Archive for May 9, 2018

Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 1

May 9, 2018 37 comments

Ever since the now famous van ride by Alek Minassian on April 23, 2018, I have been meaning to write a short series on the core factors which ultimately led him to improve on the body count of the ‘Supreme Gentleman’ aka Elliot Rodger. While Elliot Rodger’s YT videos and long manifesto did ensure his online fame and digital immortality in certain corners of the internet, they did not catch the attention of normies to the same level as Alek Minassian’s solitary FaceBook post. So what changed between 2014 and 2018 that the contents of one FaceBook post become far more famous than one long manifesto in addition to multiple YT videos from four years ago?

The answer to that question is a bit complicated and requires us to appreciate some concurrent socio-cultural changes which made that outcome possible. Elliot Rodger, in 2014, was the first widely known and unambiguous example of a guy going on a lethal rampage because he could not get laid. Note the use of adjective ‘unambiguous’ to qualify ‘example’. But why is that qualification important? Well.. in case you have not noticed, the vast majority of rampage killers are single men with usually non-existent sex lives. It is, therefore, possible to make the case that almost every contemporary rampage killer is also functionally incel. Think about that the next time you read about the next lethal rampage.

Anyway.. at that time, Elliot Rodger’s rampage was widely perceived as a one-off incident by most people. Moreover, his rampage occurred in the era before the use of large vehicles to run over down dozens of people became somewhat common during rampage killings in western countries. You see, for a long time too many idiots in western countries held the belief that rampage killings could not be carried out without access to guns, especially scary looking “assault” weapons. The universe, unfortunately, does not care about the human beliefs. As they say- where there is a will, there is a way. Also, history has repeatedly shown that there is no effective way to deter people who are willing to die for something they believe in.

And this brings us to the question of who ‘incels’ are and what defines them as a group. As I briefly touched on in my two previous posts about this incident (link 1, link 2) – a whole cottage industry of experts had materialized, seemingly out of thin air, to help provide clueless normies “authoritative expertise” on topics such as incel internet forums and the meaning of terms such as Chad, Stacy and Roastie (link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6 and link 7). To be honest, there is a certain perverse pleasure in watching clueless greedy morons pretending to “educate” even more clueless naive morons about a topic which neither can comprehend. Having said that, stupid and profit-driven attempts to “educate” the masses have a known tendency to make problems worse.

But what does any of this have to do with the current public fascination with ‘incels’? And why does the title of this post talk about alleged ‘public’ reactions towards them?

Let us start by trying to answer the first part of that question. Not surprisingly, it comes down to a combination human stupidity, false consciousness and insatiable greed or as I like to call it- normies being normies. The sad fact about human beings is that, as a species, they love gawking at uncommon things especially if it also makes them feel better about themselves. That is why traffic accidents attract tons of rubberneckers and why freak shows used to be so popular in less enlightened eras. Now combine that with capitalism’s tendency to keep on producing more of something as long as it keeps on making ever more profit.

It is therefore no surprise that corporate media outlets as well at the allegedly non-corporate parts of the internet are now full of tons of articles, video clips, podcasts and anything else which can be monetized about ‘incels’. If you do not believe me just google ,or duckduckgo, articles about ‘incels’. Searching YT or podcasts (sort by upload date) for media on that topic will reveal the same pattern. The vast majority of them are full of the same talking points, which are as follows: society does not owe men sex, incels are white terrorists, incels are misogynists, incels are a hate group and so on. A minority who want to be seen as contrarian peddle another set of talking points, such as: incels are a sign of liberal failure, incels could benefit from old-fashioned conservatism and other assorted recycled conservative crap.

It goes without saying that the biggest casualty in this rat race to monetize content about ‘incels’ is, as usual, objective analysis. Let me explain that point in some detail. Anything approaching objective analysis of this topic would have recognized that lack of non-solitary outlets for male sexual desire is an increasingly common issue in late capitalist societies.. and yes, it is linked to the widespread internalization of capitalist thinking by the masses. To make a long story short, internalization of capitalist concepts such as monetization of anything and everything including all human interactions creates the same distribution patterns in sex as it has done with income.

The socio-economic changes of late capitalism has created a rapidly growing underclass of men who are either totally incel, functionally incel or frequently incel. This phenomena is prevalent in late capitalist societies as different as Japan and USA. Interestingly, it is still largely absent in societies which have not internalized capitalist thinking such as Brazil and other Latin American countries. It is worthwhile to point out that the percentage of men who are incel, largely incel (poor or living in male-heavy locations) of functionally incel (not that attractive or rich) in late capitalist societies is far higher than most people realize. In other words, it is a far bigger problem than most people can imagine.

In the next part of this series, I will write about why conventional “common sense” attempts to address and solve this problem are incredibly counterproductive in addition to being dangerous.

What do you think? Comments?