Incels act against their own self interests

Dec 3, 2024
3
4
I've been on incel forums for a few years and I've seen a lot of erroneous shit typed up by basement dwelling autists without any life experience.


Nearly every incel I've met online supports eugenics even though they would be eugenically eliminated.

They believe in and desire strict social hierarchies when they are at the bottom of today's social hierarchy.

They support the status quo even though the system doesn't benefit them.

Many of them refuse to have sex with prostitutes and instead choose against it just to avoid giving women "validation".

Incels belonging to ethnic minorities often support white supremacy. They insult their ethnicity entertainment of white supremacists and neo Nazis.

They almost universally vote for political parties that conflict with their self interests, just to harm women and LGBT. This is similar to conservative poor white people who vote for policies that directly harm themselves just harm black people.
 
Nearly every incel I've met online supports eugenics even though they would be eugenically eliminated.
Most probably support Eugenics to avoid the situation of people being born into ugly bodies on a systematic basis.
They believe in and desire strict social hierarchies when they are at the bottom of today's social hierarchy.
They think the social hierarchy is incorrectly structured.
They support the status quo even though the system doesn't benefit them.
This is contradictory to the rest of your argument unless you're talking about something more specific and unrelated to eugenics, social hierarchy, etc.
Many of them refuse to have sex with prostitutes and instead choose against it just to avoid giving women "validation".
Their goal isn't sex but a meaningful companionship/relationship and reproduction.
Incels belonging to ethnic minorities often support white supremacy. They insult their ethnicity entertainment of white supremacists and neo Nazis.
Most of this comes from an acknowledgement that White people are generally considered more attractive by most cultures including non-White cultures.
They almost universally vote for political parties that conflict with their self interests, just to harm women and LGBT. This is similar to conservative poor white people who vote for policies that directly harm themselves just harm black people.
The parties you're allowed to choose from don't offer any meaningful economic reform, the only things that are ever delivered on sometimes are cultural issues.
 
What kind of economic reform do you want?

And if you know about economics, then you probably know that I want some much more radical than economic reform.
Most government spending is transfer payments to parasites (corporations, military contractors, debt interest to bankers, and people able but unwilling to work). Very little of it goes to things like security (policing, detectives, courts, and national defense) or infrastructure or universal social services like a food and housing security programs. It goes into things like incentives for factories to build in specific places, building offensive weapons, handouts to insurance companies, and paying for the healthcare and pensions of baby boomers who are already the wealthiest generation of people to ever exist. Ideally you would still invest in legitimate functions of government while cutting off parasites (in a kind of Singapore-style government model) or just cut it out completely to remove the ability to have institutional graft (Sort of a pre-2000's Hong Kong style libertarianism). I lean towards the former rather than the later.

I think any kind of ideologically consistent economic and political philosophy is bound to become impractical and the leaders of it will be forced to compromise when exposed to realities of a state-based geopolitical environment where the states exist in a state of anarchy with respect to each other.

I also think ethnic homogeneity is a good thing and provides tangible social and economic benefits to a society but is intentionally undermined by capitalists who correctly point out that in multicultural societies workers share less in common with each other and as a result are less likely to fraternize, unionize and demand higher wages and living standards. The large surplus of labour immigration brings into the economic system also drives down wages by making labour less scarce, and is in that way also an anti-worker policy. That's why very high levels of immigration from culturally incompatible countries is allowed into Western countries and continues despite being unpopular and rejected democratically everywhere it occurs. It's a pro-capitalist and an anti-worker policy framed as a social policy and human rights issue. And since we have open democratic systems, the loyalties of the people who operate those systems can be purchased and no matter what the people vote for, the political class will continue obeying orders.

Ideally you would have a political class composed of people with a direct localized interest in the territory being governed like in Aristotle's description of classical Greek city-states. People that would be willing to sacrifice for it and wouldn't sell the nation's interests out for personal gain. Decentralization would also be better - the more local the governance is, the higher chance it will be responsive to the concerns of the general population. But I think having open, democratic political systems is a mistake in practice and in principle.

There's also a lot of licensing boards that exist to ban any kind of entryism that would make essential goods and services more affordable. The most prominent among them are medical licensure boards, they intentionally limit the supply of doctors to raise their compensation to exorbitant levels. A similar level of medical care that you get in the West can be purchased in Southeast Asia for 1/10th the price and that's not an accident.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top