he was "the perfect gentlemen", and was thus driven to extremes because of how irrational the rest of the world is (women always go for ass-holes, why don't they recognize my perfection, etc...)

Originally the term was not used for self-identification, it was a pejorative label floating down a few main-streams and applied to a certain kind of person by other groups such as "MGTOW" (a slightly different tale), but eventually communities of self-proclaimed incels emerged in digital forums of various kinds.

It's an internet phenomenon to be sure. It seemingly requires some degree of anonymity, because complaining about how you cannot get laid in public is, known even to incels, as not conducive to getting laid. But with anonymity they can share and amplify their grievances which reinforces their emotional position.

Mostly they're children who lack self-awareness and social skills (the internet will do that to you if you aren't careful).

I hate to be so corny but Yoda was right, their fear of sexual failure (causing a nocebo effect in an already challenged mind) amplifies into anger, and anger into hatred.

The internet allows similar individuals (or at least people who react the same way to "memes") to coalesce into groups, and so while there have always been some incels, there have not always been social networks of them, and they've never openly recruited (how open their communities are is relative, suffice it to say you need to know where to look or wind up there organically).

There's a poorly studied psychiatric concept called "Folie en Famille" (or folie a deux) where delusions held by one individual can be imparted to others through close proximity and isolation from outside influence. Many internet communities which thrive on the insidious persuasive power of emotional appeals function as amphitheatres where the silliest kind of nonsense can be proliferated this way.

Alex Jones' "Info Wars", and the broader conspiracy circuit used to have the digital market fairly cornered on silliness, but in recent years (perhaps with the increasing numbers of internet users) many new and somehow sillier groups have formed. The "ethno-state supporting alt-right" is one such delusional group (they believe Jews own everything and control every nation on earth, that the white race is headed for non-existence in under 200 years, and that if a million whites moved to the arctic to found an "ethno-state" it would be Eden (jump cut to a frozen and lifeless Jack Nicholson)).

The flat earth community is another example (it started as satire ten years ago but then became real; a real Pinocchio). Communist "Antifa" is another good example. The Black Nationalist movement deserves an honorable mention as well.

Social justice warriors didn't cause the incel movement, both incels and SJW's are a phenomenon that can only exist when you have a bunch of narrow minded (usually just young and stupid) individuals grouped together and somewhat isolated from other groups, who proceed to emotionally validate and manipulate one another with the same passion for truth as can be found in any hostile mob.

The internet allows (stimulates even) the weirdos to unite. "Neurodiversity" is expanding and human culture stratifying as these disparate groups push in different directions.

This is from whence the creepy crawlies came.

Or have there always been incels in every culture? — frank

There have always be subperformers in every cultures. The difference nowadays is the existence of a medium which exacerbates our narcissism and which connects to others who are experiencing the same conditions. Despite there being little or no 'incel' community, those pathetic non-beings are able to reinforce their PoV by simply confirming the existence of others who are living the same situation.

My guess is that we also have The Handmaiden's Tale to blame for it. Yeah, 99.999% of people see that as a dystopia, but what about the 00.001% for whom that just described a utopia?

jump cut to a frozen and lifeless Jack Nicholson)) — VagabondSpectre

If it saves white people, it's worth it.

But so, how do these various groups influence events in the real world? Are we looking at a new kind of platform for a worldview? Could a religion emerge from it?

Very insightful history, BTW.

There's a poorly studied psychiatric concept called "Folie en Famille" (or folie a deux) where delusions held by one individual can be imparted to others through close proximity and isolation from outside influence. — VagabondSpectre

Funnily, the history of "Folie a deux" is quite interesting, and relates also to the incel problem. The term was coined by parisian newspapers and psychiatrists, when the courts started using expert opinions on the psychological causes of crimes.

Folie a deux is just another demonstration of the French predilection for low-intensity mysoginy. The explanation of a man's deviant behaviour is ; women, or more accurately, the passion of men for women.

"Cherchez la femme" is another example which came about in the same context.

The difference nowadays is the existence of a medium which exacerbates our narcissism and which connects to others who are experiencing the same conditions. — Akanthinos

Commune and reinforce. Actually pretty scary.

I really really don't get it.

I mean, if you are 25 (or more) and you are extra super salty about not getting laid, isn't there a few other illegal things you could do that could solve the problem, before resorting to violence?

No. You have to blow somebody up.

This may be related. If JP is becoming a spokesperson for the Incel community, then we should not be surprised that these idiots are becoming more comfortable with being in the public. That's basically all JP does : normalize the extreme so that it can more easily presented to non-radicals.

Jordan Peterson is an idiot

With such taste in art, it will perhaps not come as a surprise to learn that Peterson, who is married to a woman who is presumably very good at compartmentalising, has some sympathetic thoughts about men who blame their misogyny on women who don’t want to have sex with them.

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“‘Half the men fail,’ he says, meaning they don’t procreate. ‘And no one cares about the men who fail.’

“I laugh, because it is absurd.

“‘You’re laughing about them,’ he says, giving me a disappointed look. ‘That’s because you’re female.’”

He speculated the same thing I did, but came to different conclusion.

But surely he realizes that forces monogamy isn't going to happen. So what is he doing? Just being provocative?

But surely he realizes that forces monogamy isn't going to happen. So what is he doing? Just being provocative? — frank

Setting up his next book's sales. Or trying to get another big debate/interview set up, this time with Margaret Atwood?

That's what I figured. Just making noise.

So this occurred to me: when we get highly upset that the Russians tried to interfere in American elections, should we consider that Russia or not, there was something unusual going on with internet interactions. People who might have previously wondered if they were just taking themselves too seriously and tossed it aside, joined up with others prone to lunacy and became alt-right (or fell completely overboard and became anti-Semitic). This was going on whether Russia was involved or not. Russia was just riding the phenomenon. True?

when we get highly upset that the Russians tried to interfere in American elections, should we consider that Russia or not, there was something unusual going on with internet interactions. — frank

I apologize, but I don't get the question. Is the phenomena the elections, the elections+fake news, or just the suspicion against Russian State agents.

American intelligence determined that Russians (possibly involving Putin personally) attempted to help Trump's campaign by providing both real and fake news to diminish Clinton's chances of winning. Clinton is said to believe this is the reason she lost. I don't agree. I think she's political poison.

But considering what VS mentioned above regarding the cascade of factors by which the internet turns a handful of frustrated men into a "movement," I'm wondering if the same kind of thing contributed to Trump's win much more substantially than anything the Russians did. No injection of fake news is required if it's internally generated just by people meeting and venting at one another.

That's fascinating.

In the broader sense I think what we're looking at are regimes of cultural and ideological transmission that tend to find purchase in the unenlightened past, and in the intellectually darkened doorways of the present. wonders if a religion might emerge, but I would more specifically name it a "cult". Normally cults are physical, coherent and have charismatic leaders, but this cult is guided by its own autonomous and anonymous mob: an online Ouija board operated by sex-obsessed teens. - Teens can form international groups now. Another double edge of the digital age -. I call it a cult because they're ready to sacrifice (now in all varying degrees). Sacrifice literally means to make sacred; to worship. Cults, in my opinion, could be described as a group with a perverted object of worship.

As groups grow, their radical outliers become more numerous. I think the recipe for a violent incel is extreme sensitivity to emotional anguish, a severe lack of self-awareness, and the kind of ideological rhetoric which depicts their place in modernity as forever the sexually dispossessed misanthrope with only women and assholes to blame.

But so, how do these various groups influence events in the real world? — frank

Different groups affect the world in different ways. The flat earth community is run by shysters and every-once in awhile a celebrity will tweet about how the earth is flat, but beyond that they have marginal influence (though they will certainly derail the learning and intellectual development of any who fall prey to it). The alt-right is a bit more pernicious: they're slowly and subtly reviving racism and race nationalism, and while they're also a community largely run by shysters (and which intersects a broader but overall less pernicious reactionary right-wing political movement) they function as provocateurs in the political mainstream, and their main effect is to cause co-reactionary polarization. Antifa arrives in black-shirts to fight the fascists, the guy who turned up to hear about free speech is stricken with a bout of red-threat and wonders if the race nationalists actually have an argument to make. A kid makes a racist meme and an adult uses it to recruit ideological foot-soldiers in the cause against neo-hitler. Someone suggests censorship and as a result another tiny piece of the right is flung afar where patriotism blurs with emotional vigor.

I should point out again that these movements are generally characterized by identity defining emotional narratives as opposed to rational thought and analysis.

Explaining the actual position of these groups to an average "normie" is a seminar in absurdity. The flat earth community has accrued 1001 ridiculously obscure and scientifically misleading "gotchya" questions to throw at you (you will likely lose a "debate" against them). Antifa unironically believe that physical violence is a fair means of political participation. Incels believe that all women should be obligated to cater to their individual sexual needs. Ethno-state supporters believe that Alabama (or the Arctic, or a bunch of boats in international waters, or space) is the only hope for the survival of the white race. The alt-right as a whole takes the cake though. It's a smörgåscopia of the most absolutely ludicrous delusions that have ever existed.

If you enjoy absurdist humor or have morbid curiosity, the following is a summary of one of the more obscure and ridiculous genuinely held beliefs of many in the alt-right:



People actually believe the above. An uncomfortable number of them (just like the surprisingly bulged ranks of the flat-earthers) and their misguided views are uncomfortably difficult to dispossess them of.

But, saturating myself (seemingly masochistically) with the ideas of these groups was not without purpose. In understanding these groups I can see what it takes to actually dissuade them:

Mostly they're lacking in basic foundational knowledge (history, science and biology notably) which is why they have harder times understanding more nuanced models of reality, and which would otherwise facilitate communication. The world-views and basic set of operant truths of these groups can be so far removed from common understanding that they seem like foreign languages.

To have persuasive power over others requires that you speak their language and understand their (often emotional) set of reasons, and how to navigate and question those reasons without casting yourself as threatening opposition (all of these groups emotionally view themselves as counter-cultural heroes/martyrs). For a flat-earther it means lengthy exploration of fundamentals of physics and history of science (with pictures). For an alt-righter it means exploring evolution, genetics, statistics, economics, politics, anthropology, sociology, and everything in-between, while also somehow removing existing emotional hooks in a pain-free way (they're often barbed). For an incel it means exploring psychology (their own), their future, and human nature in general.

For instance, when an alt-righter asks me if I care about the survival of the white genome (as if it is an evolutionary imperative with normative implications), in order to have persuasive power in the interaction I need to take the question seriously. I can either argue that the demographic projections of the end of the white race are of the faultiest order (which they are), or I can try to render a more holistic portrait of biology and evolution: ethnicities and also genders can have different traits on average, which is a biologically influenced reality, but evolution does not operate on the level of race, it operates on the level of individuals, which is why no two members of the same ethnicity are exactly alike and why discriminating on the level of individual merit as opposed to ethnicity or race is the superior practice. It's also why I have an even stronger biological imperative to secure the future of my own individual genes as opposed to any random set of genes from those in my ethnic cluster, and would happily marry someone of a different ethnicity if I thought as an individual they are ideal (and therefore have ideal genes), and even if the rest of my ethnicity somehow ceased existing, my genes would continue existing in my offspring, and if they're good genes, will proliferate.

Such interactions are tedious, repetitive, obscure, at times incoherent, and piss-filled. Any verbal misstep triggers a landmeme and ends the exchange.

Culture war means peace, freedom means slavery. Ignorance is strength

Clinton is said to believe this is the reason she lost. I don't agree. I think she's political poison. — frank

Well, ask yourself, which incel is ever going to vote for Clinton? I mean, even if Trump came out and directly spoke against incels, he would still be infinitely sexier politically.

Incels are weeaboos that want to be monks because they can't get laid.

The reason is the acceleration of videogames and fantasy as teacher, rather then real life and trying shit like sports and having real life friends with real emotions.

As groups grow, their radical outliers become more numerous. I think the recipe for a violent incel is extreme sensitivity to emotional anguish, a severe lack of self-awareness, and the kind of ideological rhetoric which depicts their place modernity as forever the sexually dispossessed misanthrope with only women and ass-holes to blame. — VagabondSpectre

A French psychologist - I forget which one - once stated that it took 3 generations to create a psychopath (paraphrasing, obviously).

What strikes me about the Jacobite Mag's article is how the relationship that Elliot Rodger idolized was a relationship of commodification. It's the relationship decried by Jean Baudrillard in The System of Objects. Objectification becomes part and engine of individuation, of identity building. The objects desired (women, sexual gratification, the respect of fellow sexually successfull men) are all desired as objects, as status marker, not because of themselves or of their history, but because of what they signify about their owner. That's why they won't purchase sex, because that would only be more confirmation of their status as 'renter' rather than 'proprietor'.

From what is written, there is a form of heavy awareness (but awareness of pathos) in what is expressed. I mean by this that Rodger and Minassian both very well know why and what they want from women. They want what our parents generations wanted by desiring the latest car, the nicest houses and the perfect atomic family. Rodgers and Minissian grew up idolizing successfull males and evaluating their male-ness by their possessions. The only mode of interaction they know is property, and they have been eternally denied this property. What changes, now they aren't afraid to express their desires, even though every normal person cringes at hearing them.

IMHO, this is (in part) the continuation of the prevalence of highly-fictionalised sexual courtship dynamics presented since the end of the 70s. Baby Boomers (my parents) started this dynamic, and as with everything with Boomers, they completely lacked any form of self-awareness. They wanted the trophy wife, the trophy car, the trophy house, but they wanted it because it was the dream. Incels nowadays have the self-awareness to know that there is no dream, if nothing else. But they haven't made the leap to realize that the Boomer model of courtship was also always defective (or, it worked as long as both individuals in the couple were about as shallow as the other).

There have always be subperformers in every cultures. The difference nowadays is the existence of a medium which exacerbates our narcissism and which connects to others who are experiencing the same conditions. Despite there being little or no 'incel' community, those pathetic non-beings are able to reinforce their PoV by simply confirming the existence of others who are living the same situation. — Akanthinos

This is a terrible, disrespectful discussion. Several weeks ago we had a thread about relationships between women and men where I said that our society treats men with fear and contempt. This is a very good example. Lonely, socially awkward men are suddenly narcissists and psychopaths. Their desire for normal human relationships is mocked and written off as "wanting to get laid." Your glib scorn makes me sick.

Maybe the worst part is that I'm sure there are people on this forum who fall into this category. Imagine how they feel having their friends show such disrespect.

People who might have previously wondered if they were just taking themselves too seriously and tossed it aside, joined up with others prone to lunacy and became alt-right (or fell completely overboard and became anti-Semitic). — frank

From what I've seen, it doesn't seem that many Trump supporters fall into the alt-right category. Does anyone have specific information about this. Alt-right tend to be reactionary. They want to go back to an imagined golden age when women were subservient to men. That seems pretty far from the populism of the people who voted for President Trump.

I felt similarly sick reading this thread, so thanks for giving voice to that; I wouldn't have otherwise responded because I don't think I have the philosophical background to make an informed comment. But the only thing that really bothered me was this:

pathetic non-beings — Akanthinos

Akanthinos, you're relegating actual human beings to the dubious state of pathetic non-beings based on...what?

Your glib scorn makes me sick. — T Clark

Agreed.

Culture war means peace, freedom means slavery. Ignorance is strength — VagabondSpectre

Such irony. You show your opposition to the "culture war" by demonstrating your scorn for the "warriors" on the other side. Then you tell us how to set them on the right path with your condescending pontificating.

I've seen this kind of thing before. People feel contempt for others who demonstrate weaknesses they fear in themselves. I think this is a major source of misanthropy that many men in our society feel.

:preach hands emoji:

'Incels' are scum and deserved to be treated as such. We're not just talking about 'lonely men', we're talking about lonely, resentful men who, idealising mass-murderers like Eliot Rodger - or "Supreme Gentlemen" Eliot Rodger, as he is known in those circles - believe that all those on the outside of that subculture are deserving of literal death. Fuck all of them.

None of which is say, by the way, that this absolves society from taking a good, long, hard look at itself and the way in which it narrativizes sex and sexuality. Incels are as much symptom as they are gangrenous disease, which is main point that the article in the OP rightly presses upon. But yeah, no sympathy for those shitcunts.

Do you identify yourself as incel ? I otherwise couldnt see why you would feel insulted.

How else qualify the pathos of someone so defined by his sexual failures that he resort to fantasysing about socially enforced monogamy? Its pathetic. Be as uptight as you like, I dont care, and I wont pretend that my perspective on sexuality is better. But dont pretend that society would be better off if we had the mores of caveman.

There are problems with our society in regard to sexual standards of practices. I refered to those problems in my post, but I guess you didnt care about that discussion. These problems have led us to a place where incels may thrive, but incels are not victims in this social dynamic. As I also mentionned, I rather think that they are not men-children, as it is often said, but rather adults who have simply followed the logic of commodification to its nihilistic end. Whats the worth of a property you can never acquire? Nothing. And once you have allowed yourself to think that women are literally worthless because you cant possess them, then Im sure the gun rampage is only but a few step further.

Fuck all of them. — StreetlightX

No. Fuck no one.

None of which is say, by the way, that this absolves society from taking a good, long, hard look at itself and the way in which it narrativizes sex and sexuality. Incels are as much symptom as they are gangrenous disease, which is main point that the article in the OP rightly presses upon. But yeah, no sympathy for those shitcunts. — StreetlightX

So if incels are as much symptom as disease, then why are they shitcunts? Poor form, mod. Again and again.

No. Fuck no one. — Noble Dust

Well yes, that seems to be the issue.

Why? Really, why.

Based on the moral quality of that (non)being.

I have no qualms about stating the fact that, once someone has moved past far enough the (admittedly hazy) moral frontier, then I stop caring entirely about their continued existence.

If you harbour resentment and violence for women based on your inability to find a mate, and wished for any form of social remedy to this, which could not possibly happen without a fullscale assault on human rights, I feel it should not be necessary to add, then you are that far removed from normal human decency.

I have no qualms about stating the fact that, once someone has moved past far enough the (admittedly hazy) moral frontier, then I stop caring entirely about their continued existence. — Akanthinos

That is a truly dehumanizing and tragically immoral position.