MountainGorilla
ȠỈဌဌᕦЃ
★★★★★
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2019
- Posts
- 6,367
No. In fact monogamy is a necessary prerequisite for industrialization and modern progress. By giving every man a wife instead of forcing them to fight over the remnants from Chad's harem you're incentivizing stability in the system which is a requirement for the large scale capital investments that are a prerequisite to industrialize. A man with a wife and kids doesn't want to join a revolution or fight a war. They want to keep the system as it is and do their job. On the other hand an incel man has no attachment to the system as it is. They don't want to protect their wives from being raped by the rebels or blow up the system their kids would have to go to school in. They'll be ok with bombing govt buildings or suicidal attacks on factories.
Not necessarily industrialization or capitalism have, I'd say it is (social) liberalism and the liberal 'revolution' that have sowed the ideological seeds of the inceldom problem in the late 1800s and the sexual revolution of the late 1960s watered the seed and the social agenda of the neoliberal revolution of the 1990s made the incel plant bloom.
In the material world these changes in mindset and attitude were facilitated and enabled by increased societal wealth (welfare, no more subsistence working poverty) and improved (medical) technology (birth control, information technology, increased mass mobility).
No but capitalism does
how do boomers with a different work ethic lead to feminism?Capitalism leads to boomers. Boomers lead to feminism. Feminism lead to incels.
how do you explain ethnicels in majority white countries like America and EuropeNo. And it does not has anything to do with Incels.
Incels exist in all times and ages. Inceldom is a natural phenomenon but it can also be man made and socially engineered like in the West today.
How do you explain ugly subhumans in Africa, India and China doing sex everyday and having literally dozens of children?
Do you think thwy are all Chads? Of course not. The reason why ugly men in the West can't get sex is not genes or technology/industrialization.
It's a result of giving social freedom to wahmen.
In pre-liberal societies around the world there were (still are) often deeply entrenched religious and class based regulations and traditions that managed the marriage market (there was no such thing as 'dating'). Sex and dating were linked to marriage and procreation and marriage and procreation were sacred activities crucial to the social order and therefore tightly guarded and regulated by religion. A person was a part of whole and bound to the whole via an extensive network of social relations and duties, he did not exist as an individual. The ideology of liberalism changed that and conceived of the idea of a free human being who is an individual before he is part of a whole.
The problem liberalism had for the longest time was the stubborn presence of religion and all sorts of material conditions most people had little or no control over (pregnancy, poverty, disease) which in practice prevented men and foids to be actually being 'emancipated'. As capitalism birthed the industrial revolution and started creating wealth and technology gave women control over their reproductive destiny - material realities made liberal emancipation possible in the West after WWII.
However traditions die hard so it took some time until we saw full liberalization and accompanying sexual and relational pauperization of low status males, I think the 1990s is where apt social commentators (like Houellebecq) starting recognizing it and describing it. People who were supposed to see this coming, like social scientists were obviously bluepilled on everything and have a delusional lefty liberal view of man so they are, and continue to be blind on the inceldom question.