I last posted here about three years ago. Some may even remember me. During my time here, I always tried to infuse the discussions here with some measure of intellectualism. With many this didn't resonate, though with a select few it did. Anyway, I don't really plan on making a comeback here. It's just that I have some thoughts to share that some of you might find interesting, amusing, or whatever, and that I can't really deposit anywhere else online.
While I haven't ascended in the meantime, as was to be expected, I no longer fully identify as an incel. But at the same time I'm still sympathetic to at least some of the core ideas and beliefs of inceldom.
To begin, I will borrow a simile from Dutch writer and physician Frederik van Eeden, who wrote in the early 20th century against the backdrop of incipient psychoanalytic theory. The human psyche, wrote van Eeden, is like a water lily, with a beautiful flower above the pond's surface and an ugly and slightly gross root system under the water. Many people, who are not botanically inclined, tend to focus only on the flower and repress any mental imagery they may have of the root system. But the thing is that both the flower and the roots are parts of an interconnected and interdependent whole. Take away the roots, and the flower wilts. Take away the flower permanently, and the lily cannot maintain sufficient photosynthesis to survive.
So it is with human sexuality I think. Our animal urges and deep subliminal selection criteria are the root system, while romantic love is the beautiful flower that most people enjoy and solely focus on. Incels, on the other hand, focus only on the roots, giving them an equally limited and distorted view of the whole. In their defense, having known a fair number of incels, I have to say that most of you seem to be young men in whom the root system is in some way deficient. Expecting, or even demanding, a lily to grow a beautiful flower from a deficient root system is of course absurd. Incels are quite correct in intuiting this to be one of society's great follies, in my opinion. If the physiological or psychological basis for sexual attraction isn't there, romantic love is dead in the water, so to speak. To this extent the blackpill is largely true.
I think most incels would be pleased (even if not outright happy) if wider society simply acknowledged that there is a real and substantive problem behind their lamentations. The problem being that women are picky mate selectors by nature (and further enabled in their pickiness by modern technology and societal standards) and that men simply are very unequal when it comes to their own personal attractiveness. Nature isn't the meritocracy that many naive bluepillers seem to imagine it to be. It's a brutal aristocratic system, where being born into the right genes is the single most important determining factor for most of your life outcomes. Society needs to acknowledge and address this base truth.
At the same time I am mostly pessimistic that this will actually happen, because our current zeitgeist has the unfortunate tendency of framing any discussion about male empowerment as female disempowerment. The idealization of female agency and fundamental goodness is simply too strong in order for any of us to even begin addressing incel issues in wider society.
But then what? Come to think of it, I imagine massive sexual disenfranchisement might actually become one of the driving forces behind a transhumanist revolution. Robot waifus might be it for some, but it would only be a timid beginning. If there will ever be something like a technological utopia on Earth (and that's a very big if, of course), then things like full-dive virtual reality and unlimited manipulation of brain chemistry may very well do away with person-to-person human sexuality altogether. We would be completely isolated from one another but also completely contented and happy. I really don't know whether that'd be a good or a bad thing. Then again, good and bad may very well become meaningless in such a scenario anyway.
Finally, I see a bunch of future historians talking among one another about the trajectory that humanity (and its organic-cybernetic hybrid successor species) has followed the next few centuries after the 21st. One of them will say: "Our predecessors couldn't solve sexuality (which they then thought very important), so they solved the human condition altogether. I'm happy they did, poor devils."
While I haven't ascended in the meantime, as was to be expected, I no longer fully identify as an incel. But at the same time I'm still sympathetic to at least some of the core ideas and beliefs of inceldom.
To begin, I will borrow a simile from Dutch writer and physician Frederik van Eeden, who wrote in the early 20th century against the backdrop of incipient psychoanalytic theory. The human psyche, wrote van Eeden, is like a water lily, with a beautiful flower above the pond's surface and an ugly and slightly gross root system under the water. Many people, who are not botanically inclined, tend to focus only on the flower and repress any mental imagery they may have of the root system. But the thing is that both the flower and the roots are parts of an interconnected and interdependent whole. Take away the roots, and the flower wilts. Take away the flower permanently, and the lily cannot maintain sufficient photosynthesis to survive.
So it is with human sexuality I think. Our animal urges and deep subliminal selection criteria are the root system, while romantic love is the beautiful flower that most people enjoy and solely focus on. Incels, on the other hand, focus only on the roots, giving them an equally limited and distorted view of the whole. In their defense, having known a fair number of incels, I have to say that most of you seem to be young men in whom the root system is in some way deficient. Expecting, or even demanding, a lily to grow a beautiful flower from a deficient root system is of course absurd. Incels are quite correct in intuiting this to be one of society's great follies, in my opinion. If the physiological or psychological basis for sexual attraction isn't there, romantic love is dead in the water, so to speak. To this extent the blackpill is largely true.
I think most incels would be pleased (even if not outright happy) if wider society simply acknowledged that there is a real and substantive problem behind their lamentations. The problem being that women are picky mate selectors by nature (and further enabled in their pickiness by modern technology and societal standards) and that men simply are very unequal when it comes to their own personal attractiveness. Nature isn't the meritocracy that many naive bluepillers seem to imagine it to be. It's a brutal aristocratic system, where being born into the right genes is the single most important determining factor for most of your life outcomes. Society needs to acknowledge and address this base truth.
At the same time I am mostly pessimistic that this will actually happen, because our current zeitgeist has the unfortunate tendency of framing any discussion about male empowerment as female disempowerment. The idealization of female agency and fundamental goodness is simply too strong in order for any of us to even begin addressing incel issues in wider society.
But then what? Come to think of it, I imagine massive sexual disenfranchisement might actually become one of the driving forces behind a transhumanist revolution. Robot waifus might be it for some, but it would only be a timid beginning. If there will ever be something like a technological utopia on Earth (and that's a very big if, of course), then things like full-dive virtual reality and unlimited manipulation of brain chemistry may very well do away with person-to-person human sexuality altogether. We would be completely isolated from one another but also completely contented and happy. I really don't know whether that'd be a good or a bad thing. Then again, good and bad may very well become meaningless in such a scenario anyway.
Finally, I see a bunch of future historians talking among one another about the trajectory that humanity (and its organic-cybernetic hybrid successor species) has followed the next few centuries after the 21st. One of them will say: "Our predecessors couldn't solve sexuality (which they then thought very important), so they solved the human condition altogether. I'm happy they did, poor devils."
Last edited:
