Discussion One of the reasons that all incels are grouped into being nationalists and racists is because these two things are anti globalization

[Deleted member 27204]

Even if all incels aren't anti globalization people that characterize incels as belonging to groups that are anti globalization are doing so partly because they realize that incels represent a failure of a set of males in society to adjust to a globalized world and dating culture. This means that even if some incels are successful career wise the fact that they are still not successful with dating or getting sex like other people around them means they have failed to fully adjust to globalization and are evidence of it leaving many men behind.

This is why when talking about inceldom many people in the media talk about the motivating economic anxiety and fear of a more multipolar, multicultural world as a reason for it. Because as part of this globalized world comes the expectation that men manage to succeed in not only a globalized economy but a globalized dating culture. That some men aren't is proof of a certain segment of the male population failing to fully adjust to globalization and the belief that a lot of anger from those men is stemming from that. Because of that it's anticipated that such males will turn to nationalist and racist rhetoric out of frustration in addition to sexist rhetoric or that the sexist opinions they express are by necessity bound with racism.

So then the way incels are portrayed is not only as sexists but also racists and xenophobic too because these associations are put on any group that fails to assimilate fully (career wise and relationship wise) to a more globalized world.

@BummerDrummer @PPEcel

 

[Deleted member 31093]

View attachment 406752

Caged at this ngl

 

[Deleted member 21768]

Not a nationalist, but what's wrong with being a nationalist?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Not a nationalist, but what's wrong with being a nationalist?

I didn't say that anything was wrong but that one of the reasons that incels are grouped into being nationalists and/or racists (there is civic nationalism and then there are more race oriented versions of nationalism) is because nationalism and racism are both in opposition to a globalized multicultural world (with competition across borders economically, socially and sexually) and inceldom is seen as a side effect of a certain group of men failing to fully adjust to that globalized multicultural world. And so the issues that those men bring up are seen as inevitably having themes also rooted in racial or nationalist sentiment.

 

[Pitar62]

Nationalism is based

 

[Lebensmüder]

Even if all incels aren't anti globalization people that characterize incels as belonging to groups that are anti globalization are doing so partly because they realize that incels represent a failure of a set of males in society to adjust to a globalized world and dating culture. This means that even if some incels are successful career wise the fact that they are still not successful with dating or getting sex like other people around them means they have failed to fully adjust to globalization and are evidence of it leaving many men behind.

This tbh. Why is it frowned upon that people are afraid of change? Change itself is nothing beneficial on its own, it's per definition neutral. And fear is a valid emotional response when something directly adversely affects your life quality, fear can be justified. Just like hatred/anger - completely valid emotions. If these emotions were only disadvantageous they wouldn't have survived (the same thing with pain, pain doesn't feel good, but it's absolutely necessary to keep harm away from your body). No person is without hate/fear/anger - and those who oppose others rightly feel those feelings towards their targets, because these targets wouldn't respect their utopia/goals in life (and vice versa), interests can be mutually exclusive and then everything that matters is who stands in the end.
A right-wing-extremist/libertarian is rightly afraid of commies/liberals because they wouldn't respect his way of living, his ideas and the very essence of his person, a commie/liberal is rightly afraid of the right-wing-extremist/libertarian because he wouldn't respect them, because their ideas are antithetical to each other, to say that the opposition wants to infringe upon your rights is redundant, of course they would do that, how could they not if they wanted to realize their goals? If you insist on your rights you must infringe upon the rights of others, the only way to realize your will comes at the expense of others. Force is always used - be it social (with shaming/exclusion), physical (with prisons/beatings) etc., force just comes in different forms, no person/idea can survive without force, when you live you automatically force your will onto others and directly adversely affect them by consuming the finite ressources of that planet. Every "Yes!" implies a "No!" - this is the fundamental principle of the existence of life.

This is why when talking about inceldom many people in the media talk about the motivating economic anxiety and fear of a more multipolar, multicultural world as a reason for it. Because as part of this globalized world comes the expectation that men manage to succeed in not only a globalized economy but a globalized dating culture.

This tbh. It's sickening what the world has turned into. The leftists that should support the rights of the worker, nowadays mock the autochthonous worker that has been turned into a complete slave in the gloablized world because somewhere someone is willing to do the work for less money and this enabled loan dumping ad infinitum. Fears/sorrows are justified.

That some men aren't is proof of a certain segment of the male population failing to fully adjust to globalization and the belief that a lot of anger from those men is stemming from that. Because of that it's anticipated that such males will turn to nationalist and racist rhetoric out of frustration in addition to sexist rhetoric or that the sexist opinions they express are by necessity bound with racism.
So then the way incels are portrayed is not only as sexists but also racists and xenophobic too because these associations are put on any group that fails to assimilate fully (career wise and relationship wise) to a more globalized world.

@BummerDrummer @PPEcel

Yes, people realize how much they are affected by these developments. And leftists/liberals have no other options than to call these people "losers" or "incels", well, the right-wingers/MRAs/incels know that they are the losers (as quantified by romantic/social/economic success) in the leftist/liberal system, but they seek to change the rules (=the parameters based on which success is defined/quantified) to fit their own goals until they come out as the winner in the game and they couldn't give a fuck about leftist/liberal ideas (because leftists/liberals couldn't care less about their ideas) like any other group that really wants to change something. By calling these men losers they even acknowledge the validity of their cause and the empirical basis that serves as the impetus of their actions. Yes, when you are a loser in a system you most of the time try to change it - here again we see how the basics of human psychology are suddenly pathological when an opponent displays them.

 

[Deleted member 21768]

I didn't say that anything was wrong but that one of the reasons that incels are grouped into being nationalists and/or racists (there is civic nationalism and then there are more race oriented versions of nationalism) is because nationalism and racism are both in opposition to a globalized multicultural world (with competition across borders economically, socially and sexually) and inceldom is seen as a side effect of a certain group of men failing to fully adjust to that globalized multicultural world. And so the issues that those men bring up are seen as inevitably having themes also rooted in racial or nationalist sentiment.

Oh no I don't mean by you. I mean I can understand why people overall would hate a racist whether it's virtue signalling or not, but I can't see why labeling someone as a nationalist would be a negative.

 

[Quarantined]

Hitting the Books: The racist underpinnings of incel ideology

In public view, the conversation was extreme, and saturated with racism. I feel despair and rage. that’s why I want to join—I am a truecel and I want to talk to others like me. I feel very alone and very angry and I want to talk to others. I was in.

finance.yahoo.com

Its harder to convince non soys that women are oppressed vs. ethnic men, given how few commit suicide, are killed by police/incarcerated, how many matches they can get on dating dates.
Which is why women/cosmopolitans exagerate the experience of rape and "sexual harrassment"

Even still, Most men don't look down on misognists the way they do racists.

And the incel message(its not a movement but still) would draw sympathy from both white and ethnic men,
which is why they need to call us racist

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Yes, people realize how much they are affected by these developments. And leftists/liberals have no other options than to call these people "losers" or "incels", well, the right-wingers/MRAs/incels know that they are the losers (as quantified by romantic/social/economic success) in the leftist/liberal system, but they seek to change the rules (=the parameters based on which success is defined/quantified) to fit their own goals until they come out as the winner in the game and they couldn't give a fuck about leftist/liberal deas (because leftists/liberals couldn't care less about their ideas) like any other group that really wants to change something. By calling these men losers they even acknowledge the validity of their cause and the empirical basis that serves as the impetus of their actions. Yes, when you are a loser in a system you most of the time try to change it - here again we see how the basics of human psychology are suddenly pathological when an opponent displays them.

Part of my realization of this possibility stems from this criticism lobbed at mgtows in 2018:

"Researcher Barb MacQuarrie, who described the community as "misinformed", said, "They have no real ability to identify the global forces that are at work in their life, so they hang the blame on feminists"

Hitting the Books: The racist underpinnings of incel ideology

In public view, the conversation was extreme, and saturated with racism. I feel despair and rage. that’s why I want to join—I am a truecel and I want to talk to others like me. I feel very alone and very angry and I want to talk to others. I was in.

finance.yahoo.com

Its harder to convince non soys that women are oppressed vs. ethnic men, given how few commit suicide, are killed by police/incarcerated, how many matches they can get on dating dates.
Which is why women/cosmopolitans exagerate the experience of rape and "sexual harrassment"

Even still, Most men don't look down on misognists the way they do racists.

And the incel message(its not a movement but still) would draw sympathy from both white and ethnic men,
which is why they need to call us racist

It's more than that and I feel the people spreading and talking about these associations of inceldom to the alt-right and nationalism are reacting to the idea that incels through their failure and inability to meet the standards of modern dating culture, are devaluing the system of modern dating culture that is part of globalization and are in effect anti globalization and racist and nationalist. Infact I disagree with your notion that most men look down on misogynists more than racists. @ReturnOfSaddam and others here will tell you how much more accepted racism against South Asian males is than talking about how women have too much power. Or how you can criticize immigration, religions, or bring up conspiracies (jewish control of society) without as much backlash as bringing up unflattering things about women as a group.

 

[PPEcel]

A "globalized dating culture". Oh, come on.

There have always been losers and outcasts. Always. We stayed hidden, suffered in silence. Only in the internet age were we enabled to communicate with one another. How exactly are you pinning inceldom on globalization?

Normies falsely accuse incels of racism because we have the audacity to hold a mirror up to them. Race-gender stereotypes in dating were created by normies, not by incels.

But economic globalization has benefited me greatly. I really don't see any reason to oppose free trade, open borders, lower taxes.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

A "globalized dating culture". Oh, come on.

There have always been losers and outcasts. Always. We stayed hidden, suffered in silence. Only in the internet age were we enabled to communicate with one another. How exactly are you pinning inceldom on globalization?

I'm not but I'm saying one of the reasons that inceldom is associated with anti globalization is the idea among some people that incels represent a failure to fully concede to globalization because they are not able to succeed in a globalized dating culture.

Normies falsely accuse incels of racism because we have the audacity to hold a mirror up to them. Race-gender stereotypes in dating were created by normies, not by incels.

I don't think that that is separate but a lot of the media bringing up inceldom and its relation to globalization and the backlash by men in the form of racism is something I feel stems from this belief about incels representing a failure of globalization.

But economic globalization has benefited me greatly. I really don't see any reason to oppose free trade, open borders, lower taxes.

But that's not the complete economic globalization we are talking about either. That's just career wise and financially. By globalization I also mean the modern dating app, online dating sexual marketplace where men are no longer competing with men from just their local community, but men from all around the world for a woman's attention.

 

[Lebensmüder]

A "globalized dating culture". Oh, come on.

There have always been losers and outcasts. Always. We stayed hidden, suffered in silence. Only in the internet age were we enabled to communicate with one another.

Yes, but they were statistically insignificant outliers, not a mass phenomenon. The rates are skyrocketing. It's like saying "Well, there have always been shark attacks!" during the movie "Jaws", these cases happened in an isolated manner, but when they happen in a far higher frequency/number you know that something goes terribly wrong. Proportion matters.

How exactly are you pinning inceldom on globalization?

A great influx of men, thanks to mass migration we nowadays have a 20% surplus of men in my age range in Germany (like the gender ratio in China) - and everything of that in a few years. Even if some people would have certainly been incels in the past, this complete surplus of men nowadays condemns a far greater amount of men to inceldom than beforehand, because now finding a GF is mathematically impossible (due to numbers alone, even if hypergamy never existed and monogamy was strictly enforced). A simple mathematical issue. When the supply (=amount of women) stays the same, but the demand (=amount of men, because they are mostly men) increases it means that you have to pay more (=you have to be even more attractive to succeed in that highly competitive field).

While migrants aren't (directly/indirectly) responsible for job losses/a lack of GF in every single case, they certainly worsen the problem for all men (just by increasing competition alone). Furthermore, they are an unecessary competition for jobs and mostly vote progressive parties that have antithetical goals to the goals of autochthonous men, why should someone in that position accept this? And they also bring criminality with them, would rather be an incel with a wallet than an incel without a wallet that was stolen by a thugmaxxer (that even gets more approval in society - especially by females). And many of them are on welfare, so they would increase the competition for NEETbux and force STEMcels to give more of their hard earned money away. They increase the competition in all fields of life and this is something that affects me/others in a negative way - they make it stochastically alone less likely that a woman/employer would choose me by giving them a greater variety of people to choose from, more options for women/employers means more trouble for an average man. And then there are the quotas.

Normies falsely accuse incels of racism because we have the audacity to hold a mirror up to them. Race-gender stereotypes in dating were created by normies, not by incels.

Indeed. Good observation.

But economic globalization has benefited me greatly. I really don't see any reason to oppose free trade, open borders, lower taxes.

Yes, because you benefit from it. It only lies in your interest to support these policies that directly benefit you, so there is also nothing wrong when I do the same and vote in the exactly opposite manner to further my own goals. Right-wingers/right-wing extremists vote for the same reason right-wing as you vote left-wing: To protect their interests.

 

[PPEcel]

Yes, but they were statistically insignificant outliers, not a mass phenomenon. The rates are skyrocketing. It's like saying "Well, there have always been shark attacks!" during the movie "Jaws", these cases happened in an isolated manner, but when they happen in a far higher frequency/number you know that something goes terribly wrong. Proportion matters.

We don't know that they were just statistically insignificant outliers or just simply unreachable recluses.

A great influx of men, thanks to mass migration we nowadays have a 20% surplus of men in my age range in Germany (like the gender ratio in China) - and everything of that in a few years. Even if some people would have certainly been incels in the past, this complete surplus of men nowadays condemns a far greater amount of men to inceldom than beforehand, because now finding a GF is mathematically impossible (due to numbers alone, even if hypergamy never existed and monogamy was strictly enforced).

While migrants aren't (directly/indirectly) responsible for job losses/a lack of GF in each case, they certainly worsen the problem for all men (just by increasing competition alone). Furthermore, they are unecessary competition for jobs and mostly vote progressive parties that have antithetical goals to the goals of autochthonous men, why should someone accept this? And they also bring criminality with them, would rather be an incel with a wallet than an incel without a wallet that was stolen by a thugmaxxer (that even gets more approval in society - especially by females). And they are on welfare, so they would increase the competition for NEETbux and force STEMcels to give more of their hard earned money away. They increase the competition in all fields of life and this is something that affects me/others in a negative way.

Huh, 20% is a lot. But accepting that many refugees is not an inherent part of globalization.

There's little truth to the idea that immigration brings "unnecessary" competition in the job market -- lump of labor fallacy, and at least in the U.S./U.K.,first- and second-generation immigrations commit crime at significantly lower rates than the general population.

And don't pretend that "STEMcels" are an exclusively white crowd when rice/currycels are overrepresented in STEM, immigration exists at all skill and income levels and if there's anything I notice about conservatives it's that their positions almost always lack nuance, it's almost always a false dichotomy between "no immigration" and "completely open borders".

Yes, because you benefit from it. It only lies in your interest to support these policies that directly benefit you, so there is also nothing wrong when I do the same and vote in the exactly opposite manner to further my own goals. Right-wingers/right-wing extremists vote for the same reason right-wing as you vote left-wing: To protect their interests.

The problem is that many right-wingers on this forum somehow wrongly believe that their interests are inherently aligned with that of the blackpill, and so refuse to acknowledge that I, as a middle-classcel with a globalized upbringing, have perfectly valid reasons to support neoliberalism. It is your brethren who refuse to recognize that I'm protecting my interests, and respond to any ideological differences with "noooooooo cuck pls ban".

 

[Lebensmüder]

We don't know that they were just statistically insignificant outliers or just simply unreachable recluses.

Yes. But still most men fathered children, today it's the minority.

Huh, 20% is a lot. But accepting that many refugees is not an inherent part of globalization.

Yes. Agree. Found the number in some newspaper articles in the height of the refugee crisis, but the sources all differ in the exact number.

There's little truth to the idea that immigration brings "unnecessary" competition in the job market -- lump of labor fallacy, and at least in the U.S./U.K.,first- and second-generation immigrations commit crime at significantly lower rates than the general population.

Yes. The autochthonous worker has an interest to reduce the amount of immigration just for that reason alone.

And don't pretend that "STEMcels" are an exclusively white crowd when rice/currycels are overrepresented in STEM, immigration exists at all skill and income levels and if there's anything I notice about conservatives it's that their positions almost always lack nuance, it's almost always a false dichotomy between "no immigration" and "completely open borders".

Stemcels aren't all white, especially Asians are highly-skilled/disciplined workers that are willing to do the job better and for less money - and that's problematic for an autochthonous worker, but beneficial for a capitalist/neoliberal (whose side you take depends on perspective).
And in the universities you are seeing another problem: Most of the people that study here are of foreign descent - and some of them have no interest to ever use that knowledge in a beneficial way to my country, they just get the education from the universities in my country that costs no money and afterwards go back to their home country. Thereby they undermine the contributions the german worker has to make to universities with tax money to get an education while scamming him in the end. And it's also very interesting that german students often complain about the price for rent while not realizing that with a growing demand a constant supply the prices for renting flats in the proximity of universities must increase.
The thing is that both things (e.g. going into competition with a german worker by working here/just studying here and moving) are detrimental towards people here (at least from my perspective) so my principial idea would be strong isolationism/strong preferences for locals.

The problem is that many right-wingers on this forum somehow wrongly believe that their interests are inherently aligned with that of the blackpill, and so refuse to acknowledge that I, as a middle-classcel with a globalized upbringing, have perfectly valid reasons to support neoliberalism. It is your brethren who refuse to recognize that I'm protecting my interests, and respond to any ideological differences with "noooooooo cuck pls ban".

You protect yours and we protect ours, there is a fundamental conflict of interest in that regard, but from a moral perspective there is absolutely nothing horrendous about choosing different priorities for voting/making decisions (every group in the world priortizes its own interest). Disagree with you politically in almost every regard (economics/immigration issues/etc.), but see no problem with tolerating that here, because it's Incels.co and not Stormfront (have no authority to speak for anyone else).
Would still think that Biden is the worse option for incels in the long run, because he seems more concerned about "hate speech" (=something undefinable that always has the potential to be used against you as long as you aren't the one who makes the decision/definition) and other policies that strengthen gynocracy - but to each their own. A further debate however would be unnecessary because it's unlikely to change the opinions/perspectives of others and you seem like an intelligent guy who certainly has his reasons.

 

[The Abyss]

We don't know that they were just statistically insignificant outliers or just simply unreachable recluses.


Huh, 20% is a lot. But accepting that many refugees is not an inherent part of globalization.

There's little truth to the idea that immigration brings "unnecessary" competition in the job market -- lump of labor fallacy, and at least in the U.S./U.K.,first- and second-generation immigrations commit crime at significantly lower rates than the general population.

And don't pretend that "STEMcels" are an exclusively white crowd when rice/currycels are overrepresented in STEM, immigration exists at all skill and income levels and if there's anything I notice about conservatives it's that their positions almost always lack nuance, it's almost always a false dichotomy between "no immigration" and "completely open borders".



The problem is that many right-wingers on this forum somehow wrongly believe that their interests are inherently aligned with that of the blackpill, and so refuse to acknowledge that I, as a middle-classcel with a globalized upbringing, have perfectly valid reasons to support neoliberalism. It is your brethren who refuse to recognize that I'm protecting my interests, and respond to any ideological differences with "noooooooo cuck pls ban".

Lower crime rates? Riggggght Is that why prisons here are full of brown skins, the police had to set up a task force dedicated solely to black on black crime, crime has gone up decade on decade, there's all these stabbings, whites & East Asians try to get as far away from black or Islamic neighbourhoods, most of the scam calls are from India/Pakistan, crimewatch UK shows mostly non whites on it even though crackers are the population majority, there's all these south Asian diddler gangs that due to such high representation the police try to look the other way & go after non S.asians to balance the books. You're full of shit & self serving.

 

[PPEcel]

Yes. But still most men fathered children, today it's the minority.

I think it'd be more accurate to measure inceldom by gauging how much sex people have, as opposed to how many children people are having. Plenty of good non-incel reasons to abstain from procreation in a post-industrial society.

Stemcels aren't all white, especially Asians are highly-skilled/disciplined workers that are willing to do the job better and for less money - and that's problematic for an autochthonous worker, but beneficial for a capitalist/neoliberal (whose side you take depends on perspective).
And in the universities you are seeing another problem: Most of the people that study here are of foreign descent - and some of them have no interest to ever use that knowledge in a beneficial way to my country, they just get the education from the universities in my country that costs no money and afterwards go back to their home country. Thereby they undermine the contributions the german worker has to make to universities with tax money to get an education while scamming him in the end. And it's also very interesting that german students often complain about the price for rent while not realizing that with a growing demand a constant supply the prices for renting flats in the proximity of universities must increase.
The thing is that both things (e.g. going into competition with a german worker by working here/just studying here and moving) are detrimental towards people here (at least from my perspective) so my principial idea would be strong isolationism/strong preferences for locals.

That's what's interesting about Germany because it's one of very few countries where higher education is free.

The U.S. approaches higher education in a completely different way: international students are a cash cow, they aren't eligible for financial aid or scholarships, so they end up paying full tuition, which can easily reach $60k a year in elite colleges (many of which also happen to be in high-cost-of-living states like New York, California, Massachusetts). When you add in flights and books and other ancillary expenses, it is not uncommon for an international student to spend around $360k (roughly 300k euro) on a four-year bachelor's degree. I went to a private high school in the U.S. that was also dependent on foreign cash, my parents ended up paying about $57k a year. A lot of American schools would not financially survive without globalization.

The U.K. is similar except E.U. students also get to pay the same reduced rate as U.K. students, and tuition is not as stupidly inflated as the U.S. Even so, a non-E.U. student at Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial should expect to pay around £20-25k a year in base tuition for a humanities degree, £25-30k for a STEM degree.

There's no reason why Germany can't charge tuition for international students, if just to recoup some of the losses. Not opposed to that.

Also, I should add that Germany is one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, you guys have a current account surplus of 250 billion euros; the post-Cold War economic regime has worked out really well for Germany by any metric.

You protect yours and we protect ours, there is a fundamental conflict of interest in that regard, but from a moral perspective there is absolutely nothing horrendous about choosing different priorities for voting/making decisions (every group in the world priortizes its own interest). Disagree with you politically in almost every regard (economics/immigration issues/etc.), but see no problem with tolerating that here, because it's Incels.co and not Stormfront (have no authority to speak for anyone else).
Would still think that Biden is the worse option for incels in the long run, because he seems more concerned about "hate speech" (=something undefinable that always has the potential to be used against you as long as you aren't the one who makes the decision/definition) and other policies that strengthen gynocracy - but to each their own. A further debate however would be unnecessary because it's unlikely to change the opinions/perspectives of others and you seem like an intelligent guy who certainly has his reasons.

I'd generally agree that the progressive left is a nuisance, but I've always been of the opinion that Biden is a moderate institutionalist, an assessment that some other .co users don't agree with.

Lower crime rates? Riggggght Is that why prisons here are full of brown skins, the police had to set up a task force dedicated solely to black on black crime, crime has gone up decade on decade, there's all these stabbings, whites & East Asians try to get as far away from black or Islamic neighbourhoods, most of the scam calls are from India/Pakistan, crimewatch UK shows mostly non whites on it even though crackers are the population majority, there's all these south Asian diddler gangs that due to such high representation the police try to look the other way & go after non S.asians to balance the books. You're full of shit & self serving.

Right, black =! immigrant, you're erroneously conflating race with migration status. Nice strawman faggot.