Serious Clearing the air on the fringe elements of inceldom

[rudolfhess]

Elliot Rodger was a narcissist schizophrenic who believed he was superior to other men despite not receiving attention from women. While he maintains a significant following among incels, the vast majority of incels on this site (even the ones that support ER) openly acknowledge they are inferior subhuman trash and narcissism and self aggrandizement are very uncommon here despite those traits being the hallmarks of Rodger's Youtube videos.

I believe that many incels look for role models that took out their anger on the world of the normalfags, and there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. The only mistake is that guys like Cho and the Columbine dudes and ER actually don't share many of the incel qualities except for a hatred of the outside world. The entire following Minassian has is based on one single Facebook post that has glow in the dark CIA nigger written all over it.

There is a difference between rightful discontent and mental illness, so it should be stressed that most incels are not mentally ill, and even the ones that are have illnesses that are mostly harmless. A guy like Cho was legitimately batshit insane and spent his entire life living in a fantasy world of hallucinations. His drive to kill had nothing to do with inceldom or being a virgin, because he lacked the ability to perform the logical reasoning necessary to even articulate that himself. He was lost completely in delusion.

I understand completely that we feel the need to lash out and have reasons to want to attack the system and dismantle the forces that oppress us. However, worshiping people who don't even share the same struggle just because they committed mass murder or expressed nihilist views is misguided in my opinion.

There are people here with violent ideas who support violent people, and they should have the right to continue to think and feel that way. But, at the same time, that does not represent the majority of incels, who are simply involuntary celibate men. Someone who is born with a profound depersonalizing or dissociative disorder may very well end up an incel, but that remains a mental illness completely separate from the fundamental concept of inceldom.

tl;dr : There are schizo and psycho incels, and some of them do go ER, but the decision to commit acts like that come from the mental illness, not from inceldom

BTW call me a faggot or a fakecel all you want I don't give a fuck because I'm right

 

[rudolfhess]

people can be antisocial personality or just have rage building up idiot

Of course they can. If you read the post you'd know that there's a BIG difference between being angry and having hallucinations of hellfire and unicorns.

 

[Robtical]

Elliot Rodger was a narcissist schizophrenic who believed he was superior to other men despite not receiving attention from women. While he maintains a significant following among incels, the vast majority of incels on this site (even the ones that support ER) openly acknowledge they are inferior subhuman trash and narcissism and self aggrandizement are very uncommon here despite those traits being the hallmarks of Rodger's Youtube videos.

Being sub6 isn't inferior subhuman trash just because low iq foids think we're not pretty enough. He knew the chads were brutes and beasts, and hated femoids for not liking guys who didn't fit that category. Plus ER has the right to be a little cocky considering what his plans were.

 

[Varys]

A guy like Cho was legitimately batshit insane and spent his entire life living in a fantasy world of hallucinations. His drive to kill had nothing to do with inceldom or being a virgin, because he lacked the ability to perform the logical reasoning necessary to even articulate that himself. He was lost completely in delusion.

That's not true. White stacies called campus police and got him institutionalized because he tried to be friendly with them.

Sure he came off creepy, but he needed help and people to support him. He didn't know any better. He put himself out there and got rejected in the worst possible ways.

What he did was reprehensible but don't go saying things you don't understand.

If we went to the same college I would've been his friend. We'd have a lot to talk about with Korean movies (he loved "Old Boy" which inspired some of his famous gun poses) and K-Pop and kimchi girls.

ER was a piece of shit who despised Asian women.

 

[Luxity]

View attachment 51135

That's not true. White stacies called campus police and got him institutionalized because he tried to be friendly with them.

Sure he came off creepy, but he needed help and people to support him. He didn't know any better. He put himself out there and got rejected in the worst possible ways.

What he did was reprehensible but don't go saying things you don't understand.

If we went to the same college I would've been his friend. We'd have a lot to talk about with Korean movies (he loved "Old Boy" which inspired some of his famous gun poses) and K-Pop and kimchi girls.

ER was a piece of shit who despised Asian women.

High IQ

 

[rudolfhess]

View attachment 51135

That's not true. White stacies called campus police and got him institutionalized because he tried to be friendly with them.

Sure he came off creepy, but he needed help and people to support him. He didn't know any better. He put himself out there and got rejected in the worst possible ways.

What he did was reprehensible but don't go saying things you don't understand.

If we went to the same college I would've been his friend. We'd have a lot to talk about with Korean movies (he loved "Old Boy" which inspired some of his famous gun poses) and K-Pop and kimchi girls.

ER was a piece of shit who despised Asian women.

The police said there was ZERO evidence that he had ever seen Old Boy except for the hearsay of one investigator who said "This hammer pic looks like the hammer scene in Old Boy," and that connection was later retracted completely. If you actually think Cho was mentally stable and the sole cause of his rampage was being rejected by women then you're so low IQ I don't even know what to say.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

This is an interesting line of inquiry to pursue, but my thoughts tend in a different direction.

Elliot Rodger was a narcissist schizophrenic who believed he was superior to other men despite not receiving attention from women. While he maintains a significant following among incels, the vast majority of incels on this site (even the ones that support ER) openly acknowledge they are inferior subhuman trash and narcissism and self aggrandizement are very uncommon here despite those traits being the hallmarks of Rodger's Youtube videos.

If the former is the only alternative to the latter, I'm going to opt for grandiose narcissism every single time. Nothing strikes me as cucked quite like the threads we get 2x a day along the lines of "[Event Horizon Blackpill] Face it u have done useless and Chad is natural selection good genes u/me done did genetic garbage and nature have wise". @incel4life brought up a good point related to this just today: this kind of resignation is at its core obsequious entreaty and naïve hope disguised as some kind of panoramic, terminal blackpill. It's put forth by one who submits to an "order" felt to be more powerful, who stakes all his hopes on being taken "seriously" within the framing set by the prefab mirage-world around them - an "appeal to nature" in the most literal sense, as though they were through their total abnegation of control and dignity calling out for salvation. The most charitable you could be with this persepctive is to locate it as derived from ennui rather than something yet more weak and base.

I have to say that shit gets on my nerves after a while. Factory-stamped casuists masquerading as power-blackpilled straight-shooters, supremely arrogant yet direly wretched in their reification of blind credulity and personal insecurity as "copeless" incision.

Which brings me to the rest:

I believe that many incels look for role models that took out their anger on the world of the normalfags, and there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. The only mistake is that guys like Cho and the Columbine dudes and ER actually don't share many of the incel qualities except for a hatred of the outside world. The entire following Minassian has is based on one single Facebook post that has glow in the dark CIA nigger written all over it.

There is a difference between rightful discontent and mental illness, so it should be stressed that most incels are not mentally ill, and even the ones that are have illnesses that are mostly harmless. A guy like Cho was legitimately batshit insane and spent his entire life living in a fantasy world of hallucinations. His drive to kill had nothing to do with inceldom or being a virgin, because he lacked the ability to perform the logical reasoning necessary to even articulate that himself. He was lost completely in delusion.

I understand completely that we feel the need to lash out and have reasons to want to attack the system and dismantle the forces that oppress us. However, worshiping people who don't even share the same struggle just because they committed mass murder or expressed nihilist views is misguided in my opinion.

There are people here with violent ideas who support violent people, and they should have the right to continue to think and feel that way. But, at the same time, that does not represent the majority of incels, who are simply involuntary celibate men. Someone who is born with a profound depersonalizing or dissociative disorder may very well end up an incel, but that remains a mental illness completely separate from the fundamental concept of inceldom.

tl;dr : There are schizo and psycho incels, and some of them do go ER, but the decision to commit acts like that come from the mental illness, not from inceldom

BTW call me a faggot or a fakecel all you want I don't give a fuck because I'm right

Cho, ER, Lepine, whoever, aren't remarkable particularly for their actions (mowed down some normies, but hurricanes and traffic accidents routinely do a better job) or, as your point adresses, their motives. It is rather the mass murder as an expression of pure will against the world that makes its executor significant. Looking up to them as "incel rebels" motivated by material deprivation is misguided since almost none of them, even Rodger somewhat, qualifies as one für sich - conscious of himself as such. Whatever its specific origin, though, in them pulsed a common type of will, the deathward, apocalyptic movement toward nihility. The corrosive hatred for life and chasmic sense of absence engendered in them was vomited forth upon the ministrant; a personal and atomized misery made externally manifest as an inexorable tragedy; a reminder that anger and penury roils beneath the placid surface of daily life.

What all of this drives at is the recognition of a common force animating these men, one which in these cases strived to express itself in action. The fact that a few non-incels or deluded megalomaniacs were the vessels moved to communicate it is all the more propitious when you consider that they sacrificed themselves to what are at their termini effectively just symbolic gestures for the "loser" sensibility.

 

[rudolfhess]

This is an interesting line of inquiry to pursue, but my thoughts tend in a different direction.



If the former is the only alternative to the latter, I'm going to opt for grandiose narcissism every single time. Nothing strikes me as cucked quite like the threads we get 2x a day along the lines of "[Event Horizon Blackpill] Face it u have done useless and Chad is natural selection good genes u/me done did genetic garbage and nature have wise". @incel4life brought up a good point related to this just today: this kind of resignation is at its core obsequious entreaty and naïve hope disguised as some kind of panoramic, terminal blackpill. It's put forth by one who submits to an "order" felt to be more powerful, who stakes all his hopes on being taken "seriously" within the framing set by the prefab mirage-world around them - an "appeal to nature" in the most literal sense, as though they were through their total abnegation of control and dignity calling out for salvation. The most charitable you could be with this persepctive is to locate it as derived from ennui rather than something yet more weak and base.

I have to say that shit gets on my nerves after a while. Factory-stamped casuists masquerading as power-blackpilled straight-shooters, supremely arrogant yet direly wretched in their reification of blind credulity and personal insecurity as "copeless" incision.

Which brings me to the rest:



Cho, ER, Lepine, whoever, aren't remarkable particularly for their actions (mowed down some normies, but hurricanes and traffic accidents routinely do a better job) or, as your point adresses, their motives. It is rather the mass murder as an expression of pure will against the world that makes its executor significant. Looking up to them as "incel rebels" motivated by material deprivation is misguided since almost none of them, even Rodger somewhat, qualifies as one für sich - conscious of himself as such. Whatever its specific origin, though, in them pulsed a common type of will, the deathward, apocalyptic movement toward nihility. The corrosive hatred for life and chasmic sense of absence engendered in them was vomited forth upon the ministrant; a personal and atomized misery made externally manifest as an inexorable tragedy; a reminder that anger and penury roils beneath the placid surface of daily life.

What all of this drives at is the recognition of a common force animating these men, one which in these cases strived to express itself in action. The fact that a few non-incels or deluded megalomaniacs were the vessels moved to communicate it is all the more propitious when you consider that they sacrificed themselves to what are at their termini effectively just symbolic gestures for the "loser" sensibility.

I absolutely understand your view, and everything you've said is true from a particular perspective.

The only thing I can disagree on comes down to, I believe, the fundamental ideology. If I am reading you correctly, the philosophical paradigm you're using to examine these mass shooting cases in the past is influenced to an extent by different aspects of post-modernism. Something like Derrida's deconstruction. In general post-WW2 thinking, the idea of subjectivity and the concept that effect exists independently from cause, and that cause or motivation are not meaningful in defining the effect and the impact of that effect.

Basically, what I am getting is that as long as Cho, ER, Lepine, etc produce an effect that we view from an outsider's view as catharsis, then the reason for the act is not meaningful. They don't have to know they're incel. They don't have to think their urge to kill comes from being a virgin. They don't have to believe that the individuals they kill deserve to die because they have sex or deny the shooter sex. As long as they produce the outcome of dead normies, everyone else who has a reason to feel alienated from the normie in-group can identify with or even support such actions.

I would have to disagree with this, simply because I am unable to willingly separate motive from result. The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. If I was to hate Muslims and Jews, and Israel bombs Palestine, I don't begin to support Israel just for killing Muslims (though some would), because fundamentally they are still Jews. Intention matters to me. The train of thought for these mass shooters matters to me. For this reason, I can't in good conscience put aside the differences between me and them.

I firmly believe that even someone like Lepine or ER, who most outwardly expressed an incel mindset before their crimes, was suffering from profound mental illness that would lead to a disconnect from reality. Psychosis. If I need something to lift a heavy object for me, who am I going to pick? An Olympic weightlifter, or a mother who, in an adrenaline fueled state, lifted a car to save her baby. Obviously, I would pick the Olympic weightlifter because they have consistency. Mass shooters lack consistency. They act out in bursts of psychosis after lifetimes of meek existence. This is part of the reason why they have so many admirers. They are like superheroes in a way, giving other meek low value males the idea that they can take control, if only for a few minutes or hours.

But it's a lie. Cho, ER, Lepine, all of them were genetically predisposed to commit the crimes they committed, just like they were genetically dealt incel looks and bad social skills. I can't tag their crimes with the inceldom label in just the same way I wouldn't say a mass shooter committed a crime because his eyes were blue. They are all genetic traits, but each trait is assigned independently.

I guess what I mean to say is that when Cho rolls into Virginia Tech with a Glock, inceldom doesn't matter. Virginity doesn't matter. Rejection doesn't matter. Isolation doesn't matter. The only think that matters at that found is paranoid schizophrenia and total disconnect from reality. The only thing that matters is that moment. He probably thought he was fucking shooting candy unicorns and riding on a fucking rainbow. These crimes aren't the result of a normal man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom. Almost no incels would be capable of committing such crimes, regardless of how mistreated they are by the universe, simply because they are not genetically inclined to do so.

The support for someone like ER is a big part of why incels are misrepresented as being based on "bad personalities," which is just code for mental illness. I believe that most incels are not mentally ill, and have their heads on straight. The sane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, does not exist on a continuum with the insane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, just because of shared life experience or phenotypical characteristics.

tl;dr: Supporting incel-tier mass shooters is directly counter to the idea that inceldom is based purely on bad looks. Therefore, the large amount of support for mass shooters (which is obviously not a neurotypical thing to do) is proof that inceldom does have a personality component on top of looks. However, I'd say it's not by any means a large component, considering many serial killers had success with women even before statusmaxxing on arrest.

 

[Lord Byron]

Elliot Rodger was a narcissist schizophrenic who believed he was superior to other men despite not receiving attention from women. While he maintains a significant following among incels, the vast majority of incels on this site (even the ones that support ER) openly acknowledge they are inferior subhuman trash and narcissism and self aggrandizement are very uncommon here despite those traits being the hallmarks of Rodger's Youtube videos.

I believe that many incels look for role models that took out their anger on the world of the normalfags, and there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. The only mistake is that guys like Cho and the Columbine dudes and ER actually don't share many of the incel qualities except for a hatred of the outside world. The entire following Minassian has is based on one single Facebook post that has glow in the dark CIA nigger written all over it.

There is a difference between rightful discontent and mental illness, so it should be stressed that most incels are not mentally ill, and even the ones that are have illnesses that are mostly harmless. A guy like Cho was legitimately batshit insane and spent his entire life living in a fantasy world of hallucinations. His drive to kill had nothing to do with inceldom or being a virgin, because he lacked the ability to perform the logical reasoning necessary to even articulate that himself. He was lost completely in delusion.

I understand completely that we feel the need to lash out and have reasons to want to attack the system and dismantle the forces that oppress us. However, worshiping people who don't even share the same struggle just because they committed mass murder or expressed nihilist views is misguided in my opinion.

There are people here with violent ideas who support violent people, and they should have the right to continue to think and feel that way. But, at the same time, that does not represent the majority of incels, who are simply involuntary celibate men. Someone who is born with a profound depersonalizing or dissociative disorder may very well end up an incel, but that remains a mental illness completely separate from the fundamental concept of inceldom.

tl;dr : There are schizo and psycho incels, and some of them do go ER, but the decision to commit acts like that come from the mental illness, not from inceldom

BTW call me a faggot or a fakecel all you want I don't give a fuck because I'm right

IQ so high it has left the Earth’s atmosphere, spent millions of years travelling at the speed of light, before finally hitting the universal edge. Highest theoretically possible IQ.

Sometimes when incels have given up on ever being understood, accepted or loved - they will settle for being feared. That is what ER worship is. “I’m not pathetic, I’m dangerous - so at least respect that if you don’t respect me.”

 

[Mickeyonacid]

I absolutely understand your view, and everything you've said is true from a particular perspective.

The only thing I can disagree on comes down to, I believe, the fundamental ideology. If I am reading you correctly, the philosophical paradigm you're using to examine these mass shooting cases in the past is influenced to an extent by different aspects of post-modernism. Something like Derrida's deconstruction. In general post-WW2 thinking, the idea of subjectivity and the concept that effect exists independently from cause, and that cause or motivation are not meaningful in defining the effect and the impact of that effect.

Basically, what I am getting is that as long as Cho, ER, Lepine, etc produce an effect that we view from an outsider's view as catharsis, then the reason for the act is not meaningful. They don't have to know they're incel. They don't have to think their urge to kill comes from being a virgin. They don't have to believe that the individuals they kill deserve to die because they have sex or deny the shooter sex. As long as they produce the outcome of dead normies, everyone else who has a reason to feel alienated from the normie in-group can identify with or even support such actions.

I would have to disagree with this, simply because I am unable to willingly separate motive from result. The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. If I was to hate Muslims and Jews, and Israel bombs Palestine, I don't begin to support Israel just for killing Muslims (though some would), because fundamentally they are still Jews. Intention matters to me. The train of thought for these mass shooters matters to me. For this reason, I can't in good conscience put aside the differences between me and them.

I firmly believe that even someone like Lepine or ER, who most outwardly expressed an incel mindset before their crimes, was suffering from profound mental illness that would lead to a disconnect from reality. Psychosis. If I need something to lift a heavy object for me, who am I going to pick? An Olympic weightlifter, or a mother who, in an adrenaline fueled state, lifted a car to save her baby. Obviously, I would pick the Olympic weightlifter because they have consistency. Mass shooters lack consistency. They act out in bursts of psychosis after lifetimes of meek existence. This is part of the reason why they have so many admirers. They are like superheroes in a way, giving other meek low value males the idea that they can take control, if only for a few minutes or hours.

But it's a lie. Cho, ER, Lepine, all of them were genetically predisposed to commit the crimes they committed, just like they were genetically dealt incel looks and bad social skills. I can't tag their crimes with the inceldom label in just the same way I wouldn't say a mass shooter committed a crime because his eyes were blue. They are all genetic traits, but each trait is assigned independently.

I guess what I mean to say is that when Cho rolls into Virginia Tech with a Glock, inceldom doesn't matter. Virginity doesn't matter. Rejection doesn't matter. Isolation doesn't matter. The only think that matters at that found is paranoid schizophrenia and total disconnect from reality. The only thing that matters is that moment. He probably thought he was fucking shooting candy unicorns and riding on a fucking rainbow. These crimes aren't the result of a normal man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom. Almost no incels would be capable of committing such crimes, regardless of how mistreated they are by the universe, simply because they are not genetically inclined to do so.

The support for someone like ER is a big part of why incels are misrepresented as being based on "bad personalities," which is just code for mental illness. I believe that most incels are not mentally ill, and have their heads on straight. The sane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, does not exist on a continuum with the insane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, just because of shared life experience or phenotypical characteristics.

tl;dr: Supporting incel-tier mass shooters is directly counter to the idea that inceldom is based purely on bad looks. Therefore, the large amount of support for mass shooters (which is obviously not a neurotypical thing to do) is proof that inceldom does have a personality component on top of looks. However, I'd say it's not by any means a large component, considering many serial killers had success with women even before statusmaxxing on arrest.

Beginning to mog some of the best posters on here in IQ points tbh, brilliant thread

 

[Deleted member 2798]

I absolutely understand your view, and everything you've said is true from a particular perspective.

The only thing I can disagree on comes down to, I believe, the fundamental ideology. If I am reading you correctly, the philosophical paradigm you're using to examine these mass shooting cases in the past is influenced to an extent by different aspects of post-modernism. Something like Derrida's deconstruction. In general post-WW2 thinking, the idea of subjectivity and the concept that effect exists independently from cause, and that cause or motivation are not meaningful in defining the effect and the impact of that effect.

Basically, what I am getting is that as long as Cho, ER, Lepine, etc produce an effect that we view from an outsider's view as catharsis, then the reason for the act is not meaningful. They don't have to know they're incel. They don't have to think their urge to kill comes from being a virgin. They don't have to believe that the individuals they kill deserve to die because they have sex or deny the shooter sex. As long as they produce the outcome of dead normies, everyone else who has a reason to feel alienated from the normie in-group can identify with or even support such actions.

Not exactly, though the bolded is certainly an accurate reading. I am less interested in the subordination of cause to effect or vice versa than in that which facilitates the transmutation of cause to effect. In this connection, their mental illness would be seen rather as a mediator of the outward manifestation of personal anguish. Their insanity in its way loosens the grip of hegemonic complacency from their minds, allowing them to see the world in a way that is at the very least, to use Nietzsche's parlance, "untimely" - Rodger, Sodini, Alek Minassian - Officer, Central Intelligence Agency, at the very least were not hemmed in by the idea that they didn't have a "right" to anyone - not tied down by the weak palliative that they were left out of the universal orgy "consensually". Mark Ames made a good point about this in Going Postal - Rage, Murder and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond:

Do people just snap when they go postal? Do they act "without any cause or provocation" as Nat Turner supposedly did? Or are they reacting to grievances both specific and institutional: griveances that we are barely able to see because we lack distance, grievances which seem as banal and part of the natural turn-of-the-millennium landscape as strip malls and stress-palpitations, yet grievances which will be perceived as obviously unbearable twenty, thirty, fifty years from now? What, in [the] case of Fight Club, are the grievances that lead Jack to wage a violent revolution against Middle America? Some are easy to put your finger on; other grievances are impossible to verbalize, they could be sort of summed up as "life." Yet the millions who saw that movie and sympathized with its message understood what it was that drew Jack to violent rebellion. There was another, more comforting explanation for his violence too: Jack, as we learn at the end of the book, was mentally ill. As all rebels-before-their time are ill. (The movie version wisely left that cheap escape-hatch ending more vague than the book, which is why the movie was far more effective than the book.) The huge underground popularity of Fight Club's message makes another point: it takes someone who is mentally ill to see, and fight against, the sense of oppression that healthy people otherwise accept to such a degree that they can't even see it.

My main point was that an inner striving, an ineluctable will, brought their private misery to cataclysmic expression. This is an inward movement toward the resolution of this misery (which was no doubt at least partially extrinsic) rather than a conscious process of ratiocination, i.e. they never elaborated a system of justifications or a loose philosophy of inceldom, because that was indeed outside the immediately felt necessity of dragging into public a non-articulable impulse against it.

As a total sum of what happens: lowly pariah gets stepped on his entire life, to whatever degree, and is sufficiently deranged to visit back on the broader world an opposite abuse amplified severalfold. Causality here, then, is not only the stimuli in themselves that one receives, but also how they are taken in as impressions by the prism of the mind and the drives and affects they produce. Lepine, for instance, might not have afforded virginity primacy in his own pantheon of troubles, but the basic sense of deprivation, even if unconscious, was fed into the working of his aberrant mind, the two comprising a set of modulator and substrate that formed his particular stance against the world.

All of this is much more important than the incidental outcome - the form taken by the opposition impulse. As noted, murder is not significant in itself. Like pissing in the ocean.

I would have to disagree with this, simply because I am unable to willingly separate motive from result. The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. If I was to hate Muslims and Jews, and Israel bombs Palestine, I don't begin to support Israel just for killing Muslims (though some would), because fundamentally they are still Jews. Intention matters to me. The train of thought for these mass shooters matters to me. For this reason, I can't in good conscience put aside the differences between me and them.

Related to what I wrote above is the Sorelian conception of myth. The contingent details of their actions do not matter; their own awareness of their actions do not even matter. It is rather that the anger they express assumes a definite form capable of being estheticized as tragedy to give to it meaning and symbolic articulation.

I firmly believe that even someone like Lepine or ER, who most outwardly expressed an incel mindset before their crimes, was suffering from profound mental illness that would lead to a disconnect from reality. Psychosis. If I need something to lift a heavy object for me, who am I going to pick? An Olympic weightlifter, or a mother who, in an adrenaline fueled state, lifted a car to save her baby. Obviously, I would pick the Olympic weightlifter because they have consistency. Mass shooters lack consistency. They act out in bursts of psychosis after lifetimes of meek existence. This is part of the reason why they have so many admirers. They are like superheroes in a way, giving other meek low value males the idea that they can take control, if only for a few minutes or hours.

Seems kind of a facile analysis. Every notable ER-figure has premeditated their actions to some degree - ER himself planned for something like a year, wasn't it? It wasn't just a paroxysmal burst of incontinent fury. There was, at least affective, coherence leading up to their decision and in carrying it forward.

But it's a lie. Cho, ER, Lepine, all of them were genetically predisposed to commit the crimes they committed, just like they were genetically dealt incel looks and bad social skills. I can't tag their crimes with the inceldom label in just the same way I wouldn't say a mass shooter committed a crime because his eyes were blue. They are all genetic traits, but each trait is assigned independently.

Exactly right. But don't you think these guys being odd sons of bitches might be related in no small part to their inceldom? Questions of personaliteehee aside, foids do not like "weird" men. The general trait of mental illness and the condition of inceldom aren't always related in either direction. But to what extent do the things influencing their propensity to murder influence as well their strangeness? - even on a strictly genetic basis, the two are not totally independent. To what extent has a lifetime of looks-based mistreatment fed into an innate vindictive streak? People here defect to simple understandings of genetic determinism in matters like this, but it's not quite as simple as reducing looks to this set of genes, sociability to this other unique set of genes, and volatility to yet another non-overlapping set.

I guess what I mean to say is that when Cho rolls into Virginia Tech with a Glock, inceldom doesn't matter. Virginity doesn't matter. Rejection doesn't matter. Isolation doesn't matter. The only think that matters at that found is paranoid schizophrenia and total disconnect from reality. The only thing that matters is that moment. He probably thought he was fucking shooting candy unicorns and riding on a fucking rainbow. These crimes aren't the result of a normal man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom. Almost no incels would be capable of committing such crimes, regardless of how mistreated they are by the universe, simply because they are not genetically inclined to do so.

Obviously a jest, but that's very far off of what Cho's mindset seems to have been. I know next to nothing about the guy, but the personal notes of his I've read are dense with reference to his lifetime of rejection, brimming with an incandescent loathing. He knew what he wanted to do, even if his understanding of all the reasons why might not have penetrated to well-defined determinants.

They aren't the result of a normal man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom, they're the result of an edgy

man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom.

The support for someone like ER is a big part of why incels are misrepresented as being based on "bad personalities," which is just code for mental illness. I believe that most incels are not mentally ill, and have their heads on straight. The sane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, does not exist on a continuum with the insane man, born ugly and denied sex for life, just because of shared life experience or phenotypical characteristics.

Very right, which is why posters always run into conflict around here. There's no certain way to end up incel - it's a confluence of various factors that takes manifold forms. The more myopic here tend to view their particular set of problems as the only valid one that could reasonably exist.

tl;dr: Supporting incel-tier mass shooters is directly counter to the idea that inceldom is based purely on bad looks. Therefore, the large amount of support for mass shooters (which is obviously not a neurotypical thing to do) is proof that inceldom does have a personality component on top of looks. However, I'd say it's not by any means a large component, considering many serial killers had success with women even before statusmaxxing on arrest.

Don't forget the sizable contingent of Incel Toms though. Falling over themselves to kiss feet and still getting kicked. For the particular set of people at incels.is, there might be a personaliteehee (i.e. non-NT) component to inceldom - I'll freely admit that it was mostly what was my problem. This just indicates that foids select for both NT and looks, an idea of which I've long been an advocate.

Certain serial killers - Bundy being the famous example - pass off as NT well enough. They just had a good front. ER, conversely, could never present himself as NT (also worse-looking than Bundy).

 

[Animas]

you know the IQ is intense when the thread is just fucking walls of text

 

[ChronicPaincel]

you know the IQ is intense when the thread is just fucking walls of text

 

[rudolfhess]

IQ so high it has left the Earth’s atmosphere, spent millions of years travelling at the speed of light, before finally hitting the universal edge. Highest theoretically possible IQ.

Sometimes when incels have given up on ever being understood, accepted or loved - they will settle for being feared. That is what ER worship is. “I’m not pathetic, I’m dangerous - so at least respect that if you don’t respect me.”

Beginning to mog some of the best posters on here in IQ points tbh, brilliant thread

Appreciate the feedback.

Not exactly, though the bolded is certainly an accurate reading. I am less interested in the subordination of cause to effect or vice versa than in that which facilitates the transmutation of cause to effect. In this connection, their mental illness would be seen rather as a mediator of the outward manifestation of personal anguish. Their insanity in its way loosens the grip of hegemonic complacency from their minds, allowing them to see the world in a way that is at the very least, to use Nietzsche's parlance, "untimely" - Rodger, Sodini, Alek Minassian - Officer, Central Intelligence Agency, at the very least were not hemmed in by the idea that they didn't have a "right" to anyone - not tied down by the weak palliative that they were left out of the universal orgy "consensually". Mark Ames made a good point about this in Going Postal - Rage, Murder and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond:

Do people just snap when they go postal? Do they act "without any cause or provocation" as Nat Turner supposedly did? Or are they reacting to grievances both specific and institutional: griveances that we are barely able to see because we lack distance, grievances which seem as banal and part of the natural turn-of-the-millennium landscape as strip malls and stress-palpitations, yet grievances which will be perceived as obviously unbearable twenty, thirty, fifty years from now? What, in [the] case of Fight Club, are the grievances that lead Jack to wage a violent revolution against Middle America? Some are easy to put your finger on; other grievances are impossible to verbalize, they could be sort of summed up as "life." Yet the millions who saw that movie and sympathized with its message understood what it was that drew Jack to violent rebellion. There was another, more comforting explanation for his violence too: Jack, as we learn at the end of the book, was mentally ill. As all rebels-before-their time are ill. (The movie version wisely left that cheap escape-hatch ending more vague than the book, which is why the movie was far more effective than the book.) The huge underground popularity of Fight Club's message makes another point: it takes someone who is mentally ill to see, and fight against, the sense of oppression that healthy people otherwise accept to such a degree that they can't even see it.

My main point was that an inner striving, an ineluctable will, brought their private misery to cataclysmic expression. This is an inward movement toward the resolution of this misery (which was no doubt at least partially extrinsic) rather than a conscious process of ratiocination, i.e. they never elaborated a system of justifications or a loose philosophy of inceldom, because that was indeed outside the immediately felt necessity of dragging into public a non-articulable impulse against it.

As a total sum of what happens: lowly pariah gets stepped on his entire life, to whatever degree, and is sufficiently deranged to visit back on the broader world an opposite abuse amplified severalfold. Causality here, then, is not only the stimuli in themselves that one receives, but also how they are taken in as impressions by the prism of the mind and the drives and affects they produce. Lepine, for instance, might not have afforded virginity primacy in his own pantheon of troubles, but the basic sense of deprivation, even if unconscious, was fed into the working of his aberrant mind, the two comprising a set of modulator and substrate that formed his particular stance against the world.

All of this is much more important than the incidental outcome - the form taken by the opposition impulse. As noted, murder is not significant in itself. Like pissing in the ocean.



Related to what I wrote above is the Sorelian conception of myth. The contingent details of their actions do not matter; their own awareness of their actions do not even matter. It is rather that the anger they express assumes a definite form capable of being estheticized as tragedy to give to it meaning and symbolic articulation.



Seems kind of a facile analysis. Every notable ER-figure has premeditated their actions to some degree - ER himself planned for something like a year, wasn't it? It wasn't just a paroxysmal burst of incontinent fury. There was, at least affective, coherence leading up to their decision and in carrying it forward.



Exactly right. But don't you think these guys being odd sons of bitches might be related in no small part to their inceldom? Questions of personaliteehee aside, foids do not like "weird" men. The general trait of mental illness and the condition of inceldom aren't always related in either direction. But to what extent do the things influencing their propensity to murder influence as well their strangeness? - even on a strictly genetic basis, the two are not totally independent. To what extent has a lifetime of looks-based mistreatment fed into an innate vindictive streak? People here defect to simple understandings of genetic determinism in matters like this, but it's not quite as simple as reducing looks to this set of genes, sociability to this other unique set of genes, and volatility to yet another non-overlapping set.



Obviously a jest, but that's very far off of what Cho's mindset seems to have been. I know next to nothing about the guy, but the personal notes of his I've read are dense with reference to his lifetime of rejection, brimming with an incandescent loathing. He knew what he wanted to do, even if his understanding of all the reasons why might not have penetrated to well-defined determinants.

They aren't the result of a normal man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom, they're the result of an edgy

man being taken over the edge by a lifetime of rejection and inceldom.



Very right, which is why posters always run into conflict around here. There's no certain way to end up incel - it's a confluence of various factors that takes manifold forms. The more myopic here tend to view their particular set of problems as the only valid one that could reasonably exist.



Don't forget the sizable contingent of Incel Toms though. Falling over themselves to kiss feet and still getting kicked. For the particular set of people at incels.is, there might be a personaliteehee (i.e. non-NT) component to inceldom - I'll freely admit that it was mostly what was my problem. This just indicates that foids select for both NT and looks, an idea of which I've long been an advocate.

Certain serial killers - Bundy being the famous example - pass off as NT well enough. They just had a good front. ER, conversely, could never present himself as NT (also worse-looking than Bundy).

Really interesting stuff. I'm in almost complete agreement.

The notion that NT individuals would look up to those that are mentally ill as more "free" than themselves is something that I had not considered.

 

[1980Revolver]

I don't "idolize" anyone, as I have no need of confirmation bias to realize the deck has always been stacked against me. I have only realized my value in identifying targets I intend to destroy.