In with the Incel Crowd

I'm not surprised by the lack of sympathy for incels. It's to be expected.

It isn't like sexual failure is a moral failing now--it's worse than that, because it's evolutionary failure, the ultimate failure. The same logic behind nice guys finishing last is behind our disdain of them. Avoiding association with the evolutionary loser is an evolutionary strategy itself.

As so much politics is about contrasting one's group as the winners against the other's losers, and much or most of what defines a loser now is sexual failure, which is evolutionary failure, politics at least mimics evolutionary competition between groups and provides great cover for coherent ethnic groups to wage evolutionary warfare under the guise of politics. Even, amazingly, under the guise of liberation and political progress, as "oppressed" minorities. An awful lot has flowed from white westerners unilaterally (and loudly) disarming in the age-old evolutionary struggle between groups. They say it's all good--but they would say that, because "it" triumphs; see my earlier comments about disdain for nice guys in the evolutionary struggle.

Sexual morality, until recently, was largely about providing some shelter from the evolutionary torrent for the nice guys. That newly released torrent is now sweeping them away in the sexually liberated West. This has the power to shape us into a new people, is shaping us into a  new people, determined by biology on the steroids of a degenerate culture. From certain criteria--say those we observed before through traditional mores--the new traits we acquire will be dysgenic. Overall it can be expected to be highly miscegenational.

To assign the incel's bitterness to psychological pathology is absurd. Nothing could be more clear, coherent and natural than the rage of someone selected, by evolution and society, to die off. As the rest of the world appears to be screwing its brains out. Acceptance is only achieved by checking out and self-alienating.

In Toronto recently a man drove a van onto a sidewalk full of women and killed ten people after declaring himself a "soldier" on behalf of incels. He would seem to be an extreme case and was described as developmentally challenged. In photos he has the under-bite and hapless stare normally associated with mental retardation, but was smart enough to be a software developer and may have had Asperger's.

He succeeded at least in forcing incels into the news cycle, and media outlets into revealing their biases in their hot-take analyses.

Conventional thinking can only appreciate the incel problem as one of sex and individual rights.
But maybe it's more fair to say it's a problem of reproduction and group decline.

For the left it's viewed as a question women's rights, which will not be abridged either by sex redistribution schemes or a return to sexual morality. Any legitimate grievance must be civil rights based. Judging incels by that standard they are seen not only as unworthy but as appropriating sacred civil rights language. The Guardian:

They borrow a lot of language from the equality/civil rights agenda – society “treats single men like trash, and it has to stop. The people in power, women, can change this, but they refuse to. They have blood on their hands,” read one post the morning after the Toronto attack. Basically, their virginity is a discrimination or apartheid issue, and only a state-distributed girlfriend programme, outlawing multiple partners, can rectify this grand injustice. Yet at the same time, they hate victims, snowflakes, liberals, those who campaign for any actual equality.

The right arrives at the same place by way of libertarianism. There is a sexual market with winners and losers, not to be disturbed by the bleatings of those losers. The Federalist:

Those ideas, unusual though they are, fit into a pattern of statist rhetoric followed by many other groups who, failing to achieve their aims in life, seek to use state power to force the result they desire. Their reaction against the results of the Sexual Revolution is little different from communists’ reaction to the Industrial Revolution, but the methods by which they would achieve their aims—state coercion and, now, terror—are identical. Incels are merely statists of sex.

The misery of the incel is the measure of our personal liberty, apparently.