- Jun 29, 2018
- 11d 12h 28m
BeenusDalek.Skaro said:An intellectual reflection on inceldom Part 2.
Having come to this conclusion that past experiences suggest that any next attempt will probably not be successful and that by each rejection the percieved possibility of success will also diminish one begins to pounder when enough is enough, that is, at which point should one just give up. This matter brings to my mind a interesting topic, you see I live in Brazil, and from 1964 to 1985 Brazil was a Military dictatorship and when we study about this period in school the main thing we talk about is about the way in wich the regime implemented torture as a method of interrogation on vast scales and one of the most popular methods of torture was the Pau de Arara ( macaw's perch ) in wich a person was tied upside down by their knees and wrists, the main purpose of this technique is to put a person in a state of continuous discomfort and agony although more bland at any given moment than more traditional torture techniques, of couse there were occasions in which the Pau de Arara was used in combination with other torture techniques that were more intense in comparison, but even in cases were it was the sole method of torture there are accounts of completely innocent people alleging being part of terrorist organizations that had the intent of replacing the military dictatorship with another form of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat, those were the armed socialist/communist guerrilla groups in the euphemistically called "armed struggle" (Luta armada), and in fact there was not only that but there are also reports of completely innocent, not involved, people alleging that not only themselves were a part of such terrorist groups, but also that other family members, equally as innocent and not involved, were also a part of such groups, that is to say, not only there were people so affected by the Pau de Arara torture technique that they were accepting authorship of crimes that they didn't commit but they were also selling family members and close ones with the only purpose of getting rid of the torture through a quick execution. It is perplexing what people are capable of in situations were they are continually subjected to suffering for long periods of time. One may think that this type of torture is considerably mild in relation to the other torture techniques, one might even think that if it were they in that situation they would never do such a thing as those people did, and that perhaps would be true if they were subjected to only a couple of hours or so, but what about days ? or weeks ? or even months ? would they be so sure that they wouldn't be hoping for one thing, and one thing only, for it all to end ?
Now I wish to talk about something that has made me feel really discomforted, this is how some people have taken the notions of female rights and have tried to imply that those are really universal, so much so that people have begun to cal them the Human Rights of sexual and reproductive health and rights (what is this ? Is it edible ?), and how this has nothing to do with strictly women's rights. They usually include things like how it is the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination , coercion and violence, which seems to be really redundant because people already have the right not to be coerced which is already a generally well accepted right, so much that it is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, after this it is basically women's rights, which by themselves is nothing bad, women do need certain rights associated with their reproductive capabilities and no one on their right minds would deny that, what is problematic is this false narrative that reproductive rights can be something that can be universalized to women and men. Some declarations become painfully hypocritical such as declaration number 7 of the WAS Declaration of Sexual Rights: “The right to the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual health; with the possibility of pleasurable, satisfying, and safe sexual experiences.” and another problematic one is number 12 that says “The right to decide whether to have children, the number and spacing of children, and to have the information and the means to do so.”. So here we enter a bizarre territory because in the modern world if a man wishes to have a child he will have to begin a relationship with a woman and at some point they may decide together to have children and it is all well and good, now if a woman wants to simply have a child she may go to one of those sperm banks, the thought of which would make Heinrich Himmler open a smile from ear to ear, there they can select the sperm from a selection of donors all categorized by their height, weight, hair color, hair type, eye color, skin color, ascendency, nose type, IQ, ..., and so on. So where a man needs to basically constitute a family if they wish to have children, a woman may just go to a sperm bank and carefully select, with all the spirit of a Nazi, how half of their children genetics will be like, and no one seem to problematize this. Can there really be said that men have the same reproductive rights as women ? If a man wished to have something analog to what the sperm banks are to women, would they have the right to assume full juridical responsibility over the child that was created ? Should he ? Should anyone ?
Another interesting situation worth talking about, mainly because of the imagery involved, takes place in the animal world, some time ago I was watching one of those wild life documentaries, the sort that are broadcast in the animal planet or in the BBC, and they were narrating the courtship behaviours of some small primate, the name of which I unfortunately can't seem to remember,it just so happens that courtship in that species occurs in a very specific time of the year and involves the unpaired male monkeys climbing a tree and from the height of the tree they display themselves to any interested female that might appear, once a female selects her mate, through visual selection, she climbs the tree and goes to the same branch to encounter her selected male before any other female decides to do the same, after they both are paired they leave the tree. The interesting thing is that even though there were roughly the same number of males and females, there were still some number of males standing on branches at dusk and according to the narrator there are always males that are left unpaired because the remaining females, faced with the leftover choices, find it better to wait to the next year or so when new males reach maturity to then choose a mate, and the leftover males find themselves also having to wait for another year to be selected. As the narrator was exposing those habits of this monkey species the camera had focused on one of the leftover monkeys, and althought I may be biased to think this way and probably be anthropomorphizing the monkey, I must say that he stood there on the branch facing forward for a time and then after some time he begun to look to the sides and I could swear that I saw on his face a look of despair from the realization that he would not be choosen on that day, that he had been judged unfit for reproduction, and that all his hopes and/or instincts where just crumbling to pieces right in front of him and he then got very agitated at having to face those prospects. Having had this imagery exposed to me i begun to think, well since that monkey had already been judged unfit once it probably will not be any more easy in the next year were he will have to compete with younger monkeys, in fact it will probably be more difficult, and probabilistic there is no reason to think that he will ever be able to be choosen especially given that monkeys in the wild are expected to have at most 15-20 years. At risk of anthropomorphizing the monkey again, would it really be that weird if one of those rejected monkeys simply decided to not wanting to have to bear the anxiety and humiliation involved in those mating rituals and instead to go do any other thing that proves to be more useful to him ? If this seems to be too anthropomorphic then we can simply go directly to the main question, what then about humans ? Should a human see himself in the same situation of that monkey, which we as incels can better appreciate for we are in a sense that monkey, would he be wrong to simply give up on that ? To weave a parallel with the end of the last paragraph, should we be obliged to keep ourselves within this torturous cycle of rejections ? Or will we be seen as Pathetic Weasels ? And if that is so where lies the guilt in the monkey, and where lies the guilt in us ?
One of the most meaningfull philosopher to any given incel would probably be Arthur Schopenhauer, he would be the closest amongst the great philosophers to an philosopher who would understand inceldom, with one very important remark: he was a hypocrite, even though he could somewhat contemplate that wich we are facing, and that he had come to the conclusion that asceticism was that wich all had to adopt if so they desired to free themselves from suffering, he never had the will to actually hold any practice of asceticism. But since even a broken clock is right at least two times a day, we have to consider his arguments and reflections and judge them by their values not by his actions. This weird inversion of thought is particularly interesting, for those that seem to be afflicted by the shortcomings that are through us manifested in the world, or as he says: "This great intensity of willing is in and by itself and directly a constant source of suffering, firstly because all willing as such springs from want, and hence from suffering. Secondly because, through the causal connexion of things, most desires must remain unfulfilled, and the will is much more often crossed than satisfied. Consequently, much intense willing always entails much intense suffering. For all suffering is simply nothing but unfulfilled and thwarted willing, and even the pain of the body, when this is injured or destroyed, is as such possible only by the fact that the body is nothing but the will itself become object. Nor for [this] reason much intense suffering is inseparable from much intense willing.", the rise of asceticism as in: "By the expression asceticism, which I have already used so often, I understand in the narrower sense this deliberate breaking of the will by refusing the agreeable and looking for the disagreeable, the voluntarily chosen way of life of penance and self-chastisement for the constant mortification of the will. " and the understanding of that as a way to free ourselves from this very interaction of us with the world that brings us so much suffering as in his summary: "Therefore, destined originally to serve the will for the achievement of its aims, knowledge [what I have called consciousness] remains almost throughout entirely subordinate to its service; this is the case with all animals and almost all men. However, we shall see in the third book how, in the case of individual persons, knowledge can withdraw from this subjection, throw off its yoke, and , free from all the aims of the will, exist purely for itself, simply as a clear mirror of the world; and this is the source of art. Finally, in the fourth book we shall see how, if this kind of knowledge reacts on the will, it can bring about the will's self-elimination, in other words, resignation. This is the ultimate goal, and indeed the innermost nature of all virtue and holiness, and is salvation from the world. ".
Such a stance is really commendable, for consider all those ignorant people, like those in this episode of Real Time with Bill Maher: () especially at the 2:40 minute mark, that think that the problem of incels is that we are not able to have sex through the development of a relationship with a girl and that all our problems would be solved if we just hired a prostitute or/and just contended ourselves that this is the only way in which we would ever be close to that which is, I belive, what the majority of us desires, that is, a fully fledged romantic relationship. Imagine what it would be like to simply dismiss such a notion with only such an assertion as that of Marcus Aurelius: "as for sexual intercourse, it is only the friction of a piece of gut and, following a sort of convulsion, the expulsion of some mucus." or the impetus of Saint Thomas Aquinas when he allegedly drove away, by wielding a fire iron, a prostitute that his brothers had hired to seduce him and take his chastity away, making him no longer elegible to be a catholic priest. A unrelated topic that I have just remembered is that in the last years there has been an increase in the acceptance of the idea that human beings are not monogamous by nature and the practices of polyamory, open relationships and casual relationships are on the rise (as can be seen in especially at 9:14 and at ) and the very notion of social enforcement of monogamy (as in the Custodian of the Patriarchy article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html and it's subsequent discussions), we as incels can appreciate that to even be able to reach a romantic relationship with someone can be one of the hardest things in life and that if and when any of us should be gratified with such privilege that it should be treated with the utmost care and reverence, for it is to us a very rare situation and one we may hardly imagine occurring a second time, and then there are those privileged ones to wich relationships come and go all the time and as a means of justifying their own greed, lust and degenerate behaviours; It is the apex of a self-centered, self-serving attitude that only cares for one's own gratification and avoidance of any responsibility.
In Mathematics and Economics there is a game theory problem know as the stable marriage problem in which there is an equal number of men and women, each with their own preference list of members of the opposite sex, all of which are monogamous and share the notion that a relationship with any given person is better than no relationship at all, we then pose the question if there are any configurations of marriages in which every marriage is stable, stable in the sense that even if in any given marriage, one, or even both of the members of the couple finds that they would be better off married with another given person, they are unable to change their partner because the other person is already with someone they would rather be to begin with. This problem was solved by Lloyd Shapley and David Gale in 1962, not only solving the existence problem but also coming up with an algorithm, the Gale–Shapley algorithm, to arrive at one such stable configuration which granted Shapley with the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics (Gale had already died in 2008). It is important to know that the fundamental mechanism that ensures stability is monogamy, should that be removed then no stable arrangement exists at any given time, so that if we were to consider the time evolution of such system it would be chaotic, being better described by attractors and repellors in dynamical systems, and this is chaos, and it does not need to be a randomly almost homogeneous distribution, if anything we can be sure that there will be people with a very dense amount of partners and some with a vacuous amount. Humans tend not to react well with chaos especially if they are always on the losing end.
We then get to the subject of terrorism and mass shootings, before anything I would like to express my total disapproval of violence, nothing can ever justify the use of violence against another person, no discrimination, no offense, not even another act of violence may ever make that wich is absolutely wrong anything other than absolutely wrong, and all shooters and killers are (to use a portuguese expression) the scoria of society (a escória da sociedade), they are the lowest anyone can ever go and the worst of all of us humans. Taking from the great brazilian philosopher Márcia Tiburi , sarcasm intended, who developed the exquisite idea of the existence of a "logic of theft" (in portuguese: , translated transcript: Márcia Tiburi: "but people, ... heh ... It is also complicated to say I'm in favor or I'm against, if I say I am in favor, for example, let's say I am in favor of theft. " interviewer: "Are you in favor of theft ? " Márcia Tiburi: "[why] not ? I think like so: there is a logic of theft ... a logic in theft, there is something I need, I was contaminated by capitalism or so ... or I ... [you] should begin to think from the point of view of the inversion ... " interviewer scornfully points out: "I'm already begun ... so ..." Márcia Tiburi: "So ... then ... I will not talk in terms of what I am in favor, because ... There are many things that are so absurd that if you were to look at the internal logic of the process you would say: ... You know, this would be fair inside such an unfair context. [...]" ) , we may ourselves try to trace the "logic of incel terrorists" (ugh, what an abject subject), to do so we go back to the 18 century when Goethe Published The Sorrows of Young Werther that told the history of a desolate young man that had to face large amounts of discontentment towards love, because of a particular unfulfilled love experience that little by little becomes the superlative origin of his suffering and at the end of the book he kills himself, the history of young Werther contained in Goethe's book was the trigger to a wave of mass suicide amongst young men in Europe that identified with the history of young Goethe, from there we go through the philosophical movement of existencialism, arriving finally at Jean-Paul Sartre when in his play No Exit where he ushered the iconic phrase "Hell is other people", from this point onwards that which had majorly been internalised in the self begun to be externalised to the other, the idea that if one were to be by himself he would be emotionally fine, it is only because of the existence of the other that at times entice and at others disdainfully signalizes the incompleteness of the self. So when an frustrated person begins to fixate themselves into the reason of their frustration, much like the young Werther, they can sometimes find themselves in feedback loops of frustration and as the day closes they see themselves pretending to have lived at day time and then going to sleep at night, this can get to the point that to them there exists one purpose in life and one purpose only, that is to quench the source of their frustration, and when this prospect appears to manifest itself as impossible they get to the point of questioning the very life they live or that they will ever live, that is, are they alive or are they just living dead, and if so they might as well be dead, this is the suicidal resolution, many may simply stop at this point and simply take their own lives, and many do, but some may take it to another conclusion, if death is the only solution to this predicament that I have been afflicted with, why not to take out part of this system that has brought so much suffering to me before I go ? And so is born the terrorists and mass shooters, for in their mind they have nothing to lose since they have become so obsessed with the object of their frustration that everything else becomes meaningless.
Still on this topic of psychiatric and/or psychological problems, one can point out that incels may get psychologically worse if they are consulted by a particular type of Psychologist, those are the ones adherents to the practice of Freudian psychology, this pseudoscience that finds it's ultimate expression on Freudian psychoanalysis is particularly damaging in it's one-dimensional evaluation of people's behaviour, depending only and making everything be about their sexual frustrations or achievements, this type of obsessive focus on one given point of one's life may, through their suggestions, bring into existence problems which weren't there in the beginning; As Nietzsche has once said "[...] when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.", also since I entered this topic I might as well point out why did I call Freudian psychology a pseudoscience to begin with, firstly it is because of the recurrent use of ad hoc hypotheses what was once pointed out by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman in his Messenger Lectures on "The Character of Physical Law", more specifically at his last lecture entitled "Seeking New Laws" in which he says: "[...] A hates his mother, the reason is, of course, because she didn't caress him or love him enough when he was a child. Actually, if you investigate, you find out that as a matter of fact, she did love him very much. And every thing was all right. Well, then, it's because she was overindulgent when he was young. So by having a vague theory, it's possible to get either result. Now wait, the cure for this one is the following. It would be possible to say if it were possible to state ahead of time how much love is not enough, and how much love is overindulgent exactly, then there would be a perfectly legitimate theory, against which you could make tests. It is usually said when this is pointed out, that how much love and so on, oh, you're dealing with psychological matters, and things can't be defined so precisely. Yes, but then you can't claim to know anything about it.", the second reason is because it puts too much importance on the sexual aspects of life, and altough this may be useful in many ways to those self-serving bastards, to the majority of the population this becomes dubious at best and to the vast majority of the celibate clergy just plainly wrong.
Adjoining to the last topic we may consider the way the media has been portraying incels as unstable and psychotic, using the examples of the 2014 Isla Vista killings and the Toronto van attack, as way to justify the argument that all incels are a threat and that these unsocialized, squarish, virgins that no one ever had any sympathy for to begin with, and that they all should just be fired from their jobs or even incarcerated by preventive detention. Not only that but now every massacre that happens gets blamed on incels before any information is even available about the perpetrators, as I said before I live in Brazil and throughout the time it tookme to write this text a massacre has happened in Brazil in a State school in the city of Suzano in the State of São Paulo, the massacre became know as the Suzano school shooting and before anyone could know anything about the perpetrators the Vice Media site www.vice.com posted an article (in portuguese: https://www.vice.com/pt_br/article/...-homini-sanctus-marcello-valle-silveira-mello) connecting that massacre with incels and the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and the Toronto van attack, it is not know if this was done out of ignorance or bad faith, considering that the police has not at any moment until now stated any relation between the shooters intentions and any amorous frustration on the part of the shooters, which has become the somewhat caracteristic reason for the so called incel killers, the only thing that has been alluded is the possible access of both killers to a channel called Dogolachan which is a generic dark web channel where all type of degenerates gather (although by this site standards, we also leave a lot to be desired in the sense of civilized discussions), but any way the people there are not necessarily incels, so much that the great societal debate has been focused mainly around bullying and the influence of violent video games. So we may from this case and from many others like this, infer that there is an agenda to vilify incels, and that this is pushed mainly by progressive leftist media, and in a sense this is really what we would expect, the left is famously know to advocate for the increase of state intervention on the economical life of people and to use policies of sexual liberation as a bargaining chip, obviously we have nothing to gain from those, we are the dots outside of the curve to them, we are the contradictory in their almost hippie ideal of free love, we are the rejected ones, the ones that should not exist, and yet, here we are; It is only to be expected that they would like to crush our dignity, to mock our suffering, to invalidate our perspective, to detain us and to put us away, we the pieces that don't fit anywhere in their jigsaw puzzle image of society.
Immanuel Kant was a Prussian philosopher with not only a very interesting philosophy, but also a very interesting life history, Kant lived his whole life unmarried and whithout any romantic relationships, it is almost certain that he died as a virgin, don't be fooled by the recent historical revisionism of his life, it is the work of those who can't accept that anyone could live such an ascetic life, they are doing the same thing that they have tried to do to Newton when they begun to speculate that he was in fact gay and because of that kept his relationships in secret, they speculate this without any evidence to back it up, back to Kant we may ask ourselves how come the man that materializes through his writings, the very same that mesmerized Schopenhauer with his life story, Schopenhauer which by the way was 16 years old when Kant died, and the man that modern historians try to paint him as are so different ? Anyways when studying Kant's life I came in contact with the myth that he used to have a very strict daily routine, and that housekeepers would set their clocks by the time he set out to walk in the park, when I read that I thought to myself what a delightful habit to have perhaps I should try it myself, and in the next day i decided to take a walk in the closest park to my home, arriving there I walked for about 20 minutes until in the middle of the path I saw a used condom in the ground right in my front, it was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen with my own eyes, what is the problem with people ? why is it that modern western society has become so demoralized ? Think of how Kant would have reacted, have people in the last 200 years forgotten the meaning of the categorical imperative, or even of simple hygiene, has everyone degraded themselves to a point where everything is hedonism ?
I once was having a conversation with a friend and I was talking about what would be the right thing to do in a given situation, he simply answered that the right thing for one given person to do was that which gave them the most amount of pleasure, I retorted saying that if that were the case there would be no acts of generosity in the world, he retorted back saying that they would still exist, because people that realise acts of generosity are mainly doing so to feel better about themselves, when he said that I stopped for a couple of seconds and answered that he had to be a very crooked person to just blatantly defend Psychological hedonism, and later I was shocked to find out that his position was almost unanimously holded by my other friends. Don't get me wrong people are motivated by what motivates people, that is of course a tautology, now to go from there to say that what motivates people is always pleasure, is just wrong, let's say that I can't find my car keys because of the mess that is my house, therefore I'm motivated to organize my house so that I may find my keys, someone might say that I am only organizing my home for the pleasure of getting my keys, to which my cynical response is: "of course, because every time I have ever picked my keys I have always got a surge of pleasure, haven't I ? ", they may then back off and say that in fact the key is just a necessary step to be taken to be able to arrive at the location were the pleasure in fact lies, to which the obvious response is: "what if I am going to someone's funeral ? It seems to me that you have quite the bad taste in jokes to be implying that I would feel pleasure for other people's death.", having been cornered they might resort to say that in fact I have just organized my room because I didn't wan't to have to experience the agony of not finding my keys and therefore it would just be my desire to avoid pain, to which one can finish by saying "That may be the case, but then again I could have just taken a tranquilizer instead of having to clean and organize an entire room.".
At the end of the day one might try to imagine what it would be like to achieve the ultimate psychological hedonist desire, that is, to maximize the amount of pleasure and minimize the amount of pain, some people might think that this would be their ideal lives, perhaps having a well paying job and a happy and united family, to live in a very safe city, etc ; But that isn't really maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, something like that would be like being confined in a safe room with enough provisions to last a life time while having a surgically implanted releaser of a cocktail of pleasure inducing chemicals, like dopamine and oxytocin, attached directly into the brain with an outside button to regulate the release of those chemicals; Yet we can't look at something like that and not be nauseated, disturbed, agonized and sad, it is the most pure image of a dystopia. I remember having read that in some old experiment a team of biologists had once done something similar to that to some lab rats, and if I remember correctly they just kept pressing this button all day long, they would not eat, neither would they sleep, they would just keep pressing the button until they died of cardiac arrest, or starved themselves to death, or died of dehydration, or even just exhaustion.
As far as definitions go, people are motivated by what motivates them, if you want to call that pleasure that is your choice, one could say any other thing and it would be equaly valid, my choice would be to say that people are motivated by what they perceive to be the right thing to do, for some people that might be achieving pleasure, to others it might be achieving order, to others yet it might be achieving high ethical standards, and to others it might be achieving the most logical resolution, and so on.
I would like to point out that we as incels are, nevertheless, a minority, and as such we should take advantage of all those privileges that all those other minority groups claim to themselves, like how in debates minorities would evoke the power struggle between the majority that tries to impose their dominance and the minority that tries to resist the imposed subjugation and how they use this to justify their narrative, or how they try to invalidate other people's arguments by discrimination, by pointing out that those arguments are coming from a specific group (like the usual "you white, middle class, heterosexual, cisgender, with college education, ... "), we should equally point out that the majority of the criticism that we incels recive come from people that think they know our situation better than we ourselves, they who haven't experienced being alone for five consecutive years in the entirety of their adult lives, in my country it has become popular to use the idea of a "place of speech" (lugar de fala), derived from the writings from french intellectuals such as Foucault and Bourdieu, it is the idea that only those which are immersed in a given social locus of an opressor-oppressed dynamics, making only valid the expressions from those in the situation of being oppressed, we again should take this argumentative advantage and use in our own benefit not only as a means to reinforce our narrative but also as a way to block that argumentative nonsense from those people that are not in our situation, a majority which never experienced anything that even resembles that which we have, and that think of themselves as so enlightened that think they know better than ourselves that which we are passing trough, and in their seamlessly infinite wisdom seem to always have an advice for what is our problem and for what we should do about it; Another thing we should be using in our favor is the idea of political correctness, I will explain what I mean by that, in many articles (such as in and https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex ) incels have been called unfuckable and all sorts of mocking denominations to try to make a joke out of us, how dare they do so ? They don’t have any moral or even ethical entitlement to simply disregard us like that, so we should just use of political correctness to enforce at them the minimal amount of respect towards we fellow human beings. And from this we can escalate towards things like political representation, rights against discrimination, acceptance campaigns, etc. This strategy is such that if it were to succeed we would only have to gain from that, and were that to fail, we would “only” be undermining all those narrative privileges of other minorities from within.
We now go back to matters of ethics and morality, as I have discussed before it is only when people, otherwise not mentally ill, have already come to see suicide as the only solution to their lives that they then may go into killing sprees, and then having a realistic image of how we, the ones which did not partake at such diabolical violence, respond to those barbarities. I if it was up to me to describe what this would be like, I would say that in such a Oppenheinian dilemma no description would be better than that of the own Oppenheimer (Robert Oppenheimer was the director of the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb and when asked to describe the moment of the first detonation test he said: “We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, other people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”). This description is obviously not that of an perfect ethical group of people, but it is a realistic description of the real world, and before anyone tries to say that I am making a apology to mass murderers, I have a very neat example of how apologetically worse other minorities are willing to go to push forward their cause, one such example is one of my country’s binational film cooperation with France, the film Madame Satã tells the story of a queer transgender cold blooded serial murderer that once said “ I didn’t kill him, it was the bullet.” and “ my act of firing only opened a hole in him, who really killed him was god.”, and they portray him as a poor victim of his circumstances in the film even going to such lengths as to exalt his image as that of a dignified person that only by the hellish reality of which he was immersed that made him take such actions. It is this hypocrisy, the same of those that glorify figures like Che Guevara, and so many others mass murderers only because they can somewhat identify themselves with they or with their situation, and when the same type of pathological things happens with incels, then suddenly it is the end of times and people begin to persecute an entire subsection of society because they glorify murderers, as if this nefarious practice never had happened in so many other subsections of society. So even murderer can be pardoned or even glorified if it is for the “right” cause, or in the “righteous” circumstances.
To end this already long text I decided to make a proposal to all fellow incels, so long as we desire that which, as every shred of evidence has indicated, is not achievable we will continue to be in a subservient state towards those which are the sources of our suffering, almost like in Hegel’s master-slave dialectic, to break this tendency we have to make a weird inversion of thought and accept the systemic rejection targeted at us, and to understand that any group of individual that may have rejected us, and in doing so may have hurt our feelings, are only the instantiations of a much greater problem. Many people would say that almost by Occam's Razor, if you have two possibilities to explain a phenomenon such as : "if a given person is rejected by everyone he has ever proposed to, then the problem lies in him, not in the other people" and "if a given person is rejected by everyone he has ever proposed to, then the problem lies in a systematic discrimination of those with the same characteristics of the person, and do not care for the individual merit or demerit", obviously the first frase is a more simple proposition, and therefore by Occam's Razor should be the preferential explanation, and yet, although this may really be the case for a section of incels, that is, there are certainly incels that only are incels because they behave unethically and fail to show the smallest amount of kindness towards others and so on, but I don't think anyone really advocates in favor of those people, in fact, the great indignation from us incels come not from a irrational feeling of deserving something just because we exist, but from the verification that no matter how much ethical, sympathetic, and nice one may try to hold himself to be, nothing of that seems to make any diference at the end of the day, when people that have not gone through such lengths end up being able to partake in a relationship, showing that in practice being a well behaved and nice person is, if anything, a second rate attribute when considering someone's attractiveness. Going back to the Occam's Razor problem, considering the first phrase to be right, so that ultimately means that one's self reflection is a meaningless exercise if it means that at last instance it doesn't matter if one thinks he is behaving properly what only matters is how other people come to see a person, and this is problematic for a very simple reason, consider any and all regimen of exception, for example Nazi Germany or Apartheidied South Africa, can one really make the point that if a jew in nazi germany found itself being accused, by literally all of the menbers of that society, of his own existence being improper to the progress of society, then he should perhaps take notion of the scale of the number of people that have made that comment and consider if all those people aren't really right and that he really is part of the problem and not the other way around, and the same thing for a black person in Apartheid, or an armenian in the Ottoman Empire, and so on, and so forth. Clearly one cannot simply take other people judgments about themselves as the ultimate indicator of one's inadequacy, for every systematic discrimination may be translated into a individual inadequacy problem, that is, one nazi may face a jew and say "if only you had been born as a Aryan, you wouldn't need to pass through this." or a white person may face a black person in the Apartheid regime and say "if only you had been born white you wouldn't need to pass through this." or a ottoman turk may have faced an armenian and said "if only you were turk you wouldn't need to pass through this."; Therefore in this nefarious sense the two phrases are one and the same, but I will not take this road and I will consider that the vast majority of people are able to take self reflections upon their behaviours and decide if the opinion of others is valid or not, and yet an ever larger number of people seem to identify as incels, is it really intellectually honest to consider that all those people are incels because they are just blatantly inadequate ? And to do so, nevertheless, whithout any analysis of case studies that may or may not show this ?
Even then, taking the liberty to express my own stance on the situation, I have several examples of friends that are some of the most considerate, sympathetic and mindful people I have ever met and they too have been rejected by everyone they have ever declared themselves to, could then one really say that it was because of their abject personalities, or bluntness, or unethical behaviours ? Because if so, I am sorry to say that in all my life I have never met such great towering pillars of composure, that would then seem to be needed for one to be in a relationship, and be informed that I know quite some people that are or have been in a relationship.
Then again one might say “why make such a fuss about other people not liking you, one should only live by oneself and not depend on others for ones own happiness, if someone comes along that actually likes you for what you are, then great, but otherwise you shouldn’t be sad or angry by other people’s choices, after all those are things that are beyond your capabilities to influence, you should only focus to be the best of yourself and this will suffice to be happy, for it will be the greatest reward one could ever desire.”, to me this is one of the most constructive ways to arrive at the so called “black pill”, that is, the complete acceptance of one’s hopelessness when it comes to relationships, and to me this almost completely stoic view accomplishes at the same time a virtuous way to give up on
And so, nevertheless, we have to face the reality of our situation and know that we cannot really do anything about it, for if we did that would be coercion in one way or another, we can only accept it and in this weird invertion of thought of our acceptance, to develop our own notion of our worth, ideally dedicating ourselves to living a life of virtue, so that even if someone may pity us, we may then proclaim: "You pity me ? It is I who should be pitying you, if only I didn't think that to be disrespectful to begin with.", we have to take the role of the Cynic that lives under the bridge and that flashes his lantern at anyone and everyone, always searching and vociferating it's search for a single example of a truly honest person, and he does this not because he thinks that he will actually find an absolutely honest person, but because he knows that by doing that he exposes the hypocrisies of society and makes people aware of their own flaws, and in doing that he disrupts the self righteous thoughts of others. We in our predicament must face the truth that life isn’t fair and needs not to be fair, and with that thought in mind, let us not make anyone’s life any fairer, let us be the great equalizers, maintaining, whenever in our power, a fair amount of misery in other people’s lives, accentuating, of course, towards those people that live those privileged lives, that don’t know the hustle of living without the empathy of anyone, at least they should know the antipathy of some.
Another aspect which I wish to denounce in this text is about the instrumentalisation of critical thinking in contemporary society, which can be seen in its utmost contrast in Academia where postmodernists have parameterized the act of thinking critically through the so called “Critical Theory” from the Frankfurt School, and from this parametrization they were able to instrumentalize critical thought to serve only to deconstruct morality and to rationalize acts of selfishness, all under the banner of freedom, people are able of the most intricate argumentative juggling just to get their way with things and to not feel even slightly at fault, when in fact true critical thinking would also question the plans and the actions committed by people and not only locally critique restrictions and norms that may have a unperceived holistic importance in the grand scheme of things, in a sense there is a lack of the sort of realism that is conveyed by the aphorism "You can’t eat your cake and have it too.", too much has been done to justify the actions of people who usufruct of their desires from an ever greater amount of sources, and that at the same time seek the minimal amount of responsibility, so much that people seem to only be critical of their responsibilities, and never of their desires and actions, which can easily be seen in the majority of criticisms in general, it is always the imposition of others morals upon some, or it is the suffocating norms of society, and so forth and so on. When it is in the individual setting that criticism should be more pronounced, it is relatively easy to find problems in exterior things, but not so much in ourselves, and when people are faced with occasions where their personal objectives collide with that which is ethical, instead of making ample use of critical thinking to deconstruct their objectives and then come to terms with ethics, they either forget ethics all together or they try to distort ethics in such a way as to allow, or even imply, the actions that work in favor of their objectives. It is all very much dishonest and self centered, but then again, so are people in general.
Consider now the trends that society has been following in the last years, it becomes increasingly evident that the path we are taking is not one of order and virtue, but instead one of hedonism. Consider how no one talks about what the virtuous thing to do would be, we only talk about what would be the pleasurable thing to do, this tendency towards hedonism is highly pathological and in what follows I will try to explain why.
The problem with considering the maximisation of net pleasure as the main goal in existence is that at no moment there were, is, or will be a uniformity in the distribution of the attainability of pleasure, that is to say, that different people will always have different amounts of pleasure in their life and if we consider many of the possible sources of pleasure it becomes clear why, if we consider things like love for example we see that it is by its own nature exclusionary, this is in accordance with natural selection and more intimately related with the notion of sexual selection, one funny way one can realize this is by watching the film Crumb (1994) were there is a scene were Robert Crumb recalls his youth experiences in the 60’s and comments on how the image that was passed onwards of the 1960’s and it’s movements and his own memories of them are so dissonant, people have been made to believe that the movements of counterculture of the 60’s, such as the Hippies, embraced the different and how they were proponents of free love and etc. It becomes clear from Crumb's description that they didn’t embrace the different as much as they embraced a very particular type of different, and how the so called free love wasn’t so free after all, if something those movements were nothing more than the exposition of flashy ideas utilized by some people to facilitate and legitimize their abuse of other people and of other people to achieve their desire of being abused. So even in a environment where it was publicly stated that equality should be pursued as much as possible, it still happened that some people were more “equal” than others, which, amongst other things, means that whenever people set pleasure as their main objective, some people are able to reach more pleasures than others, and so we get a distribution, some would say that it is a Pareto distribution, of how much pleasure on average different people are experiencing, since there are finitely many people there must exist a global minimum and this minimum must be very low in general. Now we arrive at a critical point of the reasoning, some people within a neighborhood of this minimum will become much infuriated at this discrepancy between people that they begin to stop feeling pleasure from the small sources that are accessible to them and in their search for maximizing their pleasure might face that there exists pleasure at taking out the pleasure of other people, of robbing others of their pleasures, to christian people this is basically Cain and Abel where as for more laic people this can be seen in the French Revolution for example. So here we get that hedonism in it’s search of the maximization of pleasure will invariably fail at achieving that because the distortions it creates will in turn create a lot of suffering when the leveling of those same pleasures come by the hands of those which the pleasure of ending the pleasure of others becomes their main source of pleasure, and so hedonism is, by itself, destroyed.
To summarize, incels are those people that are able to best see the world of romantic relationships as it really is, for we are exterior to this world and because we cannot gerrymander our positive experiences with our negative ones in such a way as to make us content with ourselves and with the world as it is, for we don’t have any positive experience to superimpose over our negative ones, and to us remains only to accept this gruesomeness and to swallow this caustic reality, for we don’t have, and probably never will have, the positive experience which would allow us to retroactively disregard all of our negative experiences and to make all seem much more fair than it had really been, just like how a gambler might quite suddenly change his view on the fairness of a game if after a long chain of losses he finally wins a little, of course nothing compared to what he had lost previously, but then he convinces himself that all those losses were just unluckiness and that since he had won now, he will have way more chances to win again. Nevertheless even if we were to achieve such a positive experience, it does not change the legitimacy of the criticism from those which were forsaken of such privilege, even if those people were hypothetical to begin with, which they are not.