Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Some More Thoughts on Alex Minassian and the Toronto Van Attack

Some More Thoughts on Alex Minassian and the Toronto Van Attack

In my previous post on this topic, written the day after that incident, I made a few points about Alex Minassian (based on what we knew about him at that time) and wondered about the precise combination of factors which finally triggered him to run over and kill all those people. Since then, we have come to come to know a lot more about this individual such as the fact that he was somewhat autistic but ended up becoming a reasonably competent software developer. There are, however, many important questions which still remain to be answered.

1] What drove him to finally rent that van and drive over all those people on that particular day? Why did he not do it a few weeks or even few months ago? Clearly, there must have been some incident or combination of events in the days or weeks preceding his rampage which made him go from being just another incel who frequented online boards to a guy who killed at least ten people. Also, why did he not plan his attack to cause even more casualties, since there are far busier streets and sidewalks in Toronto.

2] Given his background in computers and apparently good understanding of the online world, why is his known online presence so sparse? Or did he use multiple aliases and profiles? Also, did he ever avail himself of the rather plentiful and fairly inexpensive opportunities for paid sex in Toronto? It would be very interesting to know if that was the case, because it seems that he did not do so (as far as we know, right now). But why not? Clearly, he must have been aware of the thousands of escorts in the GTA who freely advertise their services online. So did he or not?

3] Alek claimed in his last (and only) FaceBook post that his being an ‘incel’ was the only reason behind him running over and killing all those people. This claim has, in turn, started a media circus- especially in its clueless corporate outlets. Overnight, a whole cottage industry of “experts” are being paraded by corporate media outlets whose median audience member is over 65 years old. It is funny to watch idiots with less than zero understanding of the online ‘incel’ community, let alone the whole disenfranchised male-o-sphere, spout their utterly ridiculous claims on that part of the internet.

4] There is the whole issue of every lame-stream corporate media outlet publishing their versions of the how “society does not owe men sex”- a topic that I had written about in the past. To make a long story short, it seems that every mainstream dumbfuck.. I mean ‘journalist’ is writing virtually identical posts populated by the same cast of “experts” tying themselves in rhetorical knots to push out the same sound-bites (example 1, example 2 and example 3). Of course, these pathetic opinion pieces and “investigative reports” do nothing other than expose the cultural illiteracy and general disconnect of its writers and cast of “experts” from reality.

5] And this brings me to the next category of idiots spouting bullshit about the cause of this incident, you know.. CONservatives. Yes, idiots professing that ideology are also out in full force publishing their pathetic screeds about how traditional CONservative “values” could have prevented this incident. I have come across multiple blog posts about how something like this would have never occurred in a society with 1950-era values and mores. The fact that such societies only existed in 1950-era TV shows and the minds of simpletons delusional enough to believe that such shows represented reality is largely lost on CONservatives.

6] The views of self-proclaimed feminists, their “male allies” and SJWs (in general) on this incident are also equally detached from reality. They appear to have used the same basic template, which goes something like this.. insert incident for outrage here, women are oppressed, patriarchy is bad, men are scum/ irrelevant/ pathetic, some international theory, future is women and some filler bullshit. I have seen more creativity and originality in the movies of Michael Bay. Is it too much to expect them to exhibit some novelty and creativity in their screeds? Then again, they are shouting inside their own echo chamber..

By now you must have noticed an interesting meta- pattern running through all these news stories, “investigative” reports and angry screeds about Alek Minassian and incels in general. In case you haven’t, let me point out the fucking obvious. All these opinions, reports and screeds go to considerable lengths to avoid addressing the central stated reason behind his decision to run over and kill all those people. So.. do you believe that “low status”, “poor” and “weird” men deserve to have sex with women?

Answering this question truthfully is key to predicting what happens next. If you honestly believe that “society does not owe men sex” then you have to ponder on the implications of its corollary- that men experiencing such deprivation are unlikely to care about the continued stability or even existence of your society. While each dysfunctional and decaying society throughout human history has been unique in its own way, they have all shared one feature- namely, that a significant minority of its members have a less-than-zero investment in its continued existence. Ignoring such systemic problem can, at best, push back the expiry date of that society by a little bit. It does not, however, change the eventual outcome.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    May 2, 2018 at 5:35 pm

    Looking forward to the incel rebellion myself, if in a position to assist like a shopkeeper in a videogame (here you go hero – more ammo for you at a discount -, I hear you are trying to dislodge an oppressive leadership or enact justice upon evil people who lie to others to use them as drones or fuel for the meatgrinder) … I’ll do so.
    Women who don’t realise how privileged they are and demand regular/ugly men be their slaves, and Chad Thundercocks who think regular/ugly guys deserve sloppy seconds or whorish wives … well .. the day of the rope is certainly coming for them.

  2. P Ray
    May 2, 2018 at 5:40 pm

    By the way the best Michael Bay movie in my opinion is “Pain and Gain”.

    It’s a superb showcase of acting. And quite quite funny.

  3. P Ray
    May 2, 2018 at 6:02 pm

    The incel rebellion is also producing one good outcome:
    male children born in the modern age who are autistic, are being targeted by bullies.
    Parents can either step in and show some leadership, or the kids will learn how to defend themselves.
    Parents who thought “the world is fair, all you whiners just need to work hard” are getting a rude awakening – serves them right for being CONservatives and oblivious.

    http://theconversation.com/why-children-with-autism-often-fall-victim-to-bullies-27087

    Of cause, female autistics don’t seem to suffer as badly.

  4. May 3, 2018 at 5:08 am

    “Overnight, a whole cottage industry of “experts” are being paraded by corporate media outlets whose median audience member is over 65 years old.”

    I disagree. The “median audience member” is not 65. The article you linked is anti “misogyny” propaganda written to conflate defenses against extreme feminism with irrational hatred of all women. CBC, being the liberal shit show it is, is not targeting 65 and older. They, like their liberal comrades in USA are targeting 40 and younger. 65 and older are lost to the liberal shit show media because they are aging out, dying and less useful to the liberal agenda. Furthermore, they are (in general) less gullible, idealistic, and impressionable than the younger crowd. The liberal shit show attracts (as it is designed to attract and dupe) youth, not the aged.


    Do you really think people under 65 in Canada watch or listen to CBC?

  5. May 3, 2018 at 5:41 am

    “example 1, example 2 and example 3). Of course, these pathetic opinion pieces and “investigative reports” do nothing other than expose the cultural illiteracy and general disconnect of its writers and cast of “experts” from reality”

    Not only are these opinion pieces pathetic, more significantly, they are propaganda designed and intended to promote psychological self castration which is very likely the cause of the angry outburst to begin with. Angry violent outburst is often the result of repressing instincts and imposing unnecessary constraints upon natural emotion. The articles are intended to promote a more universal repression and impose controls and this will cause the opposite effect of the propagandists intent. The result of these articles can be nothing other than more frustration, more anger, more “incel” behavior and ultimately more violence.

    On a visceral level “Love for all, hatred for none” is total and complete bullshit, a lie. On the surface, to the naïve or those in denial, it appears benevolent. But hatred always lurks just beneath the surface of benevolence and benevolence is fragile. “Love for all, hatred for none” is nothing more than more propaganda intended to repress visceral impulses.

    History is replete with examples of repressed groups exploding in anger and violence during periods of repression. Nazi Germany, a prime example, was the result of social, political and economic repression. The Germans were forced into a corner politically, socially and economically before WW2. The treaty of Versailles forced them back into that corner. A “mad man” led them out of that corner.

    There are plenty of “mad” men out there, hence this blog and numerous others.

  6. May 3, 2018 at 5:58 am

    The “CONservative” CONstruct was nothing more than an earlier version of the same, repressing the same visceral impetus. It effectively entrapped some men into lives of servitude and enslavement to women and a system that exploited men for tax dollars and profits. “Chivalry” and a false promise of “love” (sex) for “heroism” and “chivalry” and being “a good provider” has worn so thin most see through it. The mask of “chivalry” “love” and “heroism” fooled men individually. But many are no longer fooled and as others see it for the lie it is, many more are waking up. Repression needed a new mask to hide behind. So now it hides behind a mask that desperately attempts to threaten men in mass. The cat is out of the bag and this new attempt to repress is like a broad net attempting to impose tyranny universally.

  7. goat34663
    May 3, 2018 at 12:06 pm

    “Deserve” is such a loaded word that it just confuses things to discuss it. Jump to your point about men having no stake in the system. Yes, men need the presence of women to calm them down. The vast majority of “cels” (only guys who can’t afford the cheapest whores are truly “in-cels”), including myself, cope just fine from a purely sexual point of view with masturbation plus occasional visits to whores plus diminishing interest in sex as we get older. But we don’t have children, so no stake in the future, are mostly isolated socially, bored by our meaningless jobs, and worst of all, we work easy modern jobs that don’t leave us physically exhausted at the end of the day. Add some testosterone, a bad nights sleep and a run-in with some authority figure and the final result is a guy who relishes the idea of violence. When women are around, the violence usually takes the form of screaming matches, broken dishes and finally make-up sex (though of course the woman might get beat up instead, which I’m not advocating of course).

    I doubt think the answer is to guarantee men sex with women. Rather some combination of teaching men to be content with the masturbation plus occasional visits to escorts solution for sex, and reorganizing society so that young men are somehow forced to get a whole lot more physical exercise and exposure to nature as part of day to day existence. Maybe compulsory daily runs and calisthenics like in the military.

    Anyway, the problem of feminism won’t last long, since such women will be outbred by women with traditional views (mostly in Africa and south/southeast Asia). The model for the future is single mothers who support themselves in their fertile years (ages 18-35 or so) by soft prostitution, like among lost classes in the Philippines and Thailand right now. “Soft” means woman is selective about her sponsors, has a small number of sponsors of varying ages, long term relationships between woman and her sponsors. Only a small number of women can psychologically cope with harder forms of prostitution. The elite males will create harems, of course, but realistically, this involves just a tiny segment of the men and women. There will also be a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority, of men and women in monogamous relationship just like now, whether called marriage or not. Soft prostitution will take care of most remaining men and women. Least desirable men can use hard prostitutes, just like now, to supplement masturbation.

    • P Ray
      July 23, 2018 at 11:27 am

      Rather some combination of teaching men to be content with the masturbation plus occasional visits to escorts solution for sex, and reorganizing society so that young men are somehow forced to get a whole lot more physical exercise and exposure to nature as part of day to day existence. Maybe compulsory daily runs and calisthenics like in the military.

      Must be a Toronto high thing, me responding so late. Anyway:
      1. women reflexively try to stop men from getting pleasure away from them. It’s a pathological drive. They criminalise men with fleshlights, but having dildos is A-OK for women.
      2. men getting a whole lot more physical exercise = get your hormones pumping = dick gets thirsty. War Machine didn’t like Christy Mack sleeping around.
      Exposure to nature = watch 1 Chad Thundercock lion monopolise lionesses. Hmm, not going to be good when the comparison goes around to the human world, eh?
      3. Men getting in shape for war, when there’s no war … means governments start to get edgy and would like to deploy their units. Remember the US is now doing Commandos Sans Frontieres, “advising” people with small groups of American soldiers. Wonder why.

      Least desirable men can use hard prostitutes, just like now, to supplement masturbation.
      Remember, according to the feminists that drive governments now, no woman will want to be a prostitute, men visiting prostitutes are sick and evil, and sex work must be made illegal, my FOSTA SESTA.

  8. Ted
    May 4, 2018 at 8:17 am

    It is amusing to see the “experts” so quickly and neatly summarize what incels are really like, without actually having met any. Remember, a man is not owed sex, but if a woman gets pregnant and can’t get the father to commit or support her, then suddenly she is owed government support. Why shouldn’t lower status men be content with single moms, raising another man’s kids, and paying off her debts?

    If anything, this lends support to the belief of arranged marriage systems – that sex & marriage are too important to be left to individuals to decide on their own, in the heat of passion. Yes, she may have a great body and make beautiful arm candy – but will she get along with your family, how is she at managing money? Arranged marriages have their own set of problems – but those problems are contained within the family. Modern dating and marriage problems spill out into broader society, where men who wisely remove themselves from the scam of modern marriage still wind up paying.

    The other foolishness that keeps getting repeated – that women know when they want sex, and as a man, you’ll know when she wants it, cause she will make it clear. The average women possess no greater insight into sex than the average man. That women have convinced people otherwise is a con job.

  9. Shiningtime
    May 4, 2018 at 9:29 am

    No man, who has no significant birth defects or disability, should be an “incel”. A guy like Elliot Rodgers should not be an “incel”. Too many guys are devoting too much time to trivialities like video games. Especially programmers who spend all day in front of a computer screen, these guys more than anyone need to work on their social skills. I know, because I’m a programmer. It takes significant effort but you have to work on your social. Otherwise it’s easy to fall into a depressing funk.

    Women don’t owe us sex anymore than I’m obligated to service old krusty dried up prunes. The universe doesn’t owe any of us anything. We must go out and take that which we desire. Unfortunately, the game community has gotten a bad wrap, but the truth I see is a lot of guys need it.

    • P Ray
      May 4, 2018 at 1:52 pm

      Sorry for you but women judge by looks and while young and fertile, rely on their coven of witch-friends to decide if a man is worth it.
      Game is just spending money until you look interesting enough to impress a modern woman “looking for new experiences”.
      Women don’t owe men sex, and men don’t owe women free favours.
      Somehow we seem to forget that rape complaints are sometimes “regret sex”.

      It’s not “I’m a programmer” makes you socially awkward.
      You’re ugly, and that makes you socially awkward. Because people don’t respond positively to you.

      You should see a youtube video: Snapshots of living with severe autism
      youtube.com/watch?v=19lTbA0IAyM
      Sammy Martin2 years ago
      he has really beautiful eyes
      Reply 32
      Babypinkpinetree
      Babypinkpinetree3 years ago
      His eyes! wow he’s so handsome and sweet too!
      Reply 28
      ^ Those comments coming from women who have NEVER interacted with him.
      No, you’re not “socially awkward”. You’re just ugly. Women hate ugly men. But need to use them for their skills and money-generating ability. You should stop pandering to them and start exchaning favours for sex. They don’t mind doing that with Chad Thundercock. They can start doing it with you.

      Even the UK Metropolitan Police are now saying that women who say they were raped are NOT to be automatically believed.

      thetimes.co.uk/article/police-ditch-practice-of-believing-all-victims-jsg6qd2ws
      “You start with a completely open mind, absolutely,” she said. “It is very important to victims to feel that they are going to be believed. Our default position is we are, of course, likely to believe you but we are investigators and we have to investigate.”

      • Shiningtime
        May 4, 2018 at 8:09 pm

        You’re a defeatist. If only handsome, 6’5 Thor looking guys get laid, there wouldn’t be 7.5 billion people on Earth. The reality refutes your attitude. This is the problem. You guys get into an echo chamber like “PUA hate” and suddenly only celebrities with a billion dollars in the bank can get laid.

        Listen, my own life refutes the bs you incels spout. I was an awkward, skinny kid from a small town and I still managed to stumble into girls who slept with me. Get out of your comfort zone. Go outside and talk to women. You will find someone.

      • P Ray
        May 4, 2018 at 10:20 pm

        How is it defeatist not to be obsessed by something I can buy?

        And it’s not just about “getting laid” … there are also false rape accusations, STDs and insane relatives to worry about.

        P.S. You talk about PUAhate as if it’s a cancer, when modern life has produced so much depression because people believe the media.

        You’re going to wind up with a landwhale or some STDs if you’re not selective. I have no intention of turning up that way, already have a good life with 0 nagging witches, and no intention of being in a relationship unless it’s an age-difference one … with her being younger.

      • P Ray
        May 4, 2018 at 10:27 pm

        Yeah, I don’t feel affected by the defeatist label when even these guys say women are insane and entitled:

        reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/comments/8gz76f/the_redistribution_of_sex_or_the_article_thats/

        A lot of women HATE the guy they can get, because he’s not the one they’re ATTRACTED to.
        Looks like that’s the biggest hidden reason behind why women in many relationships are moody and argumentative!

    • P Ray
      May 4, 2018 at 2:12 pm

      nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html

      Great article that triggers women. They want access to property and money, but muh pussy is off limits.
      And no substitutes are allowed for men.
      Hmm. One really does wonder why such unreasonable people have so many bad things happen to them.

      • Shiningtime
        May 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm

        Live your life in whatever way makes you happy, I don’t care. I will always accept the world for what it is and not what I wish it were.

        Women are what they are. There is no use complaining about how they behave. If you want to be an incel, that is your choice.

      • P Ray
        May 6, 2018 at 1:26 am

        ^ Very much lel at your statement, because women are the ones panicking that Chad Thundercock won’t commit and Billy Beta is too smart for them.
        Maybe you’re worried because your female relatives might take out their anger on you?

        Visit here: reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/

        “If women can laugh at nice guys, men can laugh at stupid women”

      • May 6, 2018 at 5:12 am

        May 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm
        “Live your life in whatever way makes you happy, I don’t care. I will always accept the world for what it is and not what I wish it were.
        Women are what they are. There is no use complaining about how they behave. If you want to be an incel, that is your choice.”

        Agreed, that accepting (though not necessarily liking) the way we’re bio-wired as genders is the rational response to living life. Until we humans can safely and constructively alter our own DNA, wishing the genders would behave differently is useless. Making the best of whatever situation we are in is our only possibility for any amount of “success” .

        However, one caveat: partly, “what the world is” depends upon social pressure and law-making. From my perspective of 62 years (for reference: I’m an average-looking, white, hetero, blue-collar US male, contentedly married in a first marriage of 38 years…my wife and I have been “swingers” and open married for the past fifteen years; I currently enjoy satisfying sex with not only my wife but also an extra-marital lover I’ve had the last four years; meaning, I don’t speak as a guy who, during his lifetime, hasn’t been able to get or can’t get sex with women), societal programming and lawmaking seems to be headed, not in a direction of egalitarianism and practicable gender complementarianism, but, toward legislated and indoctrinated misandry.

        My point being that, agreed, it’s irrational to “complain about how women behave”, since their behavior is biologically-driven, and humanity cannot alter the wiring…However, it’s not irrational to complain when governments and societal programmers essentially mandate that women’s behavior be “sanctified” and men’s “demonized”. Women’s behavior is no better than men’s behavior, and for governments and social-programmers to justify and promote women’s behavior over men’s is sexism.

      • P Ray
        May 15, 2018 at 6:49 pm

        And further defence towards the article from Ross Douthat
        “…
        Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?”

        https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3766
        “A week ago, alas, Robin blogged his confusion about why the people most concerned about inequalities of wealth, never seem to be concerned about inequalities of romantic and sexual fulfillment—even though, in other contexts, those same people would probably affirm that relationships are much more important to their personal happiness than wealth is. As a predictable result of his prodding this angriest hornet’s-nest on the planet, Robin has now been pilloried all over the Internet, in terms that make the attacks on me three years ago over the comment-171 affair look tender and kind by comparison. The attacks included a Slate hit-piece entitled “Is Robin Hanson America’s Creepiest Economist?” (though see also this in-depth followup interview), a Wonkette post entitled “This Week In Garbage Men: Incels Sympathizers [sic] Make Case for Redistribution of Vaginas,” and much more. Particularly on Twitter, Robin’s attackers have tended to use floridly profane language, and to target his physical appearance and assumed sexual proclivities and frustrations; some call for his firing or death. I won’t link to the stuff; you can find it.

        Interestingly, many of the Twitter attacks assume that Robin himself must be an angry “incel” (short for “involuntary celibate”), since who else could treat that particular form of human suffering as worthy of reply? Few seem to have done the 10-second research to learn that, in reality, Robin is a happily married father of two.

        I noticed the same strange phenomenon during the comment-171 affair: commentators on both left and right wanted to make me the poster child for “incels,” with a few offering me advice, many swearing they would’ve guessed it immediately from my photograph. People apparently didn’t read just a few paragraphs into my story—to the part where, once I finally acquired some of the norms that mainstream culture refuses to tell people, I enjoyed a normal or even good dating life, eventually marrying a brilliant fellow theoretical computer scientist, with whom I started raising a rambunctious daughter (who’s now 5, and who’s been joined by our 1-year-old son). If not for this happy ending, I too might have entertained my critics’ elaborate theories about my refusal to accept my biological inferiority, my simply having lost the genetic lottery (ability to do quantum computing research notwithstanding). But what can one do faced with the facts?”

    • P Ray
      May 5, 2018 at 3:20 pm

      Presented for you to say
      “But muh wimminz be not superficial”
      and
      “But muh personality and being respectful gets women”

      Here’s the ATOMIC BLACKPILL!

    • Conscience constituent
      May 6, 2018 at 6:13 pm

      Fuck off,i have good looks,a huge cock and my family has cash but i would much rather,study for my university exams,play videogames jack it than go out to spend time with a woman and have to put up with her request,whims and tantrums.
      Only subhuman anglo men such as you,who worship women and define your value standards to a much higher degree than spanish,italian or south american men,would come with bullshit as *incel*.

  1. May 9, 2018 at 10:48 pm
  2. May 23, 2018 at 4:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: