The Incel Question
A couple of interesting things happened on Twitter last week. One was this:
https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/990612769182507011
I'm a great fan of Hanson from years ago. Not of his weird sci-fi stuff, that I don't get. But his socio-psychology writing is top-notch. After an incel unleashed his Beta Rage killing several people on a van attack, the very word "incel" has reached the mainstream. And the normies are flabbergasted. What's an "incel"? Involuntary celibate? Like, some people aren't having sex? Well most male journalist aren't having sex either, at least by the soyboy-on-pajamas look of them. But they've been domesticated enough that they aren't unhappy about it. The thing about incels isn't that they can't get laid. It's that they dare to protest about it.
Mr. Hanson as usual didn't get the progressive joke. That's part of his charm, of course, it is his very cluelessness that pushes him to write, and to analyze well this kind of thing. But he's looking at things that the Left doesn't want him to look at; so he got burnt pretty badly. I won't link at Slate as a matter of principle, but Hanson is lucky that his patron is the dilettante, and secret Roissy/Heartiste fan, Tyler Cowen, and not some other normie academic.
Which brings us to this.
https://twitter.com/ekp/status/991817194987114496
As I was saying the problem that normies have with incels is not that they are losers for not getting laid. The problem is that they organize, that they gave themselves a name. That they have class-consciousness of a sort. Liberal states have "freedom of association" in their constitutions as a relic of the time they were fighting the old monarchies which wouldn't give it to them. And they wouldn't give it to them because "associations" are a hidden-in-sight form of political conspiracy, and any state which wants to survive doesn't admit political conspiracies. Try to gather 50 people in public in China and see how long it takes for police to ask what the hell you're doing.
Of course liberal states, i.e. Western states have freedom of association as a symbol of their revolution against the old order; but they aren't stupid. They don't really allow freedom of association. Ask Roosh what happened when he tried to organize a meetup of right-wingish PUAs. Ask any club or association of size that denies access to women; or accepts only white men. The liberal state understands that only white men are potentially disloyal, and so any association of white men is illegal de facto.
Which brings us to incels: it's no coincidence that incels are now being discussed so widely. There's a huge question about incels. The current-year liberal state is based, as I've written at length, on the loyalty of biologically low-status groups of people. Bioleninism. White men, in white majority countries, are thought of as potentially disloyal given that their natural high-performance gives them other avenues of status-seeking.
What about incels though? Actually incels are a huge unsolved question in the Bioleninist framework. Many asked it in the comments of my Bioleninism essays: what about white leftists? What's their deal? I had actually meant to insert in the original essays a sizable analysis of the demographic represented by Scott Alexander. In the end I left them out because I didn't want to distract from the general theory; but now that incels are in the news, I've seen some people on Twitter discussing how to fit them in the Bioleninist framework. Which fills me with joy. Yes, that's exactly the thing that people should be doing. Bioleninism is out there, clearing people's minds, making sense of the world. Well, allow me to keep on helping.
Incels are, by and large, leftist. To the extent that some incels have organized qua incels, some of them have showed some mild disapproval over the progressive society which, well, prevents them from having sex. Something which 100% of their ancestors, every single one of them, was able to do repeatedly. But again, more broadly, the continuum that goes from 40 year old virgins to incels to married incels to literal cucks to average chumps, that is the Beta Masses of our societies are all loyal followers of the state religion. They are progressive.
And the smarter part of that demographic, the nerds, are enthusiastic progressives. It wouldn't be completely accurate to equate nerds with incels, but a vast majority of nerds are incels. Scott Alexander, which is a fairly representative member of that demographic, has been an incel for all his life, at least until his choice of medication rewired his brain to make a biological fact what was just a sad social circumstance.
Now this is an important point. Why are incels (or nerds at least) progressive? Where do incels fit in the Bioleninist structure? They are high-IQ white (I'll ignore the few Asians for simplicity) men after all. But... they are also nerds. Nerds are not high status. To they extent they existed in the past, they were never high status. The pre-modern world didn't have high schools, but extraverted early-maturing boys have been abusing the hell of introverted out-of-shape boys since social mammals first evolved. Probably since lobsters, someone ask Jordan Peterson about it. He won't answer my calls.
So anyway, a shortcut to understand Bioleninism is "a coalition of people who don't want high school jocks to rule the world". Which is the natural state of mankind, for better or worse. I wasn't a high school jock, but as a white man I'd rather they rule than the girls rule, so I am not Bioleninist. For the more awkward nerds in class though, they probably prefer the girls rule, out of some extremely misguided hope that the girls will be somewhat nicer to them. That's the vibe I get from Scott Alexander.
Or maybe it's just that nerds are awkward, know they are powerless, and so tend to obey whoever is in power, and since Bioleninism advanced after the 1960s nerds have just bent the knee and dropped to the floor and kissed the feet of Women and Africans and Muslims and whoever the fuck they're told to kiss. That's the vibe I get from Scott Aaronson. I think I'll regret defiling my blog with the following quote, but I guess it's better if you don't have to read the whole thing at his blog. I did write about him before after all. Anyway, this is what Aaronson just published, in an hilariously misdirected defense of Robin Hanson.
Before going any further in this post, let me now say that any male who wants to call himself my ideological ally ought to agree to the following statement.I hold the bodily autonomy of women—the principle that women are freely-willed agents rather than the chattel they were treated as for too much of human history; that they, not their fathers or husbands or anyone else, are the sole rulers of their bodies; and that they must never under any circumstances be touched without their consent—to be my Zeroth Commandment, the foundation-stone of my moral worldview, the starting point of every action I take and every thought I think. This principle of female bodily autonomy, for me, deserves to be chiseled onto tablets of sapphire, placed in a golden ark adorned with winged cherubim sitting atop a pedestal inside the Holy of Holies in a temple on Mount Moriah.
Well, little chump, I don't think Robin Hanson is your ally.
At any rate, incels are leftist, either through mistaken affinity to the project of disempowering their chad tormentors, or out of sheer lack of spine. But none of this matters, and this brings us to Ellen Pao's tweet, who in case you are blocking embedded Tweets by some blocking extension said:
CEOs of big tech companies: You almost certainly have incels as employees. What are you going to do about it?
If you're not blocking tweets on your browser, here's one funny tweet of mine.
https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/993045595286790145
The Bioleninist coalition is made of many parts, some of which are really hard to reconcile. Say, Muslims and homosexuals. But there's one combination which is way worse than every other. Two groups which just can't coexist. Women and incels. Women hatred to incels is orders of magnitude greater than that of Muslims vs homosexuals. It is not just some vague disgust, or some religious commandment. No, women want incels dead, annihilated, out of the way, and they want it now. You see, the point of power is to get more of it. To get what you want. And what women want is hypergamy.
Hypergamy means that all women want the top men. The top 20%, the top 5%, definitions vary. Here's some data. But even with the most generous definition, women see 80% of men as being completely out of consideration for sex. They just won't sleep with them. If they do (and they do every now and then for money or other motives), and other women find out, well that automatically means they're lower status, certainly lower status than women who sleep with better men. Not even sex really, the mere company of undeserving men is like a skin disease for women. It's like an old rag worn by a leper. The attention of mediocre men is low status itself, it defiles women in their own eyes. So it follows that if possible, mediocre men should disappear. Just die.
Incel men being the most mediocre among the mediocre, they are at the top of the list for things women want to eradicate. They just don't want them to exist. Wherever they meet them they try to make them disappear. You might have heard about "women in tech"; i.e. women trying to get nerds out of tech. Nerds protest. "We were here first! We built this from scratch!". Yeah whatever. There's money to be made, so women want in. Then they saw nerds there, and they can't help their instincts. Nerds must go. Women just won't live close to them; the same way humans don't like living close to snakes or rats. That getting rid of the nerds would destroy the whole ecosystem is secondary. When tech collapses after women chase the nerds away, women will just migrate to somewhere else, as if nothing had happened.
Robin Hanson got screeching calls to lock him up when he suggested that men with no access to women perhaps have good reason for being upset. Seems to me he doesn't understand how hypergamy works. He was accused of promoting rape and slavery. Which he denied of course, but feminists had a point. Women want hypergamy. For a woman to sleep with a man below the top 20% is by definition not consensual sex. It is thus rape. For a woman to work for or live with a man below the top 20% is by definition not consensual work. It is thus slavery. This is no joke.
When men get what they want; you get, well, Gengis Khan. What is best in life (for men)? Killing enemy men and taking their women. That is not a very stable situation but when men have all the power, which has happened now and then during history, the result is understandably not very agreeable for women. After all sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. The optimal strategies for males and females are adversarial. That's how it's supposed to be. That's how evolution works: conflict.
Well, what is best in life for women? What do women do when they have all the power? What is the female equivalent of Gengis Khan. We are finding out lately. It includes, obviously, complete privileges in every area of life for women. These two recent tweets were very illuminating. One complains that 19% of journalists killed were women. The other that 1 in 4 homeless are women.
https://twitter.com/framegames/status/993274599679954944
https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/993361737943482368
Well, say cucks, that means 81% of journalists killed were men! And 75% of homeless were men! What the hell are women complaining about? Well obviously they complain that there is even a single women being victimized, when it should be 0! When an Englishmen said that 10% of victims at something in colonial India were Englishmen, he was right to complain. We fucking rule this place, why should even a single of us have a rough time? That's what Indians are for. Well that's how women think. We are women; why should a single women have trouble? That's what men are for! There is no irony in this. It is only the cold logic of power.
And women have more power than they ever had. As I mentioned before; much of the power distribution between the sexes depends on the birth rate. The sexual targets of a man are, generally, women of his age or lower. The opposite for women; they are attracted to men their age or higher. Well, a declining birthrate means there's increasingly fewer amounts of women younger than any given man. Which raises the bargaining power of any given woman. Because every year there are fewer women being born to compete with her in the sexual marketplace.
When did men had a good time? In the 1950s to 1970s, when the birthrate was increasing and so every year more women were being born than before. Any woman had to shut the fuck up and be nice to men if she didn't want to be outcompete by the younger hordes being born every year. Now, though, it is the opposite. Women have the advantage. And they are using it. It won't be pretty.
145 comments
[…] The Incel Question […]
> What is best in life (for men)? Killing enemy men and taking their women. [...] the result is understandably not very agreeable for women. How is not? weaker men die, stronger ones survive to mate, it's pretty much the definition of hypergamy.
Well men have had the upper hand since forever so women have evolved to be accommodating to it. But I figure having ones children and brothers killed wasn't very agreeable to women. And polygamy isn't very nice to older women who get no attention at all after a few years.
Not agreeable to them personally, but the mantis sacrifices himself after mating to provide sustenance to the children; we seem to be programmed to get sexy genes, more or less regardless of what happens to us. Would a woman not prefer Gengis Khan, no attention in older age and all, than a nice cozy beta provider?
Certainly the interests of individual men are at odds with those of women, since they would want to impregnate all. But to achieve this a man would have to defeat all other men, pretty much certifying they are sexy stuff. My understanding is women like to see men fight, specially if there's some indication they "fight for her" (similar to a society in which men attempt to "kill your enemies and take their women").
> pretty much certifying they are sexy stuff. pretty much certifying *he is* sexy stuff.
Don't mean to be heavy handed but you may be referring to the beta-conspiracy (civilization). As opposed to Gengis Khan/Conan-the-barbarian, which is actually pretty bad for most men, but sexy stuff for women.
Sexy stuff for women's genes but not for their emotions. it's a conflict. Women want the security provided by betas coupled with the genes provided by Alphas. So regardless of whether they are in Genghis' harem or living in civilization, they are unhappy. Women are always unhappy and if they are not they will not rest until they find a reason to be unhappy and then wallow in it. They are not meant to be happy. Nature/Gnon does not intend it.
They are definitely not happy these days :)
They're unhappy in Homer, Virgil, and Ovid too, so I think Lalit's right.
Women are always unhappy. Genetically optimized for a steady level of unhappiness as hysteria maximizes their potential pains.
"Life satisfaction" surveys show women getting dramatically unhappier since the 60s (their reported life satisfaction becoming almost as low as those of men!), while men stay about the same. Self reported, and life satisfaction possibly means something different to each sex, but the large drop seems significant.
DanielChieh, I think you meant to say, "potential gains" rather than potential pains. Having dealt with my share of women, I am convinced that female hysterics, drama, tears, anguish are just evolutionary tested techniques to subdue the male, wear him down, guilt him up and make him do her bidding if for no other reason than that the bitch will finally shut up. Which happens, for a while, only to start up again after the gains from this round of drama have been consolidated. The reason women have evolved all that is because those damned behaviors work.
That's interesting, Garr. Makes me think that there is still always that handful of women (before all feminism) that were 'making it in a man's world' and may therefore have been happy. Like Helen--do you think she wasn't happy going off with Paris? It's not as obvious in Homer, but in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida she gets very existential about all of it and wants only to 'sing of love' and is referred to as 'bawdy Helen'. Has amnesia, but then in that case, why not? Had little choice, did Stockholm Syndrome, and Aléxandros was definitely a prize catch. Aphrodite was less powerful (curious that sex-as-subordinate was already even there) than the other goddesses (not even mentioning the gods), but still was considered 'tough' when injured and some 'ichor' spilt (iliad so much better than Odyssey--probably a whole different team.) Isn't it possible that those women who never had to fight for 'liberation' but were always as outstanding as the men, were happy too?--you know, like Catherine Deneuve and Sophia Loren, a few writers here and there, painters and former beauties like Georgia O'Keeffe? Xenobia till Aurelian bested her, turned her into a 'matronly' slut? And those definitely like men and sex with them. Louis Auchincloss was right, also, that 'ill-tempered women love sex'. I had to spank one 2 or 3 times, not a thing let up (back in 80s.) Tiny percentage, of course, maybe .0001%, but still, didn't Nietzsche say that (perhaps since rarer, I don't know) 'the most perfect woman is more perfect than the most perfect man'--does sound a little throwaway, I guess. Some of them (Deneuve) have already condemned the #metoo follies, but recent assessments are that there was not an effective backlash as expected. But the #youtooMutha is interesting because they are stuck with condemning the 'poor victimized black men', so what one of the smarties said about the 'proles not being as similar to the elites as they are to each other--they don't get along' is probably true, and what an enjoyable mess the 'outing' of black male harassers is going to be. There might even be some excavations of black rapists of 'spotless Southern white women'.
I really am not seeing a whole lot of this supposed demand for security in countries rich or poor. The "security" story is true in the sense that they do need a touch of beta - they have to believe that under your brutal exterior there is a soft gooey inner core. But you have to have the brutal exterior first, and make them work hard to find the soft gooey inner core.
This is neither Jim's writing style nor is it the handle Jim uses for himself when commenting on other sites. Come on man! This is not cool.
So we humans are wrong because we do not behave like a cannibal animal and want a caring partner and help in old age?
What if I told you the way of getting a caring partner and help in old age was to behave like a cannibal animal?
That is not actually true. Behaving like a cannibal animal sexually arouses women. But a woman whose only consideration is getting sexually aroused is so selfish and solipsistic that she will never be caring and a help in old age. You have to write them all off for this purpose. My constant debate with Jim is whether women exist who have other priorities than their gina tingles, I think yes, he thinks not. This can be debated forever. But one thing is sure: women who only care about their gina tingles are never caring and not a help in old age.
Even women who aren't particularly sexual appreciate a violent beast. The same way even low-T men prefer a pretty woman.
I am not even disputing that. I am saying that while being a violent beast works with good women, far more civilized versions of alphadom, see Athol Kay, also work with good women. I would say I am mostly an "Kayist" in these AWALT and "what levels and kinds of alpha is necessary" discussions. But I must admit I have not followed his stuff since 2012, whether he changed something since then or not. Also. Some men are low-T, some men are high-T and cannot control it, some men are high-T and can control it. Of these three, the third seems the most preferable. Similarly, the ideal woman is not one who does not get gina tingles from violent beasts, but one who understands there are higher priorities in life than the gina tingles. Whether she exists or not, one can debate forever. All I am stating now that gina tingles for a violent beast ALONE cannot possibly lead to being a caring partner and being a help in old age. She would defect out of that 100%. Disclaimer: my mom did that help thing well for my dying that. She was loyal to the last. Looking at old photos, hearing old stories, gave me the picture that my dad was alpha but not of the violent beast kind when he was young. More of a Monte-Cristo type. Elegant, distant, haughty, full of polite contempt for people he considered below himself, which was most people. Heartiste's irrationally high self-confidence, yes. Violent beast stuff, not. And now I cannot even recommend it to young men with a good conscience to follow my late dad and be a Monte-Cristo type. Only lately I begin to understand fully how lonely and socially isolated it made him. He seemed to have to have a good social life, yes. But now I think of it and I find all that social life was his brothers friends and my mothers friends and relatives. He had no friends who would have been truly his, he "inherited" them and the social circle from bro and wife. This is not entirely healthy and these may be the wages of that very alpha contempt for most people, and self-aggrandizement.
The blue pill story about women's nature just is not true. Women will only love you if you keep alpha frame - and the female perception of alpha is alarmingly primitive. Male perceptions of male status are much more subtle and sophisticated.
Maybe, maybe not. Think Agathocles.
To expound on this a little, behaving like a cannibal animal will justly reduce significantly your chances to reach old age in the first place.
You are taking it too literally. It is about roleplaying and signalling. It is like saying behaving antiracist means you choose to live in the ghetto and get shot. Well, that is not what antiracist liberals do. They talk the talk but won't live in the ghetto.
That would be the decisive question: Is it about being a successful fraud (the PUA theory) or more about being an approximation of a real Genghis-Khan (who was of course a successful psychopath)? (1) (2) 1) According to the civilized value system. But it is not really possible to be neutral between Civilization and Barbarism, anyway. 2) Many psychopaths end up dead or in prison, so it is not unquestionably an evolutionary successful trait. But women tend to be attracted towards them, no doubt. This opens up the question if the female sex is perhaps badly adapted to Civilization as such.
''2) Many psychopaths end up dead or in prison, so it is not unquestionably an evolutionary successful trait. But women tend to be attracted towards them, no doubt. This opens up the question if the female sex is perhaps badly adapted to Civilization as such.'' Criminals in past underwent status degradation rituals where he was turned from a winner to a loser and turned from strong to weak. Turning the so called alpha into the equivalent of incel. This will cause the gina tingles the cease and dry up like the sahara desert.
This wasn't directed at me but its an easy one If true behaving viciously is evolutionarily sound and its building brittle civilizations that can't handle human nature that is not. All species have a carrying capacity and humanity is past its. Given enough time to get numbers down, lower social complexity and such , problems self correct. Now as for the Incels, no wonder the Left is freaking out about them, Incels should fit nicely into the victim hierarchy of intersectionalism but they don't and they are close enough to create serious cognitive dissonance. Also more than a few of them have killed large numbers of people which suggests to me that given education and effort before this happened these guys could have become worthy human beings. A man who can't kill is useless and while I do not approve of the violence they inflict or advocate for it I do understand it, This drive to action freaks out the Left, to fit in the intersection you have to always stay a victim on some level and have no honor Gross as it is running amok is designed to remove a stain on one's honor and manhood , you become predator not prey This is why the Incels call Elliott Rodgers without irony "The Supreme Gentleman" That thing about identity also applies to MGTOW too , if groups consisting of men have a tribal identity that they are much harder to exploit Sports was the acceptable outlet but its become too political, and if men have a Mannerbund of their own all the women and left wing people that tap off some of their labor and hell the current Neo Liberal state are screwed, There isn't much that can be done about it, they can maybe try and people atomized for a while and maybe control the physical space but our society offends Gnon and its a goner one way or another.
Were you replying to me? If so: We do not know if behaving viciously is evolutionary sound. In the long run, what is best for the race and therefore truely evolutionary sound could be being a good herd member. Nietzsche would be the first to tell you so, that´s why he had reservations about Darwinism.
If that was so, then half of Western Europe wouldn't have descended from one Bronze Age King.
I don´t think it has. But my broader Argument would be that mankind hasn´t been around long enough to safely draw evolutionary conclusions. We could be a failure. Insects have been around 400 million years before us, and they may well survive us by another 400 million years.
AB Prosper--do the incels 'not fit' into the left's favoured 'victim intersection' as would female 'incels'? are all the incels white? It seems that recently a lot of contradiction is occurring between who to champion and who not? Big articles are written now by blacks about how Cosby and R. Kelly 'were not lynched', and that the black men in the music business 'won't speak out' like the women 'do'. That's another one that's between a rock and a hard place. Is the right defending incels because they are males, but low status males all the same in their definition, and saying they could be 'rehabilitated, educated, shown how to present themselves', etc., just as various kinds of black criminals are often defended by the left, because slavery, etc., until Kanye made this extraordinary move? I didn't understand why anyone would see this other than the 'redistribution of sex', which is hardly Darwinian, and even from the right's point of view, isn't it Marxist? If Darwinism is that profound (it seems like it is to me), how can incel rehabilitation not be Communist, and a form of 'racial integration'? I even read one woman say that 'no, people go with whom they want, but it's a political choice'. Except for their becoming terrorists, I don't see why anyone cares about their 'root causes' any more than the trannies' 'root causes'. 'Running amok' and 'becoming predator' to the extent of Muslim-imitating truck attacks doesn't make someone more capable of getting laid. Unless they were already attractive enough--like Timothy McVeigh, who'd been in Kuwait and then after Oklahoma City, all the women who wanted to put out were writing him. Probably the same with Brevik, but I haven't read. I don't see why both left and right wouldn't dislike (intensely) that such a group organized, since you'd think they'd be even more embarassed after being revealed as 'incel'. But do see that an organized group of incel women would be embraced immediately, as part of Ferguson ('good' black males victimized), #metoo, or really anything. A drunk one came up to me recently and started talking about wanted to 'stick her tongue up some other lesbian's vagina'. Then they also freely call men 'dicks' and 'pricks', but some of you do that too, and oughtn't, except when complimenting as with that Chinese one from 2nd or 3rd c. written up a few months back. Are incels like 'fierce dykes'? They seem pretty homo sacer, at least in some ways, to me. I saw a good-looking 25yo or so jerking off in the subway for about ten minutes last Sunday, now wonder if he was an incel or just druggie.
So Minassian "wasn't adapting to military life, including in matters of dress, deportment and group interactions in a military setting" and limped off after 16 days, and Rodger "intended to target attractive women and sexually successful men, which led to him being posthumously idolized by some people on misogynistic online fringe communities". So they target men they'd like to be, and women they wish would give them the time of day. That has something in common with the old Manson murders, knifing pregnant celebs like Sharon Tate, and having as future targets Liz Taylor and Steve McQueen, except that the particular loony who knifed Tate said "I did it because I loved her", but also "the best part was when the blood started spurting out". All in the Bugliosi book. Are there incel rapists?
No matter what happens the mating market is "Darwinian" in the sense that people have different numbers of surviving children. Saying the current mating free for all is "free market" therefore good is both misunderstanding what people are concerned about when they worry about the evolutionary effects and totally failing to understand why free markets in goods are wise policy (most of the time). A free market in shoes or food or medical care results in better outcomes at lower prices as producers compete to satisfy demand. A "free market" in mating results in women spending their entire fertile years getting fucked by men who would never even dream of committing to them while the woman remains deluded that she's more valuable than she actually is because for her entire adult life she's been catered to by men who value her presence more than money. A "free market" isn't magic. Your misunderstanding of Darwinism and evolution is even more profound. A mating free for all results in women getting (occasionally) impregnated by men that women find sexy who, as it turns out, are pretty horrifically unsuited to building a civilization. Why would you expect any different? Women in civilized countries have never been fully free to pick their own mates so their mate picking algorithms haven't been subjected to the same evolutionary pressure that men's personalities have been. Even if women had been subjected to that kind of force (which they absolutely were not) tragedy of the commons would still ensure that they tried to get the genes of destructive men hoping that all the other women would mate with guy who would produce sons who could keep her sons from getting killed by the neighboring tribes while her sons did nothing to help that effort and spend their energy trying to mate with more women.
The bargain that exists is that his competence at killing is turned outward at enemy tribes or is channeled into productive enterprises. In exchange women aren't allowed free choice of mates and have to accept being married off and being pressured to stay faithful. Perfect illustration of how evolution is always selecting for something. Women are stupid and short-sighted about picking mates so they can't recognize the capability for violence, they're only interested in the actuality of violence. Some guy flips out and kills a bunch of other guys and all of a sudden women want him when they wanted nothing to do with him before that. Since men bear the brunt of violence and are better long-term planners they arrange a mating market that lets potentially violent guys get wives - everyone winds up somewhat satisfied.
Every male mass murderer has women throwing themselves at him. This is just another reason why it's utterly retarded to let women make their own mating choices.
"The bargain that exists is that his competence at killing is turned outward at enemy tribes or is channeled into productive enterprises. In exchange women aren’t allowed free choice of mates and have to accept being married off and being pressured to stay faithful. Perfect illustration of how evolution is always selecting for something. Women are stupid and short-sighted about picking mates..." Yes, that makes sense. I just hadn't known that there was such a thing, maybe read the term once for the first time in last couple of months, didn't think about it or even know what it stood for. So the initial reaction is that they're among the 'disabled' and will have to accept that reality, just as conventionally disabled do, with all the rights and privileges revoked that that involves, entails. Maybe minus all the cloying sympathy, I don't know. The envy is definitely there, though, in the examples I put, even if that is a detail that goes away, just as the idea of children comes in after the sexual functioning is put into place. I didn't hear anything about children, including here, just that, practically speaking, they could use hookers. Now one does come back suddenly: A Sikh Indian I knew back in 2002 with terrible birth defects on one hand and arm--he claimed to have had an affair with 'a beautiful woman', although I don't believe that in any way I could comprehend as such, and he looked at me as though he knew I didn't believe it. He travelled a lot in Asia, especially India and Thailand, and told me that he was now using prostitutes frequently. But he still was getting some kind of sex, so this is brand-new to me, and I just thought it was attractiveness or unattractiveness of any individual, not something that would become a group and organize. Maybe if there's actually movement towards any kind of satisfaction, the rage subsides and they do at least realize they're still not going to get the cinematic lookers, or even the tiers just below those. So, in some way, you're saying women are too stupid not to be forced to marry these men, since they make such dumb choices in most or all cases anyway. Likely true, and also like the point about civilized nations and how women in those have 'never been fully free to pick their own mates', and that's where the badness of Hollywood does come in. I don't know if any culture has more trashy products about 'falling in love' and making it seem equally inevitable from both than American movies. There was recently in WaPo, the columnist Kathleen Parker was talking about Stormy Daniels, etc., and mentioned that she'd been excited by a boy that her father then said "If you lie down with dogs, you will stand up with fleas". But she's among those who have been successful in every way, and married another lawyer just as her father had been. The aesthetics and standards of looks purveyed by Hollywood and porno I don't agree is the same badness as some have said here. Rather just that 'romantic ideal' which was long not shown to almost always be temporary. As for the standards, they have to come from somewhere, and it looks to me as though people are not bothering with them, and trying to get support rather for their obvious and even very unhealthy deficiencies. In fact, the stars of Hollywood are themselves not nearly as fantastic in terms of looks as they were esp. in the 30s, 40s, 50s. Porn has improved some bodies, though. It's not merely a jerk-off thing.
" A “free market” in mating results in women spending their entire fertile years getting fucked by men who would never even dream of committing to them while the woman remains deluded that she’s more valuable than she actually is because for her entire adult life she’s been catered to by men who value her presence more than money. A “free market” isn’t magic." We don't have a free market in mating in the West. We live in a feminist cartel market, with feminist laws and feminist norms to forcible/non-consensually extract reproductive resources from men (their labour) and transfer it to women with nothing in return for those men. That is not a free market.
Or one could genetically re-engineer them. The perfect Darwinian regime is NOT free-market-libertarian-leave-everything-to-fate-or-chance, but rather an all-powerful technocracy taking full control of human evolution, period. Though of course only someone as totally anti-green/anti-libertarian as I would even consider that.
My reply was to Steve Johnson above, btw. The way wordpress structures these comments is a bit unfortunate.
It is not a free market. Free markets have contracts. Much, though perhaps not all, of the problems we have are due to people being unable to make marriage contracts.
This is as free market as it gets in mating. No society is ever going to force women to live with their decisions - everyone inherently recognizes that women don't really have agency and no one has the appetite to force fertile aged women to suffer for their bad decisions therefore the closest you'll get to a free market in mating is one where women get to make decisions but don't suffer consequences. By saying "remove the government redistribution to women and the mating market will sort itself out" you're assuming that women will make good long term decisions if they have to live with the consequences. Nope - women just aren't adapted to make decisions that way - they use social calculus to make decisions and the only force that will restrain them is their peers and other women - who can only be brought to enforcing norms of good behavior under patriarchy.
Women aren't subject to contract law.
"I didn’t understand why anyone would see this other than the ‘redistribution of sex’, which is hardly Darwinian, and even from the right’s point of view, isn’t it Marxist? " The system we have now where women can use the state to extract resources from men and transfer it to women for free so those women can finance a lifestyle of fucking higher tier men who wouldn't;'t ever commit to them, is marxism/communism. Return to the free market, remove all the biased feminist laws and norms in favour of women and the massive transfer of wealth from men to women by the state, and you would see an end to the 80/20 split in sex as women will actually have to start fucking the betas in order to get the beta bucks from them. "‘Running amok’ and ‘becoming predator’ to the extent of Muslim-imitating truck attacks doesn’t make someone more capable of getting laid." Google hybristophilia.
> For the more awkward nerds in class though, they probably prefer the girls rule, out of some extremely misguided hope that the girls will be somewhat nicer to them. One would hope those geeky men would be a prime target to awaken.. what do they have to loose?
I'm going to give a little bit of pushback here. I think BioLeninism is a bad conceptual framework and the High-Low alliance vs. the Middle (or Brahmin-Dalit vs. Amerikaaner) is still the best theory we have. If you go on the internet you see loads of freaks, weirdos, perverts, shouty ethnics, and people with mental problems and it sure looks like BioLeninism. But the real world is full of liberals, living functional lives, earning good money and then dutifully voting for black delinquency and tranny perverts. If I only read blogs, I wouldn't know this, but I have American family and most of my business dealings are in America and whenever the functional, high-earning people I work with reveal their politics it is always TRUMPHITLER. Of course, my experience might not be representative, but this seems to be what Charles Murray has found in his research. One of the ways that Moldbug represented a qualitative leap forward is that he inverted the normal distinction between liberals (misguided) and the Left (evil) with the assumption that the goal is to convince liberals to be less Leftist. In reality, the distinction is between liberals (the people actually in charge) and the Left (irrelevant sideshow that only exists in a parasitic relationship with the Left). If BioLeninism is an emergent phenomenon its that the competent White/Asian/Jewish liberals don't have enough children to make up the numbers, but they can't just dispense with democracy because that's the basis for their rule so they have to let in more and more weirdos to the High part of the High-Low alliance. This theory predicts that, as this process continues, the system will fall apart as, arguably, it already is in California.
The real world liberals that you come across are merely signaling liberalism. Come Emperor Xi, he who has the mandate of heaven, they will quickly turn into real world monarchists, living functional lives, earning good money, delivering devastatingly clever one liners mocking democracy, dutifully paying taxes and all that. They know which side their bread is buttered. As do I. My co-workers also think I am a Leftie.
Come Emperor Xi, he who has the mandate of heaven, they will quickly turn into real world monarchists, living functional lives, earning good money, delivering devastatingly clever one liners mocking democracy, dutifully paying taxes and all that. That's what Moldbug thought too. I agree. My co-workers also think I am a Leftie. But presumably the reason why you need is to pretend is because the others aren't pretending or, at least, enough of them. Probably the proportion who are just going through the motions is steadily rising; Moldbug thought that too. There's also the question of to what degree anyone really believes anything: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2010/03/corrected-evidence.html
>Come Emperor Xi, he who has the mandate of heaven, they will quickly turn into real world monarchists This. So much this. The greatest majority of the population are just normies doing and saying what they're told to. I think that the true rabid activist/HR type BioLeninists are no more than 5-10% of the population, that's it (this number can vary depending on the capacity of each State to support a destructive parasite class)
I've always thought of Bioleninism as one aspect of the High-Low alliance, whose point in any case is just to raise up people who are dependent for status on those in power. But it is important to make the point that the Low are now increasingly being chosen for their biological unfitness, which is surely a direct result of previous High-Low victories: if the social order is levelled to a state of basic equality, the High can no longer produce the same dependency effect by raising up plebians against the aristocracy or foreigners against the national citizens (which may, at least, result in the elevation of competent people), and are forced to go right to the biological dregs. This is, as Spandrell remarked in another post, literal kakistocracy, and a sign that the capacity of civilisation to withstand leftism is rapidly running out.
One thing that's conspicuously absent from Spandrell's politics posts is that it's very useful to be able to have access to the abilities of a conspiracy from which it is impossible to escape. (I mean, you *can* escape from it but you can't defect unless you are willing to either die or emulate Christopher Knight[1] and try really hard not to be found.. Weird no one is even talking about it here. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/15/stranger-in-the-woods-christopher-knight-hermit-maine
Not sure I follow.
Pizza & MK Ultra?
I think you are saying exactly the same as what S. is saying with bioleninism. Lenin wasn't a proletarian or a peasant. But he used proletarians and peasants. He was High, they Low. In Bioleninism, the High uses those Low who are low not necessarily by economic class, but, for example, their looks are so that everybody is laughing behind their back. To be 100% honest what I don't understand in Moldbuggian theory is why are the controllers considered High. The French Revolution was a bunch of rural lawyers becoming lawmakers. They were not aristocrats or something. Lenin was a nobody for quite long. Of course they became High once they won, but but not before. This aspect I don't really understand. Or wait a bit. The French revolution started as the truly High, the king, wanted to play the relatively Low, the rural lawyers (so actually lower middle than very low) against the Middle, the aristocrats (who were middle only from the king's view, actually kind of Second-High). Effectively, things got out of hand and the Low took over. Lenin I would call lower middle, but at least an actual intellectual. The peasants he used eventually did take over. Hruschov was pretty much a peasant. So Lower Middle played the Low against Middle and High, became High, but eventually the Low took over.
low - low middle - middle - high middle - high How much granulation is reasonable to approximate handy analysis? I've heard that middle high and high battle for power, and over time exchange top dog status. The others are generally used as weapons.
At least that much. We think of rich people as high class, shopkeepers as middle etc. This is very ingrained. Thinking of aristocrats as middle or a very ambitious but for a long time nobody intellectual as high is not intuitive at all...
Aristocrats are born to peasant families all the time. The rate is much lower than the rate of peasants being born to noble families, but there's so many peasants that it works out to be at least a third of the aristocrat population at any time.
Revolutions are always done by people high in biological class, and revolution becomes likely when lots of people outside of power who are not adequately bought off by power are higher in biological class than those in power. Thirty or forty years ago, the West had a government of people of the highest biological class, and was therefore fairly stable. Since then, it has been promoting more and more low class people into government for being low class, while the former top level rulers have been dying off without replacement, and the hatred of this decaying upsidedown government for its increasingly superior subjects has had to escalate in order to justify its policy of keeping them out of power.
Some backup for your observations of how women will use their power: Mercilessly & destructively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691817305917 Men who defeat competitors for power then cooperate with them. Because they are glad to take them onto their team, as a subordinate. Under the leader's guidance, that larger team can function better and win more status & resources for them all to share. He just needs to keep an eye on his defeated competitor & keep him from trying to scale the dominance pyramid in the future. Whereas women who defeat their competitor then try to make that competitor disappear. Women don't do functional, well-defined, competence-based status hierarchies. They do flat networks based on personal connections & animosities. A defeated competitor isn't a productive new team member who needs watching. He or she is a constant threat, who could be weaving new networks to undermine the top woman. So they have to be destroyed, by being rendered so radioactively low-status that they cannot create a new network, or some other equally drastic measure. As Western society grows more feminized, we are seeing this dynamic become the default behavior in our politics & culture. Forget the idea of an honorable "loyal opposition" that you begrudgingly work with. Mean Girls gotta Mean Girl.
This is very interesting, and seems true in a way but only in their (women's) minds -- because they only exert power indirectly by nagging the ruling men and the most effective naggers are the slim ones with well-defined shapes and facial structure, so the only way for them really to "make a competitor disappear" is to figure out how to get her fat.
"Scott Alexander, which is a fairly representative member of that demographic, has been an incel for all his life, at least until his choice of medication rewired his brain to make a biological fact what was just a sad social circumstance." lol you're serious, or I'm missing the joke?
Scott Alexander identifies as asexual, I believe.
What? Isn´t he polyamorous?
When you are polyamorous it means your girlfriend screws males more alpha than you and if you are very lucky you are allowed to watch.
The joke gets even better. I'm not his biggest fan but I believe he's recently entered a relationship with a non-crazy actual woman who isn't even that bad looking. He'll get over his asexuality, I believe. He's pretty smart and high status due to his writings. That he looks, well, bad, doesn' really matter. I went looking for his pic on MPC (they have him listed as 'bugman') found this one instead: http://slatestarcodex.com/blog\_images/chicago\_picture.jpg I rest my case.
yeah if he's 'low status' then people like us are beneath existence. If status is measured by recognition and reception, then he's got way more status than probably your typical ex-high school mid-IQ footfall jock who is stuck in some crappy job that does not keep up with inflation and is otherwise invisible to society. *woman who isn’t even that bad looking.* no shit. clicked the picture to get a better look
I'd totally go for any of the natal women in this picture just because they'd likely be someone who'd be able to understand why I believe things I believe on an intellectual level. I know some men like dumb thots or vapid woman, but to me, a vapid woman means higher odds of dumb kids. DO NOT WANT.
Well he's got the prettiest one from the bunch. Though the one on the left is close competition. I hope he fixes his health and starts exercising. His writing would get even better I bet.
He's specifically said that he'll never start lifting because he knows that lifting makes you more right wing. What's actually going on here is an extension of his primary motivation - fear. He fears that if he raised his test by lifting that he'd gain enough disgust with lies that he couldn't write what he writes now - which is a bunch of lies intended to make a plausible enough case for the prog world-view. Then he'd have to weigh losing his status as clown world progressive conscience (it's like a regular conscience, only he tells you that everything is ok and there's no need to change!) vs the marginally increased personal magnetism he'd gain from being less physically repulsive.
That whole fucking photograph is, as they say, 'deeply problematic'. What is it anyway, some Israeli LGBT picnic in Central Park (looks almost like CPW anyway?) god, that drum dyke second from right. Shocking obesity quotient.
I dunno, I think the thing is that his writing is ostensibly blue-pilled but if you truly grasp it you can't keep being blue-pilled. That's my take on it.
Scott is like Syme. Too smart and too self-aware to survive in an ideological environment. At some point, he'll get unpersoned and relegated to the company of Hitlers.
“That whole fucking photograph is, as they say, ‘deeply problematic’. What is it anyway, some Israeli LGBT picnic in Central Park (looks almost like CPW anyway?)” You wish, parisian. Looking at the mugs, at least 80% are not “Israeli” or even Jewish, but white gentiles, with a few Asians. It’s very similar to a photo you could snap of the students at Caltech when I was there from one of the less Asian-populated Houses, who were also overwhelmingly white. (Incidentally, the French/French descent nerds were particularly vile and repulsive-looking) That’s simply the state of most very high IQ nerds in America these days. Somewhat different from very high IQ nerds in Western Europe, and VERY different from very high IQ nerds in Eastern Europe. And while I agree with our esteemed hosts’s perspective, I also agree with people that the nature and qualities of the high IQ nerd has changed in America over the decades.
If you want the MPC pic of him search for their "bugman bingo" card - he's the "low T" square.
Steve, forgive me for replying to @Mark here, but it was going to go down too far. MARK--thanks for that. The 'Israeli' thing was just being a bas-tid, I recall John Gregory Dunne saying that the worst-dressed people he ever saw were in Jerusalem. There's the obviously huge Jewish population here, but a lot of them are definitely well-dressed. Okay, I'm beginning to understand this weird issue somewhat. I also look again at that photo and see that there are 5 women (6 if you include Her Serene Butchness), and 24 males. That's probably not exactly representative, or is an extreme example of what is representative and that people have talked about. I simply cannot see that there aren't enough unattractive women to take care of the incels, but I just don't know, so something's going on. Killing jocks and the 'popular girls' still doesn't make sense, or is it really that even the unattractive women will not fuck these men? Even if women are stupid, the goodlooking ones are never going to go for the ones who can't get laid even by the homelies. Steve Johnson was talking about this 'bargain' in which the exchange would be that women would not be able to choose their mates, would be forced to marry and stay faithful. But even the goodlooking ones don't have to have a 'choice of mates', because men choose them, even if they're bitches (I know about doing that, and barely escaped marriage with this shrew.) Why cannot the unattractive women be forced to take the entirety of the burden of solving this by making them put out to the incels? Easier said than done, because someone wrote yesterday that the mediocrity is more and more 'sympathetic', and many mediocre think that stupid sympathy is worth more than having to achieve adulthood and keep producing something of merit. And spreading like crazy--just like with commercials on the internet, public transit, TV having twice as many blacks as even a year ago. The English Upper Classes would sometimes let a beautiful lower class individual marry one of them, so that they'd stay beautiful--that worked. The beautiful women being forced to marry and reproduce with these incels would work too--for the purpose of a new victimized group of uglies, and impossible women in terrible 'housing'. So I still don't get why these incel terrorists wanted to kill the beautiful women, although the jealously of the jocks, maybe so, but killing them? So they want to kill David Beckham, I guess. But don't they won't the beautiful women to be forced to fuck them even if they don't want to (and even women have that much sense not to want something as repulsive as one of these representative nerds in the photo--SA is not nearly the worst even) ? It was my understanding that the incels were saying they couldn't get any woman--I don't think anybody cares that much, except that if they are organized and do terrorist things, they'll have to be stopped--and not just because it doesn't make much sense. Well, I'm glad we know they're a terrorist group, don't see a thing leftist about not wanting a terrorist organization of this sort. It's hard to see it going anywhere.
"I also look again at that photo and see that there are 5 women (6 if you include Her Serene Butchness), and 24 males." Sounds about right. My graduating class was 73% male. 4 years later, they started heavily favoring female applicants and it went down to 57%. Since I never bought that it was completely gender-neutral in the first place, and there were certainly women my year that had no business there, we're talking about 20% or less that would have been there ideally. 10-20% female is roughly the correct interval for generally nerdy endeavors like the frolic in the grass. "or is it really that even the unattractive women will not fuck these men?" That's exactly it. It's a combination of unrealistic standards on the part of even the lowest-status women and how truly clueless and repellent most of these guys are. It doesn't help that the men typically find themselves in environments where men far outnumber the girls. And unlike nerds of the 50s, there are no dances with the local beautician school to look forward to, and no secretaries and stenographers to hit on. (Nevermind that doing so now would lead to losing one's job) As for the psychology of incels, I can partially understand it analytically, but it's utterly alien to my own thinking, and I imagine yours. There is no way to "solve" it currently; it's merely a symptom of a sick society.
LOL "dances with the local beautician school to look forward to" There was an old B'way show 'The Mad Show', based on the magazine, and one of the songs was 'Beauty School Dropout'.
Yeah but because his parents stuffed him with antidepressants when he was a kid, not because he chose it when he was an adult. In this regard he deserves pity. Also, the healthcare system is pretty weird. I happen to have adult ADHD (absent-minded professor syndrome) in Europe and Ritalin type medication is not allowed for adults, only kids. WTF. Stuffing helpless kids with stimulants is OK but an adult is not allowed to choose the same even if he has the same problem. It is 100% the other way around as it should be. Similarly, adults choosing antidepressants and knowing it can result in sexual dysfunction is a risk they have to decide if they want to take. Well if you are old and had enough sex before why not. But parents giving antidepressants to kids seem to be a pretty irresponsible thing, unless they are so badly off that there is a risk of suicide. It should be allowed for adults but only very rarely allowed for kids.
Are you really afraid to order what med you might want online? If it's not highly scheduled, the slight illegality is paid no attention to. I can't believe people trusting everything doctors and dentists threaten them with (or withhold from them.) I do agree with whoever said everything about Houellebecq's prescience, and he also fully taught me that dentists are indeed *VENAL* people. And I had always known it, but refuse to accept how horror-show they like to be--always threatening a death sentence and then refusing a little Peridex. I mentioned before to someone who was all full of whine here that Wellbutrin really does work--not only reworks the same bits so that they start functioning (even after decades of total sloth), but also gives you so much horniness you hardly know what to do with it--and I'm not young, just not FAT. AT ALL. Totally agree with that commenter who said forcing fatness on a skinny competitor will render him/her fully powerless. I know Spandrell hates fat people too, one of his greatest contributions to world literature.
Most places it's not a crime to order it and pay for it, only to sell it on. So as long as you can get it (many vendors don't ship to certain EU countries because of postal inspection), you should be fine. I've been tempted by this, I'm in similar situation to you.
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
brilliant observations.
If a lot people not only want governmental redistribution of income, wealth - and now sex - why stop there? We lack any means to redistribute life time, but there is also great inequality in life time. If technically feasible, would the leftist crowd also try to enforce taking life time from those who have more of it than others? What if those with longer life and health spans worked hard and disciplined at it, living strictly healthy, while others live more lazy but unhealthy? Partially, we could even technically do it today: Enforced organ donation comes to mind.
Life expectancy distribution is not as skewed as sex or money. Not even close.
They don't actually demand it. Get a clue. It is trolling. They pretty much all tend to be somewhere between libertarians and nazis (the later opposing wealth redistribition in current-year America because it tends to flow from whites to nonwhites). They are trolling to demonstrate the absurdity of wealth redistribution. They are trolling via taking a leftist idea and bringing it a conclusion that makes leftists scream for the lulz. Hanson is a libertarian. Nearly nobody seriously wants it or thinks it is feasible. But they enjoy leftists being abhorred by the idea. In this sense, from all the leftist answers to Hanson, the only one showing some clue was the Crooked Timber blog. They smelt a troll. They were right of course. A libertarian economist never seriously wants to redistribute money or sex. Take note: leftists with some actual clue are currently found at Crooked Timber.
Clarification. There are multiple kinds of troll. There is the common, for teh lulz troll. And there is the gadfly kind of troll, like Socrates, who wants to make people think, by pointing out inconsistencies etc. Hanson was trolling in the gadfly sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_gadfly
Also relevant. There is a common wisdom that if you ask on the Internet how do I do X in Linux you likely get no answers, but if you say Linux is shit because it is impossible to do X, people tell you six different ways to do X just to demonstrate that you are an idiot. It is for this reason that gadfly trolling is necessary. Learn from Hanson. I should. Nobody ever reads my blog because I don't generate controversy. I will :)
Just now I clicked on the blue "Dividualist" above your comment and there was no blog there, so I couldn't read your blog.
[…] perhaps not. For a far more comprehensive elaboration of the Incel Question, I refer you to this cask-strength post by the blogger known as Spandrell. (Caveat lector: don’t leave it open on your desktop at the […]
The strongest lifters at my gym aren't exactly nerds, but they certainly aren't "jocks" -- they're what I think are called "geeks", who overlap much more with nerds than with the sort of men who would have been popular in high school. I think that a lot of programmers are geeks (grimly determined specialists?) rather than nerds too. Maybe Anglo culture is geek culture? Successful Anglo rulers such as Henry II and Donald Trump are geek-coordinators?
Lifters aren't celibate. Hopefully.
Look at FUDDSWORLD's picture and description.
You ever heard of a 'gymcel?' At least among who I know, there's quite a bit of overlap between gymcels and STEMcels. Fit, smart dudes who nevertheless emit a constant and powerful girl repulsion field running off pure anti-Game.
Lol. No, I has never heard of it. They should just go to Brazil or something.
They'd get hot women throwing themselves, but all retarded. Given that, as eternal anglo says, what causes a gymcel is often STEM nerdery, they might not *want* the attention they'd receive.
Lol. Anglos are weird.
I suspect quite a lot of Anglo STEM types have some degree of mild autism especially the not caring much about socializing variety. This along with social trends (porn, the sexual market place/climate) can act as a substantial reduction in the sex drive This might be why Japan is the way it is as well but Asia isn't my sphere of expertise. My guess is the sex drive of such people can easily fall to a low level and the men simply no longer care very much. It requires a narrow set of circumstances to keep these guys in the game Some MGTOW are like this as well and this terrifies women and not in a good tingly way. Truth is if a lot of men simply become indifferent or actively dislike women lit is actually far worse for them than any other scenario since all women have to trade on is fertility, femininity and sexuality. There can be an artificial male tech driven bubble like we have but its fragile Women are terribly vulnerable and on a visceral level know it And note too there are plenty of functional cultures where women are basically property. I don't think this is in the European cultural D.N.A but I don't know that Society doesn't like no sexy time either, we know what happens when people have a lot less sex. Your economy shrinks since a big incentive to earn is gone , your population shrinks and if it goes on too long, it seems there is no recovery point Japan is way past that as is Europe and its hitting the US hard. And note none of the social hacks work, Poland went full Catholic and its fertility probably went up a bit, its nowhere near 2.1 even over fertile US Hispanics are dropping like a stone , its now at or slightly below replacement At current trends and they obviously will change, in a few centuries everyone, the US will look like 1700 be hugely White with some minor admixture and nearly everyone will be descended from LDS, Evangelical and Amish! Also obviously not welcome to secularists of course cracking down is the response, not that it helps.
"Lifters aren't celibate. Hopefully." I spent some years going to a gym regularly. Got my photo on the wall as one of their members with the best performance. It had zero effect on my sex/social life. One of the reasons I eventually let it drop. Learning ballroom dancing, on the other hand, is about the most heterosexual thing a guy can do.
I was thinking something similar. YaReally defended not caring too much about how you look as well.
>>secret Roissy/Heartiste fan, Tyler Cowen How do you know? That's something.
I put women into three categories. Hot ones, who are of course spoiled because they were treated like a princess, and this exhibit all kinds of like-thatness from selfishness to solipsism. Not hot ones, who due to not being treated like a princess and not being spoiled actually managed to become human beings with compassion and consideration for others. And not hot ones, who are filled with an intense hatred due to seeing themselves as failures. These three categories could be called Girlfriend, Wife (or Mother), Feminist. All women find the sexual desires of nerds very icky. But they react differently to that. Girlfriends are not aggressive enough to persecute them, they just make gagging sounds and roll their eyes. Wives/Mothers are able to work professionally with them, shutting them down with some politeness and tact every time they dare to show sexual interest. In some cases, even become friends with them, mothering them around. Feminists basically want to hang nerds on lamposts. They are aggressive, and full of hatred wanting to lash out at anyone who shows weakness. It is really unfortunate that tech attracts the Feminists but it is also understandable. Girlfriend types want to be trophy wives, models, or if all else falls hairdressers and cosmeticians, work on the beauty of other women if theirs did not land them a rich dude, not sitting in an office doing nerdy stuff. Wives/Mothers are happy to be housewives, if the family finances require it, they take a job as a clerk or something, usually part-time, but their heart is not into it, they have pictures of their kids on the table and always talk about them. They re the types with the cat pics and Coelho quotes. They aren't ambitious. Feminists are ambitious, they want money, prestige, power, NOW. So they are attracted to tech now because the media turned tech leaders into superstars. They weren't so attracted to it before.
Not seeing this. Even the best of women in tech want nerds to die.
Stop pretending you're Jim, please. I don't like him at all, but I respect him, and you're not him. Piss off please.
Power is frequently displayed by who get's away with anti-social behavior. Here's a review of feminist Jessica Valenti's memoirs "Lessons of a 'Sex Object'". Already in the title she is flaunting her desirability. While drugs and alcohol has taken their toll, she was at best a plain girl as young. It's really nothing new to readers of this blog, but it is quite astonishing how one can be so blatantly shitty. https://web.archive.org/web/20180104234259/https://medium.com/the-patriarch-tree/lessons-of-a-sex-object-4b57f666dec5[...] "She recounts her use of marijuana, ecstasy (MDMA) and cocaine as if being a dopehead was an ordinary aspect of life, the same way she discusses her drunkenness and all the various “hook-ups” and “relationships” in which she engaged from the time she lost her virginity as a 14-year-old freshman at Stuyvesant until 2009 when, at age 30, she married a Harvard boy five years younger than her." [...] "On page 94 of Sex Object, Ms. Valenti introduces us to her college boyfriend “Paul,” whom she met after transferring to SUNY-Albany. Short (5-foot-5) and redheaded, Paul was the perfect feminist boyfriend, and Ms. Valenti would have married him but, alas, Paul’s mother “never thought I would be good with kids” (p. 108). That races ahead of the tale, however, which begins when she meets Paul “through my drug dealer, a tall rich kid who lived in my dorm in Albany . . . and sold ecstasy and weed.” And then there’s this (p. 98): When I start taking women’s studies classes, and loving them, [Paul] is happy. . . . We do coke with one of my women’s studies professors in her house when we cannot get ecstasy." [...] "How is a man to judge women? Well, according to feminists like Ms. Valenti, it is wrong for men to prefer good-looking women to ugly women, or to prefer chaste women to promiscuous women. Any overt expression of such male preferences — e.g., to express admiration of a woman’s beauty — is sexist, according to feminist ideology. Remember, guys, women are only “wearing fucking lipstick and heels so as not to offend your delicate aesthetic sensibility,” according to Ms. Valenti. If a man admires female beauty, this is only because men expect women to “be blank slates for your desires.” If there is some way for a man to be both heterosexual and acceptable to feminists, Ms. Valenti doesn’t bother to describe it. Pity her poor husband, Mr. Golis: Every time I see a dirty cup on the kitchen counter, my face gets red. The level of disrespect feels . . . as if Andrew has hopped on the counter, pulled down his pants, and taken a shit there for me to clean up. My husband is lovely. He is a feminist. . . . He tells me to leave the cups on the counter and the socks on the floor. He’ll get to them eventually. But I can’t. I don’t believe him. And I can’t write in a house where something is wrong. — Sex Object, p. 174" [...] After Jay left for college and met a new girlfriend there, 16-year-old Jessica went to a barbecue (p. 92) and met Jack, “the most beautiful guy I had seen up close . . . all muscles and smiles.” Jack was a 20-year-old bodybuilder who worked at a gym somewhere up the Hudson River Valley halfway to Albany, and why she was at a barbecue in Saugerties, N.Y., is never explained but . . . holy hormones, Batman! Jack is six foot three and chiseled — like a movie star or stripper way. . . . He works out for hours every day. . . . I was thrilled by him. I remember noticing the outline of his body the first time he go on top of me — huge and muscular — and thinking that this is what fucking a man is like. There were no scrawny arms or adolescent halfhearted facial hair, just girth. [...] Compare that to her beta husband who get's to deal with a screeching harridan whenever there's a dirty cup on the counter, I bet Jack never had to deal with that part of her personality.
We still gotta thank her for writing clearly what sluts are thinking. It's not often that you get an articulate slut who tells you in plain language what's going on inside her head. And life has, and will increasingly be, harsh enough with her. Karma is a bitch with bitches.
https://twitter.com/agolis I think this guy knows he is evil and married her as a self-punishment.
Mad at herself for having to settle for a beta. Displacing that onto him. Not even able to admit she's mad at him without an excuse.
Three cishet men found themselves in the gynocratic gulag. To pass the time they asked each other what great crimes they committed to find themselves interred. "Too many women threw themselves at me. For this I was called a 'PUA' and sent to this place," the first one says. "I rejected the advances of women. For this I was called 'MGTOW' and sent to this place," the second one says. "I was neither successful with women nor did I reject them outright. For this I was called 'incel' and my execution will be this afternoon!"
Rofl. You win the thread.
Maybe generally a more clear, direct, open and honest language should be employed - especially in school and media (just to see how society would react to that). Telling brutal truth to cut through the leftist babble: If you want to be loved, be lovable, and that means have a high genetic quality, signaled by your bodily quality and capacity to rise in the social pecking order over others; if you don't, you will never get what you want, at best receive a compromise, and a compromise is accepting something you don't really want rather than getting nothing at all: Cars, houses, sex and life partners. Get an inferior version or get nothing at all - that is, logically, the fate of all humans minus the one(s) at the top. Love, reproduction and the associated social status are a zero-sum game, no kind of economic or political development will change that: If you want to have something other than the worst or nothing, you must out-compete your enemies (and they are enemies, because they try to take wealth and reproduction and ultimately life itself, from you), cause suffering to others. You cannot have sex and reproduction without taking it away from others in the human pecking order - and by that, you not only kill them, you cut their line of existence from the beginnings of life to themselves today, exterminating them (leaving no offspring can be considered worse than mere death). Love itself is nothing than a selection mechanism to exterminate inferior life (Disney princesses were never very clear on that). Most people are seriously inferior life compared to others, and therefore they have grave problems with love - many must and will perish. The purpose of human life is to attempt to enslave others (that is what "being rich" is about, as you stop exchanging goods and services with others, only through the magic of money receive others' goods and services one-sidedly, which they have to provide, because the magic of money is made so that they need that money direly) and to out-rightly exterminate them (not everybody will reproduce, those who fail are exterminated, not merely killed). Welcome to life, young human, kill well and live on or get killed by your fellow humans and be exterminated. Something along those lines should be revealed to pupils in school right from the start. What would change? Would there be, perhaps, more or less school shootings?
Unbelievable. What are those, bookends? OF COURSE you don't tell the pupils, they have to be exploited too, according to your otherwise exemplary thesis here, and anybody headed in that direction is not even going to have time to read whether or not 'school shootings'. If you want to get the best things, you just get them, as you said, but thanks for reminding me of some of the ones I've left out; that's a matter of time, which I've always had immense amounts of, and not willing to let it go the way of all things Marxist either. Yours is like an academic primer, and these can be 'released to the wild'. Yes, the *Marxism* of these increasingly ridiculous things was pointed out when the First Wave of Feminists hit big. Not all of them are equally ridiculous, but any of the women things are, including sissies trying to become women. The incels do have to be exploited, while also learning the more challenging exploitations by now--how to exploit Lesbian #MeTooists (which, as pointed out, are having deliria about the inevitability of #YouTooMutha)--I know I've gotten money out of them. The main thing about the incels for me since hearing of them is that they seem like such a blur except for when you think of it as yet another rotting Marxism--Douthat's piece about the 'redistribution of sex' made sense, but I don't get what it has to do with left or right so much, and wouldn't have thought of it again unless the smarter among you won't let up on it. Not that there weren't great things already on this thread, this one the best: Women want the security provided by betas coupled with the genes provided by Alphas. So regardless of whether they are in Genghis’ harem or living in civilization, they are unhappy. Women are always unhappy and if they are not they will not rest until they find a reason to be unhappy and then wallow in it. They are not meant to be happy. Nature/Gnon does not intend it. Yes, and this is why they are truly unbearable, and only express gratitude when traumatized, viz., when you're fucking them, which they can't even stand except for loving it. After half an hour, they're just thinking about the next time they can enjoy their inferiority.
This part shouldn't have been accepted due to incorrect tags, and is my extension of Lalit's brilliant burst. I mean--just so you know, it was true even if wrongly posted and contained within the same italics." So get it right now: "Yes, and this is why they are truly unbearable, and only express gratitude when traumatized, viz., when you’re fucking them, which they can’t even stand except for loving it. After half an hour, they’re just thinking about the next time they can enjoy their inferiority."
Thanks for the comment, mate. I need it these days what with my depression over losing an entire civilization to the madmen and their fanatic faith from the desert wastes of Arabia, having been stabbed in the back and abandoned by our own leaders. If a Genghis Khan showed up, I'd beg, crawl and debase myself to join his cavalry right now! Now there's a leader worthy of the name.
The Hanson sex angle is a cute acute one. Look up the NYT’s article on the hostile wife phenomenon in cryonics. So obtuse. I’m not sure we need to heed our wives’ points of view, but I, at least, recognize that they think they matter. Hanson though ...
Me no comprende. Sex is available in the corner and quite cheap. Anyone can pay and get laid. Whores have a great heart and if you are very needy they will give it to you for free. What the hell is incel?
Yeah, I always say they should just go to Thailand for a week and they'd be fixed for a while. But incels have watched too many movies and want to be loved by a HB8.
Yep. Movies are very guilty of all this phenomenon, and I speak from experience. Using Comte's quip, I really envy the "cerebral hygene" of pre-20th century people with regards to pop culture expectations.
After masturbating hundred times watching porn with those gorgeous women, real life alternatives appear inferior to the point of being unacceptable for one's self esteem.
That can happen as well (a friend of mine who does well with women but has become very picky blames porn for it), however I think mainstream movies and TV series are way worse, because they sell you a fantasy of what to expect out of life, and when it doesn't happen, well, you suffer.
Rofl. If you stop masturbating the real life alternatives become ..well real.
Because it is not about sex in itself but the self-respect boost from earning sex instead of paying for it, helping with ones inferiority complex and stuff like that. Which is an interesting thing if you think about it. If the incel can pay 100$ for it and Chad can game a girl in bed for free, it sounds like chaddery is not very valuable compared to incelhood, and should not be a lot of self-respect difference. But you could also argue that the number of sex partners the woman had should be factored into the question. Earning a virgin is the highest achievement, a serially monogamous woman is less, a slut even less, and not rejected by the whore if willing to pay is the lowest. However if Chad is mostly gaming sluts then again the self-respect difference should not be that big. My point: incels likely think women are pure and holy. Or maybe no longer think so but this feeling is lingering. Sure, getting a virgin girlfriend or wife is a big achievement and being second or third boyfriend not so bad either. Compared that the self-respect difference is big. But if incels really realize Chads get sluts most of the time and that means their achievement is not that big maybe they would not feel that inferior to them. This could actually be an accurate calculation. Nearly every woman, even the purest virgin would be willing to be a whore for one night for ten million dollars. The rest is mostly a price difference. The bar slut is not actively whoring and would reject an $100 offer insulted, but maybe an $500 offer would make her think. Or $5000? So Chad's achievement can be calculated as how high price women he can get for free. And if the incel is seriously hideous, even the $100 whore would reject him. But maybe not if he would offer $1000? So the difference between their achievements and thus how much self-respect difference is rational could be calculated.
Which is why hookers could help. You drop the holy Madonna bs and maybe get some useful attitude down the line. I've seen obvious ex-incels in Thailand and they were a joy to see. Seeing sex as a means to status is being a woman. Men see status as a means to sex.
>Seeing sex as a means to status is being a woman. Men see status as a means to sex. Adaption-execution is not fitness-maximization. You are stating it from the viewpoint of the evolutionary process itself and from that viewpoint it is correct. From the viewpoint of the evolutionary process, feeding is about getting necessary nutrients. From the viewpoint of the organism, feeding is all about getting those yummy sugary fruits it craves because that feels good. If status is useful for getting sex and thus reproductive fitness, be really sure that evolution made status feel good in and of itself, much like eating fruit. These shortcuts are really everywhere. We don't even know the real biological reason why we need sleep, but we know not getting enough feels bad. Be really sure that if spitting significantly increased your reproductive fitness, it would feel awesome. It always works like that. And if status is really necessary for getting sex, and there is the usual shortcut that high status feels good, then how do you prove to others and yourself you have status so that you can feel good about it? By getting sex. Parallel: how do you prove to others and yourself you are rich? Buying a car non-rich people cannot afford. Sure if I own a Lambo, I must be rich and can allow myself to feel good about my wealth. Then some half-rich people get in debt up to the ears to own it so that they can get that good feeling too. Similarly, sure if I get sex, I must be high-status, because low-status men cannot get sex. Sure if I don't, I must be low-status. See? Another detail. Pretty much every historic society made social status highly obvious and clearly defined. Patricians wear a golden ring, citizens wear an iron ring, slaves wear no ring. But today status is extremely ambigious and fluid. Far easier to have status anxiety today than in the past.
Status in contemporary liberal society seems MORE important, LESS meritocratic and LESS well-defined than ever. In that respect we may live in the worst of all worlds.
I'm not sure that whoring is degenerate, but I'm pretty sure that whoring and talking about it is degenerate.
[…] trigger a response, and context or nuance goes completely out the window. I don’t necessarily agree with Robin’s ideas of equality, but taking his ideas seriously is important. Unfortunately for the majority of his detractors this […]
[…] For a woman to sleep with a man below the top 20% is by definition not consensual sex. It is thus rape. For a woman to work for or live with a man below the top 20% is by definition not consensual work. It is thus slavery. This is no joke.“ […]
Sad.
TOM WOLFE OFF TOPIC: The Southern conservative agreed with the fundamental premise of this blog - the main motivation of humans is status seeking, with all the rest being window dressing at best. He saw through American communist writers´ communist convictions and realized they were "a ploy in a game of status seeking"... From Steve Sailer: He (Tom Wolfe) picks for his Ph.D. dissertation topic the Communist influences on American writers, 1928–1942. From their response to it, the Yale professors, who would have approved the topic in advance, had no idea of the spirit in which Wolfe intended to approach it: “Dear Mr. Wolfe: I am personally acutely sorry to have to write you this letter but I want to inform you in advance that all of your readers reports have come in, and … I am sorry to say I anticipate that the thesis will not be recommended for the degree…. The tone was not objective but was consistently slanted to disparage the writers under consideration and to present them in a bad light even when the evidence did not warrant this.” [Letter from Yale dean to T.W., May 19, 1956.] To this comes appended the genuinely shocked reviews of three Yale professors. [...] The Yale grad student had treated the deeply held political conviction of these great American artists as—well, as a ploy in a game of status seeking.
T. Wolfe was probably right. In other news, the whole status seeking theory is not all that new. It originates with Hegel who considered "recognition" -a more neutral, less disparaging term for status- the most important human drive. Hegel was not yet aware of the Darwinian explanation, of course. Marx conveniently forgot about Hegel. Otherwise he could not have believed that Communism ends human conflict once and for all (this was his selling proposition). If Marx was a fraud or genuinely confused is hard to say.
You could pretty much "prove" anything and the opposite of anything from Hegel, I would strongly suggest ignoring that guy. Status-seeking was blindingly obvious all through history, the difference is that when the world was less democratic, it was less driven by opinion, and thus there was not this sort of fluid status of how cool people think you are (as only the few who act as the kings advisors have that kind of fluid status), but a clearer and less fluid social rank, "caste" if you want it, and very often status and power were interchangeable. Status-seeking and power-seeking was inseparable in those times. This was called ambition, and Shakespeare was very clear about it: "Macbeth: I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself, And falls on th'other. . . ." Or the universal wolf thing.
I mean. The reason this status thing had to be rediscovered is that we live in a historical era that promised equality. On one hand, it is a long story - it all comes first from equalizing the privileges of nobles and commoners first, then more and more drive for wealth equality etc. All this gave the illusion that inequal status is something of the past because it is less obvious now, less clear rank, perhaps less tied with personal power or legal privileges. On the other hand, some of it is extremely recent. Just in 1987, hardly three decades about Robert H. Frank in Choosing The Right Pond, which is considered one of the classics of economists on status, and the view presented there is very different from what you can see today. He tends to conflate wealth with social status as "socio-economic status", and uses the example of an expensive car, like a Mercedes. Well. In 2018 an expensive car is considered kind of crass, and the status-signal is the Prius. And this is really recent and hard to put into the old frameworks. The expensive car can be an ambition. Also, it signalizes personal power, that the guy could hire a hitman on you. But the Prius signalizes something more like conforming to governmental power, yet making it a saintly virtue.
You force me to do something I do not particularly enjoy, defend Hegel. While it is true that Hegel equivocated on many things, the central importance of recognition is one matter he is completely clear about. And no, this was not a no-brainer, because consider the precise point in time: The industrial revolution was just starting, and Hegel, quite brilliantly really, foresaw this consequence: Suppose, through mass production, everybody became affluent, does this mean equality can/will rule supreme? Hegel said: no; which was not obvious at the time, because the vast techno-industrial advances of the 19th century were imminent, but not yet obvious at all to most people. So what I am saying is: Hegel was 2 steps ahead of his time, not just one.
Fair enough. In which book is it roughly where?
It´s not that easy. For a number of reasons -Prussian censorship and also Hegel being the most conceited man on the planet- Hegel wrote so as to be as difficult to understand as possible. Ask anybody. What I said is not in one place, but the result of what I have puzzled together over the years. Scientifically proving my point would take me about 10hrs work, so it´s not gonna happen. Basically, to solve the puzzle for yourself, you need at least the Phenomenology of Mind and Philosophy of Right. The Philosophy of History wouldn´t hurt, either. A good introduction to Hegel is in the History of Political Philosophy (Strauß-Cropsey). Probably the best starting point. Hegel´s take on recognition is in the Phenomenology, where he discusses the Master-Slave relationship. Hegel does not explicitly say, but implies that the recognition problem is insoluble. (Everybody wants it, but there is never enough to go around by definition.)
I've read both of those books and much prefer Ariosto's Orlando Furioso and Tasso's Liberation of Jerusalem. Way more fun. Lots of superpowered kids wandering around fighting and flirting, magic and monsters. I think that Hegel really wanted to make abstract animated cartoons in which the dancing blobs would have names such as "the Universal" but didn't have the courage to go all the way in that direction. Of course, they didn't have the technology to do animation back then, but he could have made flip-books. That would have been fun for him, and his kids would have enjoyed them.
The flaw in your argument is that Hegel didn´t much like fun and didn´t much like kids. My Impression from his writing style is that he also didn´t want readers to enjoy themselves; rather he wanted them to suffer.
RIP
[…] takes his turn with The Incel Question (Henceforth The IQ). He gets everything spot on. Of […]
I suspect despite all the hoopla of late actual Incels are quite rare since it requires a bunch of overlapping dysfunctions to get there. I mean really just go to Nye Country with a thousand bucks and enjoy the girlfriend experience . Its quite legal and safe and while the women aren't awesome, half a loaf is better than none. They can't manage it no matter how much money they have, The only reason they are even in the news is they are scary to the various rabbits since a few of them have been willing to engage in mass violence The fear is that somehow this could lead to a preference cascade where violence isn't an option but becomes the preferred option. I find the idea rather absurd but the Left doesn't understand itself much less the Right who aren't going to pay any mind to Incels in any case. The real fear of the healthy cousin of Incel , the MGTOW but again there is little to be done for that either. Now as for the proper social role for the Incels, until they can get help and society gets fixed the answer is obvious. Prison camp supervisors and death squad members .
https://www.hoganassessments.com/george-bernard-shaw-and-the-concept-of-faking-it/ Couldn't manage to lol at it as I read; thought perhaps someone else would.
https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1001447950457782273 I'm kinda insulted that you did not call for me first. I thought that comment I made calculating the fertility rate of German women married to Muslim men was a tour-de-force.
I was in a hurry. Why didn't you answer?
I'm not on Twitter. Was. Not anymore. Long Story. But I follow others. Can we do it from here on your comments section?
One thing you can also do is pose the question on Twitter. You can also post scenarios regarding European Fertility rates, Migrant fertility and migrant immigration and we can calculate when the replacement happens etc. A hindu writer has already done similar analysis for India. The Book is here https://www.amazon.in/Truth-About-Muslim-Population-Explosion-ebook/dp/B079RT4M1Q/ref=redir\_mobile\_desktop?\_encoding=UTF8&dpID=51jjGagYzwL&dpPl=1&keywords=Muslim population explosion&pi=AC_SX118_SY170_FMwebp_QL65&qid=1518539193&ref=plSrch&ref_=mp_s_a_1_1&sr=8-1
Men crave sex because evolutionary adaptions made them feel so to further their own genes' success by spreading them in the next generation. It is common that men chronically fail to get sex. Then adaptations kick in that cause increased mate seeking, aggression, risk-seeking, crime - including health or even risking one's own life to get sex. Those Negroes robbing liquor stores to get money to get sex and risk prison or even death by doing so may act evolutionarily rational, because: If chances for sex = 0 (ugly and penniless), then all behaviour that leads to chances for sex >0 makes sense, even if the chance for death is 99% - because failing to reproduce has evolutionarily the same ultimate effect: Extermination. Now, school shootings. If hopeless inceldom switches on evolutionary adaptations that cause violent behaviour, there is another service other than successful sex that can support one's own genes in the genetic battlefield: Killing as many humans that are carriers of different genes compared to oneself as possible, running amok, even if that means self-sacrificial death. Those others should be, that being no mere coincidence, quite exactly those humans the killer hates most (as we are evolutionarily adapted not only to find potential mates with many genes like in ourselves superiorly attractive or generally act more altruistic towards others who look much like ourselves, that is, carry many identical genes and vice versa). Have sex = spread own genes. Kill others (genetically more different people) = help copies of oneself's genes in other (surviving) people to compete against the "enemy" genes in the future = spread own genes. It's an ecosystem - success comes not only from personal achievement, but also from sabotaging the achievement of others.
Nick found this thread called 'vagina fetishists' stop@fedupfemme, endless dialogue about the other side of Incel---now the lesbians are having to deal with their 'bigotry' toward transwomen--because they are 'penis-phobic'. The transgenders tell them they are transphobic not only if they don't date trannies, they are also transphobic if they refuse to be attracted to non-vagina women, although that last term is mine, I guess. You can scroll down 2 or 3 pages, total insanity. I could hardly be happier that this has become a problem. The lesbians who 'want vaginas' will be different--they'll give in and develop all these meaningful relationships with women just as real as their own vaginas. Enervating.