web analytics
Categories
Manosphere

Incels

I never visit incel websites, but yesterday I visited their encyclopaedia.

They are right that the current Western world views men as the Enemy who must be castrated, eliminating institutions like marriage, promoting feminism, etc. In this, both Andrew Anglin and Nick Fuentes for a younger audience, and F. Roger Devlin for a more academic audience in racialist forums, are correct.

The problem is that, unlike the Aryan of yore, every Aryan male is behaving like a eunuch: instead of devising scenarios to seize power in the US and in every European nation (and the seminal novel for visualizing this would be The Turner Diaries), they simply complain online. It’s obvious that a Fourth Reich would restore Aryan male rights in any nation where we came to power. But neither white nationalists nor those who run incel forums promote a violent revolution (the last one to do so was Harold Covington, whose novels—except the last one—imitated The Turner Diaries, but he died a few years ago).

Yesterday, while briefly browsing the incel encyclopaedia, I saw the section on “What should I do” and encountered the same cowardice I see in racial right-wing forums: basically, doing nothing, not promoting a William Pierce-style revolution, which is the only way that would transvalue Gomorrahite values to their natural state.

So my feelings toward incels are the same as my feelings toward racialists: they behave like women confined in a castle when the enemy attacks, praying for things to change, but without doing anything practical about it.

Note that I am not promoting violence at the moment, only that our movement must not be reactionary (incels, white nationalists) but revolutionary. If the baboon the Jews put in the White House carries out his ultimatum to return Iran to the Stone Age (with nukes, I suppose), that event would strengthen The West’s Darkest Hour and weaken all these eunuchs who have no plan to fight in a favourable future.

4 replies on “Incels”

I think promoting stoicism is about the last thing they should be doing (and I’ve seen that wretched philosophical position come up a lot on the right over the years). Washing your hands of the world’s impact as you ‘keep doing what you’re doing’ has that Buddhist quality to it – which has already been discussed to death on here – that strikes me as an easy avoidance of duty. Besides, it represses a person, and cuts them off from introspection and emotive self-awareness. All in all, it renders people powerless, myopic, somehow self-indulgent over that apathy. I have the same problem with it that I have with the ‘mindfulness movement’.

If we render ourselves mere unaffected observers to the universe’s flow, not only do we reduce what it is to be human, but we submit to (hard) determinism, which, as I tend to reflect on, is a wonderful (for its practitioners/adherents) a priori cop out from having to account for reams of poor choices and bad decisions; to learn to do better. Ultimately, we must act.

What you say about stoicism reminded my a page from historian Will Durant:

When, in 399 b.c., Socrates was put to death, the soul of Athens died with him, lingering only in his proud pupil, Plato. And when Philip of Macedon defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea in 338 b. c, and Alexander burned the great city of Thebes to the ground three years later, even the ostentatious sparing of Pindar’s home could not cover up the fact that Athenian independence, in government and in thought, was irrevocably destroyed.

The domination of Greek philosophy by the Macedonian Aristotle mirrored the political subjection of Greece by the virile and younger peoples of the north. The death of Alexander (323 b. c.) quickened this process of decay. The boy-emperor, barbarian though he remained after all of Aristotle’s tutoring, had yet learned to revere the rich culture of Greece, and had dreamed of spreading that culture through the Orient in the wake of his victorious armies. The development of Greek commerce, and the multiplication of Greek trading posts throughout Asia Minor, had provided an economic basis for the unification of this region as part of an Hellenic empire; and Alexander hoped that from these busy stations Greek thought, as well as Greek goods, would radiate and conquer.

But he had underrated the inertia and resistance of the Oriental mind, and the mass and depth of Oriental culture. It was only a youthful fancy, after all, to suppose that so immature and unstable a civilization as that of Greece could be imposed upon a civilization immeasurably more widespread, and rooted in the most venerable traditions.

The quantity of Asia proved too much for the quality of Greece. Alexander himself, in the hour of his triumph, was conquered by the soul of the East; he married (among several ladies) the daughter of Darius; he adopted the Persian diadem and robe of state; he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings; and at last he astonished a sceptic Greece by announcing, in magnificent Eastern style, that he was a god. Greece laughed; and Alexander drank himself to death.

This subtle infusion of an Asiatic soul into the wearied body of the master Greek was followed rapidly by the pouring of Oriental cults and faiths into Greece along those very lines of communication which the young conqueror had opened up; the broken dykes let in the ocean of Eastern thought upon the lowlands of the still adolescent European mind. The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece.

It is a pity that racialists on X are still admiring Alexander the “Great”.

On the subject of seizing power, I do go with the TD perspective myself (and all the real life handbooks that would mirror that). However, curiously, to bolster that I was reading some broader case studies overviews. Can I recommend the entire ARIS Project books series (which I have in my collection, and have substantially dipped into) plus of course the famous Coup d’Etat: A Practical Handbook by Edward N. Luttwak and of course, as secondary material (the British Army, for example, needs to be divided to our cause), the (slightly black humoured yet sensibly written) How to Stage a Military Coup: From Planning to Execution by David Hebditch. I mention these books, as I doubt most people in WN have the initiative/planning to come up with a practical revolutionary methodology all on their own. Oh yes, and the Guerrilla Dispatch series, plus Deception by Robert M. Clark.

The issue usually isn’t so much ‘what to do’ as ‘who to put it to?’, although of course it would be have have to tailed to our specific historical conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *