ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
There Is Always Hope
User ID: 812
I'm pretty sure the incel forums aren't even white dominated anymore. It's mostly East and South Asians and Middle Easterners living in the west, all races ranking terribly low in the SMV. South Asian men rank the lowest but "fortunately", so do their women. As such, and combined with arranged marriages, the problem solves itself after a while. East Asian men otoh lose out for real, also extremely low SMV while their women perform about as well as white women do and have extremely high outmarriage rates. Hence, seen plenty of Chinese and Korean men in their 30s making 6 figures who are still virgins.
Last week, Luke Pollard, the UK Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, yet again called for a "national incel strategy". According to him, it's vital that we do this to prevent another "incel terror attack" like the Keyham shootings.
I think the first time I actually heard the word was around the time Todd Phillips' Joker had released. What I don't understand is this extreme alarmism of progressives surrounding incels, when they say the exact opposite of Islamist terrorism. An internet subculture of terminally online, socially disabled men who find themselves unable to order a Big Mac without feeling butterflies in their stomachs are such a big threat to our society that we need a national strategy to combat them? This to me seems like it's completely tarred by alarmism surrounding white supremacy and racial animosity. Granted, incels do hold on to ethno-supremacist views, such fringe ideologies always find purchase among those on... the fringes of society, often young, single men with no social life and no job/ a dead end job and having nothing to lose. They spew all the vitriol online because they tend to be non-confrontational in real life, they might claim to support violence but almost never have the stomach to commit violence themselves. They've locked themselves inside their heads, no one's allowed inside and they view the world, society and women through a tiny keyhole into the sewer that is the most toxic spaces on the internet. They aren't hurting anyone but themselves. But why are the "basement dwelling gamur incels" among the most reviled subgroups in the culture war? Is it simply because they spew the most bile against every 'vulnerable' demographic (women, minorities, LGBTs) online?
I have a feeling India and Islamic 3rd world countries would butt heads with or without Hindu Nationalist politics in India. I mean, didn't they fight 3/4 wars with Pakistan during the INC era including the largest one (1971)? And of course, it's not like the Islamic countries themselves are united in any way, most recently demonstrated by the uptick in hostilities between Pakistan and the Taliban.
Can geopolitics also be culture war? I'd argue yes.
Not so much that it should matter in actual policy formulation. These remarks seem to solely be pointed at a domestic audience, just like their MEA Jaishankar's remarks vis-a-vis Ukraine which seem to be increasingly pro-Russia rather than neutral. There does seem to be a populist streak to it.
But the new world order is supposedly emerging as western influence in global politics is increasingly under challenge, not by the Third World but only by China and Russia. They're well aware that the US cannot contain China's influence anymore, they're hedging one superpower against another, not themselves. It's also worth noting that much of these countries are only "united" in their hostility towards the west, but if they wish to take authority over their own fates and become power players that matter, they'll have to confront the internal strife and frustration that plague them through no fault of the west. You're responsible for all your historical achievements but your current failings have to be pinned on an external force? Not how it works. I still see the future power dynamic looking like this: the US shall remain dominant in the west, China in the east, India remaining a distant third, while the rest of the world won't even be in the race.
those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.
Why do you say it's on purpose? Now I do agree the breakdown of families and fertility rates, high costs of education, housing crisis, etc., did demoralise many young men and true enough, the hard left seems to be gleeful about it. But is there any evidence that this is deliberately induced by the elite?
And that IMO is the biggest problem with the manosphere - it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems, but makes you feel good for having problems. And of course, it also doesn't take away from the fact that, as much as feminists hate them, confident and materially successful men do rank very high in the sexual market. That's why guys like Tate can say can go as far enough as they did and not face any consequences.
I have a cousin in rural Montana with two teenage kids. Apparently, no CRT or overt LGBT stuff in their education there - thus far. Although his youngest (14) did make certain "friends" who tried getting her into TikTok and even injected this idea that she could be trans - which is strange, considering she isn't even a tomboy personality with masculine traits that should supposedly imply that she is. Anyway, she eventually fell out with them and is still figuring things out - but so far, so good. She's happier, more proactive with her hobbies, and has significantly cut down her time on social media. Her brother (18) will be going off to college soon though, and we do expect he'll be going through some courses that involve some culture war stuff and of course likely to be around a very left leaning circle. Honestly though, it'll be unavoidable throughout America in the next 5 years tops. Going forward, you may have to send your kid to do their degree in China or something, if you've lost all hope for American universities.
Not going to happen. China is building its military at an incredible rate, western militaries havent ramped up their anti China programs such as B21 and are in an awkward position maintaining cold war era tech, dismantling the low end war legacy in the middle east and trying to start new programs. The amount of munitions going to Ukraine is astounding. It is better for China to push a potential war well into the future. This includes their domestic market. They are building new nuclear power, trying to build their own supply chains etc. A war in 2023 would be horribly premature.
Do they even want to land though? Like, ever? They could as well just blockade the entire island until Taiwan gives in. Think what happens when there is no food imports, no fuel, etc. It would only need to happen for a few weeks for there to be significant chaos.
Has anyone been following the scenes in China?
The government has changed the definition of a COVID death, apparently to slice the death statistics after relaxing zero-COVID and cases surge. Omicron emerged last year as it ripped through Africa, and that variant seemed less dangerous (although more contagious) than its ancestors. It's suspected that it could be a subvariant of that. Also worth mentioning that China has ordered its first batch of foreign vaccines from Germany, but only for German expats living in China. Too early to tell and we don't have the full facts yet, but I won't be surprised if the situation is grimmer than the PRC government is willing to disclose.
On the other hand, it's amazing how the western mainstream media has reverted to parroting COVID-regime talking points again, after months of calling zero COVID insane. It reads like they're using it as an excuse to justify bringing back more autocratic measures at home, the coming weeks will be very telling.
It's always the "cultural heterodoxy" that campaigns for free speech to accommodate as many dissidents as possible and freely criticise the regime, the left used to be the champion of free speech as early as the 2000s and now that they've ascended to "orthodoxy" status, they treat it as a far-right dogwhistle, their own rendition of "heresy". And of course, the right has been guilty of censorship for the longest of times. It just shows that you're either in control or you aren't.
And given what a huge platform Twitter is and its ability to influence culture, given that it so easily enables mob rule like I said, I do think it is a W for the right now that it's veering closer to them.
He said it was due to them doxxing his live location. Do keep in mind though that last month right after he bought twitter, he said he'll keep Jack Sweeny's ElonJet account (which tracks Musk's private jets in real time) on twitter even though it does track his live location, only to change his mind two days ago.
EDIT: It seems he's also suspended Donie O'Sullivan for tweeting a police statement.
Elon Musk has suspended a slew of liberal journalists and pundits from Twitter. It is, as Benjamin Braddoc puts it, a red wedding for the liberal establishment. I initially believed that he was just the "controlled" opposition of the deep state, obviously he's stepped on way too many toes for that. This imo underscores an important truth to the ultra principled who believe in free speech absolutism and neutral institutions, the overton window won't shift the other way just to punish the "heretics" who've assailed this sacred virtue. Social media, our Frankenstein, has made it insanely easier for mob rule to influence culture (not that it wasn't already).
I still don't believe we're witnessing complete course reversal, but this could just be the first legitimate W for the right.
EDIT: It looks like he's lifting the suspension.
NY Mag published a piece defending Yoel Roth from Musk's "smears", declaring that Musk "falsely implied" that Roth had advocated for normalising child sexualisation in his old tweets.
Turns out, he's apparently a Zionist too! Wonder how this will sit with sections of the left rigorously defending Roth knowing that he probably lobbies for an apartheid state, or the rigorously pro-Israel right exposing his bizarre tweets. And I doubt Musk is in any way interested in exposing the Israeli lobby.
So I've been spending some time on the radfem pipeline. It's been my opinion for some time that radical feminists, like Marxists, are correct on their analysis of their subjects, with no regard to one might think about their solutions. Take the topic of promiscuity; a trait that was historically seen as far more taboo in women that it was in men. Double standards?
The argument is that the male desire seeks virgin wives and prostitutes. The whores will provide sexual release without reproduction and emotional investment to minimise the demand on men’s resources. On the other hand, virgin wives are meant to provide both sexual and reproductive services but exclusively to him so that his resources and labour are spent on his family and progeny alone. While relations with promiscuous women are intended to be secretive and secondary. Essentially, they play the role of sexual garbage collectors who clear the excesses when no one's watching. This is especially true for fighting men, who are separated from their families for extended periods in foreign places and under hard conditions. They miss female company, they seek comfort, relief from loneliness, sexual desire, and recreation. War-like conditions create a huge demand for such promiscuous women, who either seek financial reward in exchange, or security, or both. And so, when a woman has multiple partners, she is slotted into the whore sub-class automatically. This sub-class doesn't demand respect or commitment, they knows their place and that they're not likely to move up the ladder, and so they're viewed as the lowest value women. And in an age before industrialisation when paternity tests weren't even a twinkle in anyone's eyes, and of constant conflict and strife, such promiscuous women with kids especially would lose out of the support structure. Perhaps these standards did make sense in this period. But what role do such standards play now, in ultra societies like the West, with large populations, high levels of specialisation, divisions of labour, lasting peace and advances in medicine? The breakdown of families comes to mind, which is of course for a myriad reasons, to a point where families are becoming far too expensive to sustain. We still have sufficient demographics and functional infrastructure and institutions to keep civilisation alive, even if we reach SK levels of atomisation.
So here's where I'm less certain; will decadence necessarily mean decline? Or maybe we'll just draw out the inevitable and decline will come very slowly, say over a few centuries? Should we turn to traditional norms to reverse this trend? If so, how can traditional norms become tenable enough to be a potential solution?
Do not forget that Musk’s businesses such as Tesla and SpaceX wouldn’t survive a day without US government help (yes Tesla too). Musk isn’t anti-establishment, he is a part of the establishment.
The establishment has decided to let Trump back on Twitter, despite the fact that a lot of people (probably half the country) will be enraged by this.
Why they did it is an open question. My guess is they're just throwing the right a bone to cool the tides a little. They're too busy "celebrating" a minor victory while the larger and more important battles of the culture war, i.e. entertainment media, journalism and education, will remain their provinces.
Oh I definitely believe so too, my point was more about the perception of Israeli patriotism since I don't recall him being outwardly critical of the IDF's excesses either. His silence may mean something else to the hardcore pro-Palestine activists.
I do have to wonder where guys like Neil Druckmann stand in the culture war though, this guy is Israeli and reviled in the GamerGate tribe for pushing feminism in gaming, and bringing in Sarkeesian... who's also made pro-Palestine tweets. But apparently, TLOU2's supposed Israeli politics stand below feminist and trans politics in the oppression hierarchy, I don't see much woke pushback against this as there is the anti-woke pushback against the aforementioned. So basically, brownie points against the anti-wokes > rebuking the Israeli politics.
At this point, Hitler/fascist/Nazi are just political jargons for "a-hole" in the progressive dictionary. I don't believe we have another Hitler of our time that's threatening world peace. The hawks apparently want a cold war 2 with Russia and China. Well fine, but culture wars at home do not achieve any unity abroad.
Moreover, virtually all "white billionaires" are no card bearers of pro-white activism. Quite the contrary. On the "Jewish Question" though, I think part of the reason why Jew-owned newspapers like NYT have seen an uptick in criticisms towards the IDF's excesses in Gaza for example is the right's co-option of the Zionist cause and pacify the would-be criticism from the left. Perhaps the conventional right wing antisemitic tropes of Jewish influence in the west to lobby for Jewish nationalism militaristically and violently while eroding gentile nationalisms through diversity and mass immigration are not too far off the mark.
I also think the adage that today's conservatives are mostly yesterday's liberals is largely correct, and this is where large parts of the pro-Zionist right stands on the matter (of course, we also have the grassroots Evangelical movement in favour of Israel). The accusations they lay against the left are by and large within the liberal framework, you could see this in statements like "leftists are the real antisemites/bigots", "leftists are the real fascists", and so on. The same people however are also vehemently opposed to regime change operations in the MENA region against Assad, etc.
That said, while I do see what the left, tankies and Arab Ba'athists say about the Zionist lobby in the US, its still difficult for me to believe that American mainstream media is biased towards Israel and silent on IDF atrocities against Palestinians. Tons of Democratic voters outright believe that Israel shouldn't exist, I suppose two of those groups are primed to just see anything western as a hostile outgroup?
EDIT: As an aside, could it also be that this is another reason why the "incel" movement is so reviled by the mainstream? After all, young lonely men are very prone to political indoctrination and they often rail against the hyper-individualist hyper-capitalist culture for atomising society into loyal consumers and eroding all traditional support structures (or their own idea of said structures), rendering them unhappy. Often times, this does infringe on espousing antisemitic tropes. And what do they have to lose for it that the Jewish elites could threaten to take away!
Thanks for this post, I remember seeing a similar comment on slatecoderindex (under the 10,000 years of patriarchy post, I believe). It is true that cities and the population density in these areas outright disincentivise child rearing by raising costs of living. This piece and others by the same author seek to rebut generally held notions regards demography. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this.
In the world of social media, it feels like literal eons have passed in a single day ever since the acquisition. Now they're all gone, this feels like the first time right wing culture warriors finally scored a point. Whether this is a Hail Mary Pass as blackpillers like me believe or a sign of actual tilt away from the status quo remains to be seen.
On the weaponisation of the FBI.
I was reading an old article about the bureau's track record of abuses and the part about COINTELPRO interests me the most; the Hoover-era FBI is seen as mainly targeting leftist subversives because they were identified with (legitimately or not) communism and of course the flagship communist state, the USSR. COINTELPRO in particular was explicitly created to address the Communist Party of the USA and got turned against a broad range of leftist groups from the Black Panthers to Socialist Workers Party to anti-Vietnam protests groups to feminists to the civil rights movement, MLK, etc. IMO the 20th century of American politics wasn't exactly a left vs right thing as much as it was an establishment vs dissident thing. Ivy League Progressives looking out for their own, and doing their part to keep the proles and kulaks in line. Waco, Ruby Ridge and the other big examples of anti-right FBI thuggery that I can think of are mostly 90s onward. And of course the Ryan Kelley debacle early this year.
But why such a shift now, and the promotion of wokeism? The obvious answer perhaps is that with the death of communism in 1989, the ideological threat from the left was no more. But despite the emphasis of woke ideology on oppression/exploitation as a fundamental political relation, collective interests of different groups, the role of struggle, resistance, and solidarity, etc., wokeism has found enthusiastic purchase among American cultural elites. Maybe its partly organic but if so, when did the CIA's New Left ascend to cultural hegemony and how? Were groups belonging to this tribe never sympathetic to the Soviets, or at least suspected of such? Moreover, what do the elites stand to gain here? I'd heard the notion "they want a race war to prevent a class war" before, but are there any worrying signs that there'd be a class war anytime soon? Do elites in, say, Japan and SK not have to worry about a similar conundrum despite their work culture?
That's relieving to hear, now I'm a bit more hopeful for Snow. Boy, they need to let him grow from the "she's muh kween"!
I agree. It's like that "red pill manosphere alpha male when he gets an ounce of female attention" meme. Many of them aren't just unable to find a female partner, they're unable to make and maintain normal companionships with other males. It may be difficult for us to fathom, but I personally know a few, it's always the simple gestures that make their days, like wishing them on birthdays/Christmas/New Years, sending a text checking up on them when they're sick, asking how their job interview went, etc. Mundane things, but ones that don't exist in their lives because they aren't a part of anyone else's. They can disappear tomorrow and quite literally no one will notice, let alone care. They're basically like ghosts, they exist and at the same time, they don't exist. That's a pretty crippling thought, and tragic if true. And so to them, someone reaching out to them and giving them their time is affirmation that they aren't ghosts and that someone does give enough of a damn. The solution "sounds" simple enough, more empathy and less shaming. Instead, we confirm their worst paranoia about society and probably resuscitate any bad experiences that they may have from high school, the last social landscape they were in.
More options
Context Copy link