This blog post is an amalgamation of some comments to a few posts on Facebook. The post were of some URLs posted to Facebook.
The subject concerned was the the increasing number of incels. Incel means involuntary celibacy. There are other names for the phenomenon such as “love shy”, “total force loneliness” and “forever alone”. This post also concerns the increasing parallel phenomenon of what in an earlier post I called misincelry or hate of incels. There has always been suspicion of others who do not fit into normal modes of behaviour such as people, especially men, who are unable to form sexual relationships but in recent years this has reached a crescendo of hitch pitch lynch mob hysteria.
A failure to understand reasons for the growing army of incels and to reflect on on the automatic disgust of them will result in an explosive situation which will explode in our faces. Unfortunately we live in exactly the wrong time, a time which does not favour objective, cool headed analysis, where indeed the failure of one to become hot headed is itself cause for suspicion of oneself or their motives.
The posts to Facebook were about some studies showing an increasing prevalence of celibate men. Up to 1/3 of men in their 20s have been without sex for at least 12 months. The phenomenon of celibacy comes in 2 flavours, incel and vocel, meaning voluntary celibacy. The breakdown of the 2 parts is not clear.
I have 3 hypotheses to explain the growing celibacy, both voluntary and involuntary.
1) Society is organising itself into an informal polygamy as a way of resolving the more energised expression of hypergamy such that 80% of women want 20% of men. On Tinder 80% of men are judged by women to be “under average” which is mathematically impossible. Humans, as a biological species, are slightly dimorphic, meaning men are a little larger on average than women. In nature dimorphism is related to polygamy and monomorphism is related to monogamy in a species. Humans are imperfectly monogamous and many human cultures have practised polygamy. Geneticists tell us that fewer human males than females have successfully reproduced. In humans this makes for hypergamy in females, meaning a preference to match up with a male of at least the same social or educational level or above as herself. This will become more acute in the decades ahead as women out perform men in education and as females earn more than men, as is already being seen at younger age levels. The result is a majority of women looking for a smaller number of men. The natural tendency of hypergamy in women will be culturally exaggerated.
2) The acting out of John B Colhoun’s “Mouse Utopia” experiment which showed that in laboratory conditions of limited space and unlimited food males dropped out of competing for females. Colhoun called those males the “Beautiful Ones” because they did not have the bite and scratch marks of the other competitive males. Ultimately after the mice population peaked it levelled and then crashed as males dropped out. What describes Japan better than limited space and unlimited food? Also the MGTOW monks of the west. It may be that real estate prices are providing the over population signal. Similar phenomena are being observed in South Korea, China (with some added specific aspects) and Iran.
3) The increasing isolation of modern life. Most relationships form through friends in a social circle or work contacts. Very few men are able to just “pick up” women or just find women fawning over them. It was ever thus. Most men required a woman to know them
deeply, in a way made easier through a social network. If we are moving towards an era when first impressions are the be all and end all of matching up then most men will be at a disadvantage. There is a hierarchy of women in first impressions desirability too but it is not as steep as that which applies to men. I hypothesise that it is easier for isolated women to find partners than for men.
Big changes in the decades ahead and unless we understand the processes, and to what extent these are biologically energised, there will be a lot of acting out and temper tantrums on a society wide scale. We live in times of passion and hair trigger hysterias so the signs are that such understanding will not arise.
Male sexual disenfranchisement is only going to get worse in the decades ahead with
no possible solution but the west’s obsession with optimism, positive thinking, can do entitlement complexes will only ferment mental illness, hysterias, hate and unleash the darker angels of our nature. The climate will favour those who know how to to inflame collective passions more than those who know how to apply good analysis. Stoic unconcern for other’s respect for one of lack thereof will serve better than “life
coach” positive thinking in the face of tectonic shifts we can not stop. Positive thinking never stopped an earthquake.
A sociological tectonic shift is happening and no one cares to know. It is as if the positive thinking denialism is kicking in refusing to believe there are any such major problems looming. An earthquake of 9 on the Richter Scale unless will explode in our faces if an effort to understand the biological, evolutionary psychological and societal factors is not undertaken. The very area of study concerned, sociology, is dominated by ideological bullies, intellectual pygmies and agenda wheelbarrow pushers.
The concept of the political compass is familiar to many people. On the compass I fall in the left libertarian quadrant.
As you can see the political compass has 2 axis, a left/right axis and a libertarian/authoritarian axis. Political positions are described as falling into one quadrant.
The authoritarian right quadrant would describe the position of right wing ideologies like Nazis, fascists, conservative religious and neocons. They share a desire for controlling the behaviour of other people on social issues but with minimum control in business and economic matters. They group as controlling groups wishing to police the behaviour of others for their own benefit, however differently they define that benefit.
The libertarian right represents Ayn Rand types who eschew any state of government control in the lives of people, either in the social arena or the economic one. Rand Paul best exemplifies this position. They desire the dismemberment of government and the total deregulation of the economy.
The libertarian left values freedom and individual autonomy in social and personal matters but favour government intervention in the market economy. They do not advocate adherence to positions contrary to one’s conscience. They believe that run away economic freedom results in a diminished opportunities for most people to exercise any autonomy in their lives. They believe in social programs to promote such.
The authoritarian left includes Marxists, feminists and most identity politics. I have not included white nationalists in with the identity politics because they are very much right authoritarians with equal, but opposite, instincts. It will become obvious in this post why I fear identity politics of the left as much as I fear that of the right. Tomorrow’s repressive racists are to be found with the vehement anti-racists of today.
We hear of Nazi apparatchiks in Eastern Europe readily becoming Stalinist apparatchiks without missing a heartbeat. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?
Robert A Heinlein started off on the left side of politics working for the Southern Poverty Law Centre but switched to the right supporting the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. He practised nudity. Clearly he was a right libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?
Most neocons who ascended to power under G W Bush started out their political lives as Marxists before they became neocons. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?
The Youtuber T J Kirk (better known as The Amazing Atheist) described himself as originally being a libertarian, meaning a right libertarian but would today clearly identify as a left libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?
What is going on here with all these people changing their ideologies? I think the change within these people is not as deep as at first it may seem. My hypothesis is that the left/right axis is mainly cerebral cortex centred, consisting of ideas which are malleable with time and experience but I believe the libertarian/authoritarian axis is rooted deeper in the lymbric system of the brain, a part of the brain we inherited from pre-human ancestors. This is a disposition which does not readily change but seems hard wired. Some people have a more libertarian temperament and other people have a more authoritarian temperament. We do not become authoritarian or libertarian with considered thought. We are one or the other and the cerebral cortex goes to work to “ennoble” our instincts, to spin doctor with “reasons” and that becomes “what we think”. Thus a Nazi apparatchik can reason his way to becoming a Stalinist apparatchik but he does not lose his authoritarian bent. Similarly a Marxist can reason his way to becoming a neocon but he doesn’t lose his authoritarian bent. Both of these types have “ennobled” their basic instinct on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
Similarly Heinlein reasoned his way to the right end of libertarianism but did not lose his libertarian bent. He was libertine in his lifestyle choices. T J Kirk started out as a typical right libertarian but with reasons moved to a left libertarian position. He kept his libertarian bent.
It is easy to see why I fear feminism and other forms of identity politics even though they oppose the authoritarian right. It is their inherent authoritarianism and in the future they could become the very people they fear because in truth they are not very different. There are almost no libertarian feminists other than the usual NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) who have no voice or choose not to raise it if they do, having seen what happens to others. This is a big reason for my blog; to counter the faux activism of authoritarian leftists who used disenfranchised groups as their shield and their cover while indulge the darker angels of their nature. They are like the neocons who tout the “freedom” of people oppressed by dictators while they themselves would become dictator in a blink, given a chance.
I have been locked out of Twitter for a tweet which included the hashtag #LearnToCode.
I have appealed the locking of my account with the following.
I am appealing this suspension as follows.
I have been suspended for criticising a story in the Independent paper. I believe I was correct in pointing out that the Independent story of the 145 year old man was false. I gave a quick mathematical break down on why this must be so in a subsequent tweet. I do not believe I have threatened anyone but simply pointed out a problem with the story and a problem with journalists not doing due diligence in reporting. This is entirely proper.
So what was all the hubbub about? It concerned an article in The Independent newspaper about an Indonesian “145 year old” man. In a number of tweets I pointed out, using some maths, how this is just bollocks, that only one centenarian in 32 trillion centenarians would reach that age and that the sample size of centenarians is simply not large enough to allow for such extreme claims of longevity to be taken seriously, let alone by a paper the calibre of The Independent.
The death rate for centenarians falls off a cliff, roughly 1 in 2 in any 12 month period. 2^45 is approximately 32 trillion. I further pointed out that Indonesia had a life expectancy of 69 years, more than 10 years lower than most advanced countries like France, Spain, Japan and Canada, and yet these countries had failed to produce any centenarian older than 122. Indonesia was also the source of a claim for a 146 year old man in 2017. What are chances? What is more likely, 2 extraordinarily long lived centenarians in a country with public health statistics lagging the west (1 in 32 trillion^2), or some extraordinary exaggeration. We can apply Occams Razor here. I pointed out how fast the media is to accuse others of reporting “fake news” while they themselves fall for these fake news stories themselves.
So in 12 hours, starting from the Twitter phone verification process I can have my Twitter account back. The appeal however will takes “days”. For what? A likely disallowance of the appeal in any case? Probably but I will not say “Uncle”.
I had called journalists “credulous cretins” which may have been a bit strong but it would have been the hashtag #LearnToCode that would have flagged the tweet. Journalists take offence at being mocked by exactly what they told out of work coal miners to do. This is real snow flake territory and Twitter is happy to accommodate the outburst of the media, double standards and all. C’est la vie.
Least of all the media. Worse has been said of lawyers and politicians.
Many, maybe most people on Youtube and social media generally make me feel unusually smart, even though I am relatively uneducated. This is a statement on the mass stupidity of social media more than a statement on how smart I, as a first year university drop out, might be. The standard of debate in social media is abysmal. Most creators equate volume of argument with veracity, some sort of argument by volume fallacy. There are however some creators who make me feel very stupid and very unsmart, and I am delighted when this happens. It is why enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, even though I disagree with him on many of his teachings.
Another Youtuber I enjoy listening to is Alfvoid. I have viewed quiet a few of her videos from following anti-feminist link and have consumed many of her philosophy videos, especially those related to Stoicism.
It was while listening to her video “Why Do I Only Criticize the Far-Left?” that she mentioned the “Master Slave” concept of Hegel. I have not read Hegel but I am familiar the Hegel Dialectic. Everyone is agreed that Hegel is difficult to read and interpret so I have not yet resolved to read him. I decided to google the Master Slave concept of Hegel.
I came across a video on the Philosophy Tube channel explaining the Master Slave Concept.
I do not know who was the narrator for Philosophy Tube. He did give an overview of Master and Slave in a light hearted way, maybe too light hearted for some. He seemed however to have swallowed the post modern koolaid and this showed through when addressing some criticisms of Hegel. It seems he had used Hegel as some use Nietzsche to push an agenda. Of course Hegel “was a racist” as the de rigour post modern tribute paid when talking about “dead white men”. I do not know if this was true or in what context. He quoted from a psychiatrist and philosopher who noted there was little dialectic between black slaves and their owner. I can understand this but my understanding of the Hegelian Dialectic was of it being being different ideas, not specifically between groups or identities. Identities are not ideas. Hegel’s idea of the master/slave relationship, is a dance and each being in need for the other seemed to have been lost in “power dynamics” and identity politics.
Discussion got around to “Misrecognition”, of identities not being viewed and respected as they wanted to be. This is the core of many identitarian political movements and one that is from my perspective disempowering because one can not ultimately control and direct what sort of recognition one will receive from others. However activism towards exactly this is instead characterised as “empowering”. This is counter to my stoic outlook, as understood and admittedly not always perfected, by myself. A sure recipe for disappointment, rage and a cycle of misery.
Yet I know that misrecognition does hurt, as every human alive has at some time experienced this, and as every human who has not can still appreciate what such would feel like. This is obvious because all of us goes to great lengths to avoid such a fate. This contrary to the doctrine of identity politics who believe one can not empathise with with the suffering of an identity group unless one is of that identity. However the source of the influence and power of identitarian movements is the fear of social ostracism and loss of livelihood and friends. The fear of “misrecognition” is the big bulldozer of identity politics even as the theory of identity assumes that no such power could be possible. Are identitarians lying to themselves or to others or both?
Fear of misrecognition is biologically based. We all need strokes and social acceptance from others to make us happy. We get dopamine and endorphin releases from such social engagement. But the deeply biological aspect is that happiness is only the apparent outward effect. Ultimately our instincts reward behaviour not so much what is in OUR interest but that which is in the interest of the deep brain brain and does so even at the expense of our safety or any rational reason. We are happy only in so far that being happy is conducive to our reproductive opportunities, and we will be unhappy and irrational if instead that is conducive to our chances of reproduction. This comes down to the question of “What is us”, the part which pursues our interests, blind that these are instinctual and not at all what you decided, or the watchful part which can see our instincts? Are we simply what our genes are assembled or are we emergent of our genes and not actually our genes themselves? Do we want to reproduce with all the risks and energy that go with that along with chemical releases, or do our genes want to reproduce and we are just the vehicle allowing that? Is it us who pass on our genes or our genes which pass on themselves?
The male praying mantis acts to fulfil itself, seemingly wanting to become dinner for the female but acting in a very risky way. The men who go to war with a real risk of death or injury in preference to receiving a white feather and being socially ostracised.
So the desire to be properly recognised which so central to identity politics is the unaware, unenlightened instinctual part of our being. Because reproduction, and not our happiness or welfare, is the prime motivator and is as deeply irrational as it is unconscious, behaviour manifesting thereof can be very dangerous and can not, in total, be in the welfare of the human race. Such movements will not embody wisdom, caution or nuance but will resemble barbarism. We have seen this in another identity politics of an earlier period. The Jim Crow years in the US south and the KKK. There is another danger of identity politics. Newton’s 3rd law of political extremism could well say “Identity politics on one side of politics will result in an equal and opposite reaction on the other side of politics”. Indeed we have seen an increase in white nationalism in recent years in response to left identity politics. I eschew identity politics of BOTH the left and the right.
But there is another problem with identity politics and “misrecognition”. Some people want to be recognised as Napoleon or Jesus. Are they entitled to be recognised as such? Obviously not. Or the people who believe they are the unwitting “stars” on their own Truman Show as described in the “Truman Syndrome”. While most of us are not grandiose paranoid in our delusions, the difference between us and them is one of degree rather then essence. If some recognition entitlements are invalid and this is not known to the “misrecognised” themselves then to what extent are all of us also unknowingly labouring under lessor delusions? 72 genders anyone?
I heard of a great metaphor from Peter Bhoggassan comparing political extremism to a spinning top. There is a speed of spin at which a spinning top will break apart and political extremism with its identity politics is akin to a top spinning out of control.
So “misrecognition” is really shaped by understandable desires, biological in origin, but which if taken to extremes will lead to ruin. In this there is something akin to the teachings of the 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha, the middle path or the teachings of Stoicism.
This post is based on some replies I made to a Twitter image posted by Iona Italia as below.
I replied as follows:
In follow up tweets I posted
A world where men lived in peace would create existential angst for
women, not knowing why they are feeling anxious would make up narratives
where men need to fight men. Thus was born hysterias like #MeToo and
What makes the most conscious man? Very few will wander away from the
shadows of the cave to surface above unconscious. Very few survive for
long outside. Only Hikikomoris, soshoku danshis, MGTOW monks, few monks
beside and some asexual males, derided for not competing for eggs.
Unhappy men. The #Incel who knows a little of the shadow unrealness of
the cave but not of the exit. The #PUA who sells snake oil to the
gullible and maybe to himself. The guilt peddling “confess your toxic
masculinity” priest. The “try, run, fight better” bust your gut coach.
These 4, the #Incel, #PUA, #Priest and #LifeCoach are like the dogs of
Hades charged with preventing your departure from the cave of the
unconscious and its shadows. If anger is your racket, the Incel steps
forward. If guilt is your racket, the Priest. And so on.
The whole thread can be see at https://twitter.com/infoanrchy/status/1041125398937886720
My tweets said more than I realised but arose little interest. Iona replied “Put down the blunt”. Meaning what exactly? More banal off the cuff tweets and silly tweets of mine usually attract more engagement than those into which I put in some crafting. But that’s how the Twitterverse rolls.
For a great many men or perhaps most men their lot is not a happy one. There is a conflict between the ideal or even the perceived reality than actual reality. There may be unrealistic optimism greatly encouraged by our optimism preferred society or positive thinking culture as per Martin Seligman. The down side of the “think positive” culture is that failure to achieve desired goals must be your fault. This is fine if indeed outcomes are in your power but if your failure is in part due to circumstances beyond your control then your “positive thinking” is really a cruel joke or a human tragedy.
So what of the lot of men who are shamed for having access to women or fighting to gain access. First is the largely ignored reality of the 80/20 sexual marketplace. That is, 80% of women want 20% of men. In tinder 80% of men are judged as “under average”. This is mathematical nonsense. It would seem that many women settle for men they do not prefer in relationships and that may carry over into resentment that boils over later when some “final straw” is broken. An increasing number of men are incels. A knowledge of evolutionary psychology may benefit these men but that means being comfortable with some pessimism in life.
Into this come salesmen of 4 types I identified. The Incel who knows “life sucks” for him but little of its causes. A group of discontented incels can work themselves into an irrational fever. They sense all is not as they were taught but not why.
The PUA or pick up artist is the snake oil salesman who promises a quick fix but like the snake oil salesmen of the past he knows little of the disease he says he can cure. He does know how to monetise other men’s misery however. These are the “speed seduction” people, the suggestive lexicon and unconscious motivators salesmen. It rarely works but customers keep attending seminars and buying books. Roosh V is a prime PUA practitioner of this art form.
Next we the confessor. This type is common in media and pop psychology. This runs on from the “toxic masculinity” narrative whether bedded in natural inclination favoured by some biologists or the culturally generated school of “patriarchal privilege”. In either case there is a similarity to the “Doctrine of Original Sin”. The confessional priests includes both men and women. The ashamed toxic male in question must “check his privilege” and otherwise confess and atone for his sin.He must feel his feelings for the harm to women by him, other men and all down through the past. Then after being sold shame and guilt by the confessional priest the potion of “forgiveness” or “expressing his feelings” (only for her harms and not his own harms and hurts) he can become a male feminist. He may even become a feminist apologist and missionary. His transformation in something utterly undignified is complete.
The last kind is the “life coach” kind. This the try try try even harder and exhaust yourself until you succeed or fail or die failing. Educate yourself, work hard, work on yourself to make yourself the very best man any woman would want. The extreme example is sacrifice of the man for the woman, like working yourself into the grave. With each failure look to how you may do better and try again. Date again, marry again after your third divorce and third lot of child support payments and remortgaging your house. Jordan Peterson is a prime example of the “life coach”. This is disappointing for Peterson since he understands better than most statistics and talks about the future when women will not find as many “good men” (educated and earning at or above than themselves). He understands hypergamy.
Apart from these is the MGTOW (men going their own way) who process more knowledge than the above. He will will not be angry at all women for rejecting him or mistreating him because he is beyond that. He knows too much to sell snake oil to hapless men. He will not be shamed and emotionally blackmailed. He can also see through the “life coach” encouraging him to “try harder”, “work harder”, “be a ‘real man'”, “sacrifice yourself”. The MGTOW stands out like an apostate in the church of gynocentric society.
Some time ago I answered the following question at Quora.
My answer can be found on the site at https://www.quora.com/What-do-feminists-think-of-men-going-their-own-way-MGTOW/answer/Peter-Gregory-Kelly
The question had been on the Quora site for some time and getting quite a few upvotes. Then a few days ago I received 2 emails from Quora.
I had the option of appealing either by submitting my answer and claiming it is not in violation of Quora’s policies or by editing my answer. It needed an edit to iron out some typos and improve on points which needed to be better expressed so I edited my answer and appealed. Their reply was thus:
Quora Moderation reviewed and rejected your appeal regarding your answer to: What do feminists think of men going their own way (MGTOW)? This decision cannot be appealed. Learn more about Quora’s policies here. Mon
Quora did not email me their rejection of my appeal. It was only posted as a notification on the site. Nowhere does Quora specify WHAT was in violation of their TOS.
My edited and improved answer below.
I was MGTOW before the term existed. It is a rational course to take and one that presents itself as the most sane.
We live in a time favouring hypergamy. This is the tendency of women to favour male partners at or above their social and educational level. In recent decades we have seen women occupy most positions at tertiary educational institutions. This is all very good for the women but it creates a situation
where many women can not necessarily be matched. This is sad but true. Nothing to do about this.
The effect on men however is also tragic. This is lead to competition for fewer females at their level. Ordinarily this would be healthy for the women except many women will be left out at the end. A female doctor is not going to marry a male labourer. Thus we see an increase in biologically unsuccessful men. Unsuccessful in luring women through no fault of their own except to be in the wrong percentile. The reaction to this frustration can be anger or depression and related problems. The reaction of helpers like therapists is to “skill up” these men. Better communication skills, becoming better men, learning to please women etc. That is fine in the micro but will fail in the macro. Imagine an effort to increase the number of people with above average intelligence. While such an effort may increase the intelligence of people the project will fail by definition because “average” moves up.
It is easy to see with partnering that if 80% of women want 20% of men, that with any improvement in the desirability of unmatched men to women that what is a “good man” will be redefined to restore the 80/20 split. This is especially true in the area of education where men can not now attain an education sufficient to satisfy the shopping list requirements of most women.
The dilemma is that women want equality with men in the macro but they also want superior men to themselves as life partners in the mcro. This is how the slight dimorphism of homo sapiens plays out. it’s biology and there is nothing that can be done about it.
The result will be “blame the victim”, shaming of men into relationships with women is only adding to the problems of men. More depression, anger and more suicide. Men presently have a suicide rate 4 X that of women and for this the reaction is to “blame the victim”. “Man up”, “suck it up”, “Peter Pan”, “Man Child”, “Basement Man”, “Suck It Up”, “Commitment Phobia” and “GrowUp” etc and no empathy. At most, what is wanted is to change men and upskill them in this therapist’s fool’s errand described above. Workable for the male at the micro individual but fails to capture the bigger picture in the macro.
MGTOW takes away the negative effects of this undue male on male competition and all the bad effects flowing from that. Effects which take a toll on even successful males as they must work harder to provide and satisfy the hypergamy hunger of their partner, least a better proposition, in the form of a “better” male makes his presence known, leaving said man without his assets, his children and a bill for child support and no sympathy (suck it up).
A MGTOW who has walked away from relationships assures himself of less drama, less need to overwork and more time to tend to his own needs instead of everyone else’s It is an opportunity for growth and wisdom should the MGTOW take advantage of it. The man can for the first time become a “human being” instead of a “human doing”. He can value himself because no one else will unconditionally value him. He is only valued for what he can do for others.
It can be a challenging path initially because it is natural for men to want to compete for women and it does take insight to see this is to the genes’ advantage and not to his personal advantage. Women for their part like men to be competing for them. That is a driver for chivalry and for white feathering in war (especially in WWI) (no fight no nooky). The lack of a desire of some men to fight over women is frightening to many women. It forces women to face up to their biological selves.
Women have responded to this threat of seeing themselves in the mirror by constructing such narratives as the “rape culture” hysteria. Here women can legitimately express a fear, real but exaggerated and goad men to fight other men, to become a white knight for her. A case of “them over there are the enemies, go get them (and to the victor goes the mating rights). Let and him fight over pretty old me.” The reaction of women to MGTOW is predictable. This analysis is consistent with thinking in evolutionary psychology.
I really do see not anything offensive in my reply. I can only imagine that a group of feminists have done a working bee to downvote as many MGTOW replies as possible. A sufficient number of downvotes triggers a “collapse”. Quora for its part is going along with the pressure. Real intimidation and bullying.