X Close

Incels are the new jihadis Experts have exchanged one moral panic for another

New mask, same crimes. (AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images)

New mask, same crimes. (AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images)


September 18, 2023   6 mins

It is hard to know exactly when it happened, but, at some point over the last three years, the word “jihad” vanished from the news. Did anyone notice? There was a time, not so long ago, when jihadists seemed to be everywhere, seizing territory abroad and sowing terror at home. We were even on first-name terms with them: “Jihadi John”, “Jihadi Jane”, “Jihadi Jack”.

Journalists wrote alarmed pieces about nice boys and girls being transformed into jihadist monsters. Politicians made speeches about the “disease of Islamic extremism”. Academics constructed entire theses on the etymology and evolution of Jihad. Former Islamist radical Maajid Nawaz even seemed relevant. This all now seems a distant memory. How did this happen? Did the jihadists go away, or did we just get bored of them?

Unfortunately, the jihadists haven’t disappeared; Isis, for example, is reportedly resurgent in sub-Saharan Africa, as are its rivals, al-Qaeda. But global jihadism as a movement is in grave disarray . The Isis caliphate is gone, and doesn’t look set to return anytime soon. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Isis leader, is dead: he blew himself up in October 2019 when US Special Operations forces raided his compound in Idlib, Syria. His replacement, Abu Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi, is also dead, biting the Syrian dust earlier this year. But few Western journalists took much notice, and nobody was writing op-eds on a posthumous “martyrdom bump” for Isis, or how they would come back stronger after his demise.

Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, is arguably in better shape, maintaining footholds and some measure of success in ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Somalia and the Sahel. But its capacity to stage attacks against the West is greatly diminished, thanks to a sustained and successful counter-terrorism operations by the US and its allies, and a shift in the group’s strategic vision, which now prioritises local grievances over global contention. The killing of leader Ayman al-Zawahiri last year in a US drone strike has further weakened its internal solidarity and outward prestige.

According to terrorism scholar Daniel Byman, the last significant jihadist attack in the US was four years ago when a Saudi Air Force trainee working with al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate shot and killed three sailors at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida. We have to go back even further to locate the last jihadist attack in the US that resulted in mass-casualties: that was in 2016, when Omar Mateen, inspired by Isis, went on a shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 people.

The last deadly Isis-inspired attack in America — Florida again — was in March 2018, when a 17-year old stabbed to death a 13-year old at a sleepover. And while several individuals, including a teenager, have recently plotted in the name of Isis, none have been able to successfully convert inspiration into competent lethal violence. It certainly doesn’t compare to the 2014-2016 period, when Isis-inspired individuals were responsible for more than three-quarters of all deaths (107 in total) caused by jihadist terrorism in America since September 11, 2001.

A similar downward trajectory can be seen in Europe, although the threat there remains far greater than in the US. According to a recent report by Scenor, there were 105 jihadi attacks in Europe between 2014 and 2022, involving 133 perpetrators and resulting in 405 deaths, far exceeding the death toll of all deadly jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11. The vast majority (90%) were carried out by so-called lone-wolves and most were Isis-related. But the tempo and lethality of attacks has changed. The deadliest (Paris, Nice, Brussels, Manchester) were carried out by Isis attackers, both directed and inspired, between 2015 and 2017, resulting in a collective death toll of 270 victims. But since losing its caliphate, Isis has neither been able to coordinate attacks in Europe nor inspire attackers there in any great number. And when those attacks do happen, they are often amateurish and of limited lethality.

As the threat of jihadist terrorism has receded in the West, so too has media interest in it. And it is hard to exaggerate what a sea-change this represents. “We are in a battle, and more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media,” Zawahiri wrote in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the spiritual founder of Isis, in 2005. A decade later, the consensus was that Isis had conclusively won that war. “They’re using the internet better than we use the internet,” as Trump put it in November 2015, simplifying a widely held view that Isis propaganda was far more sophisticated and “slick” than anything the US State Department could come up with.

But the victory was jettisoned as rapidly as it was acquired. By July 2017, the Isis horror show was almost over: in that month, it lost Mosul, its de facto capital in Iraq, and three months later it was to lose Raqqa, its de facto capital in Syria. At the same time, new horror-shows were vying for our attention, much closer to the nascent obsessions that now polarise the political landscape in the West. In April 2018, Alek Minassian drove a truck into a crowd of pedestrians in Toronto, killing 10. It had all the hallmarks of an Isis attack, except that before his attack, instead of proclaiming to be a “soldier of the caliphate”, Minassian had declared the arrival of an “incel rebellion” on Facebook. All of a sudden, incels seemed to be everywhere. Then, in March 2019, just as Isis was losing its last sliver of territory in Syria, Brenton Tarrant, an Australian white supremacist, murdered 51 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

All of a sudden, white supremacists seemed to be everywhere too. And then something strange happened: journalists and extremism experts who had once made careers out of covering jihadists started to cover the far-Right in almost exactly the same way. Just as Isis had been a transnational, “networked” threat, so too were the white supremacists. And just as Isis had been radicalising children in their bedrooms over the internet, so too has the far-Right. Almost overnight, Brenton Tarrant became the new “Jihad John”, Andrew Tate became the new “charismatic” jihadist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, and 8Chan became the new radical mosque, incubating hate and inciting violence.

The broader context for such a dramatic transposition was the culture war and its insatiable demand for new folk devils with which to wage symbolic battle. For one side in this war, a malevolent progressive ideology, promoted by Left-wing activists, is taking over cherished institutions and perilously endangering our democratic way of life. For the other, a no less toxic ideology of white male supremacy is taking over cherished institutions and perilously endangering our democratic way of life.

Correspondingly, the chief bĂȘte noire of anti-progressives are radicals who embrace gender non-conformity and who want to abolish the patriarchy, prisons and much else, while for progressives, the root of all evil lies in the figure of the toxic white male. Jihadists, however, resist assimilation into this classificatory scheme for the obvious reason that they’re Muslims and (mostly) from minority backgrounds. Indeed, in some respects they serve to threaten this scheme, because they’re both anti-LGBTQ and militantly opposed to classical liberalism.

Hence jihadist violence has become a symbolic cul-de-sac for both sides in the culture war, affording neither the opportunity to bring attention to or amplify the concerns — pre-eminently around race and gender — that so preoccupy them. This new hermeneutic regime was sharply in evidence in the lethargy which marked the response of both progressives and conservatives to the murder of the Conservative MP David Amess two years ago by a British Isis supporter. The very day after his killing, the Metropolitan Police declared it an act of terrorism with “a potential motivation linked to Islamist extremism”. But among British elites there was little appetite for exploring that link; instead they chose to focus on the proliferation of online hate speech aimed at MPs.

Two months prior to Amess’s murder, a 22-year-old British man from Plymouth went on a shooting rampage, killing five, including his mother, before fatally shooting himself. Devon and Cornwall Police did not categorise this rampage as a terrorist incident. But that didn’t prevent many British journalists and commentators from trying to turn it into one. This was because the perpetrator, Jake Davison, supposedly had links to the incel subculture: he was a self-confessed virgin; he believed that women are biologically hardwired to select men based on appearance; he had made references to the “blackpill”; and he had ranted that “women are arrogant and entitled beyond belief”.

Within 24 hours of the attack, The Guardian had described Davison as “a hate-filled misogynist and ‘incel’”, and speculated that “Plymouth shootings may be a sign ‘incel’ culture is spreading.” A day after the murder of Amess, an editorial in The Observer sternly reprimanded anyone who was in mind to “politicise this tragedy” on the basis of “scant details”. No such reprimand was issued by that paper in the days after Davison’s killing spree, despite the considerable uncertainty surrounding his motives. They were too busy politicising it, because they could. By contrast, Ali Harbi Ali, the British-born man who murdered Amess, couldn’t be so readily marshalled for symbolic service in the culture war over race and gender.

It was proof that, in some ways, we have become jaded by jihadists, desensitised to their threat and moral squalor by over-exposure to a media discourse and entertainment industry that, for over a decade and a half, couldn’t get enough of them. If they were once exotic and possessed a certain “jihadi cool“, they now resemble some ageing crooner trading on past glories. We just know too much about them and their shabby pasts as failed rappers, drug-dealers, potheads and porn enthusiasts. Jihadi terror has transmogrified into jihadi triviality.

Yet as Emile Durkheim, the founding father of sociology, once observed, society needs its criminals. We just don’t need jihadists anymore, since new and seemingly more forbidding folk have displaced them. And they have done so not because they are objectively more threatening or murderous (they’re not), but because they reflect the shifting existential anxieties of Western elites in a moment of great and rapid change. These anxieties were once focused on the threat of Islamism to democratic norms. Now, they are entangled in fears and loathing around gender and race. And when these moral panics eventually burn out, no doubt a new breed of devils will emerge, too.


Simon Cottee is a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Kent.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

36 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Dellingby
John Dellingby
9 months ago

Maybe I’m demonstrating my bias, but I find incels to be far less of a threat than jihadists. The latter want to destroy our way of life and would likely slaughter most people we know if they had their way. From what I know of incels, there is no such grandiose scheme of world domination, but happy to be proven wrong.

Most incels are young men who seem to lack the ability to get a girlfriend which is increasingly hard in this day and age. At least the statistics in regards online dating seem to say that, which I have no problem believing (I recall one stating that the top 20% of men have access to the top 80% of women on dating sites). They’re not violent or ideological for the most part (although some are), they’ve just either given up on life or thrown themselves into other things such as their careers for example. So long as we keep treating them like suicide bombers rather than assessing the reasons why they’re like this, the problem will only get worse.

Just to round off on a separate note, the reaction to the David Amiss murder by our political elites was very strange and kind of disturbing. I highly doubt the same reaction would have been given if a white person murdered an MP who wasn’t white.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

One of the problems with incels is that they only want to have girlfriends who are very beautiful. An average looking woman does not interest them. The same mindset infects the 80 percent of women competing for the top 20 percent of men. Neither group is being realistic.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
8 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I think there’s definitely a lot of that and neither group benefits from it. Online dating certainly allows people to choose from a wider range than they traditionally would have been able to in the past, but ironically it also allows people to be more picky as you highlight.

One other thing I would also say is that a lot of women will get a large amount of notifications so it’s unlikely they’ll ever go through all of them while men will be more likely to jump on any they do get.

Kelly Madden
Kelly Madden
8 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

“An average looking woman does not interest them.”

Is there any empirical evidence for that claim? I find it difficult to believe that men would refuse any kind of relationship with average-looking women….

Z.
Z.
8 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Your comment is nothing but a misandrist propaganda and a complete inversion of reality.
Not only did the research show over and over again that incels have lower standards for mate preference across every trait and overall, and didn’t not have higher standards compared to non-incel single men.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2248096
But also across multiple studies both online and in person, not only did women rate the overwhelming majority of men as physically unattractive but also women consistently shown to be only attracted to the top percentile of physically attractive men.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0015300
https://thebolditalic.com/the-two-worlds-of-tinder-f1c34e800db4
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775719301104
https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps

Peter D
Peter D
8 months ago
Reply to  Z.

So true Z
I feel sorry for the incels, I genuinely do. It is so hard for the boys growing up now. Opportunities are drying up everywhere while everything is being thrown at the girls. I have one child and she will benefit from it, but only so far.
The girls are constantly being told to have everything, given every opportunity, which might sound nice, but some things in life cannot be given to you. A relationship is not something that you can go down the street and buy. We are turning our girls into obnoxious tarts who are not worth the effort. I do not blame the incels one bit.
I have been telling my daughter for years now that she needs to make sure that her future partner (I now say future husband because she is straight) respects her for who she is and visa versa; that they will be a team who makes each other better.
Another reason that we should start to move away from the DEI crap is that the next generation of women will have to support their husbands (only if they are white) which will not make them happy.

Kat L
Kat L
8 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Yes the casual misandry in society today is creating horrible women. I am trying to council my boys to learn what to look for and avoid. It’s no wonder the west is not replacing itself or producing damaged children of divorce.

Chris Amies
Chris Amies
8 months ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

They’ve also been convinced that the solution for all their apparent ills (lack of purpose? loneliness?) is to get a girlfriend. And not do other things that might help them integrate better with society.

Kat L
Kat L
8 months ago
Reply to  Chris Amies

That is the way of the world, good women usually bring out the best in their men and force them to grow up.

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago

The way to defeat a movement is to discredit its foundational precepts. The jihad movement premised itself on the idea that they were fighting to topple the decadent West with God on their side; twenty-two years after 9/11, the decadent West is still here and seems to be getting all the more decadent, and if it ever does collapse, it will be due, not to the jihadis’ help, but to the West’s own feckless stupidity. It’s hard to claim that your ideology is one of God’s own winners when every fact on the ground indicates you’re losers.
The incel “movement”, for want of a better word, is, by contrast, premised on the idea that its members are modernity’s losers. Journalists and commentators portraying them as losers simply feeds into the narrative the incels tell themselves, and from which they draw strength. To “defeat” them would thus require them to be unmasked not as losers–or at least, not as losers at society’s hand, but rather at their own.
The reality is that the incels do not need to be “defeated”, because their status as a threat, as this article points out, is entirely media-generated. Contrarily, militancy is baked right into the core of jihad, and so the jihadis really were a threat, although not an existential one, at least not yet. Maybe in a century they will be, but right now they’re just premature Sharians.

Last edited 9 months ago by Right-Wing Hippie
R Wright
R Wright
8 months ago

An excellent post. They are two entirely different problems. Islamism is an inherently political phenomenon and its foundational beliefs involve going out into the world and changing it. Incels are a suppressed minority of basement dwellers whose ideas, while they occasionally circulate into the wider internet, are rather solipsistic and inward facing. They are fundamentally apolitical. Many of their problems would be solved if they went out and ‘touched grass’. In that respect they are like Islamists.

Instead of attempting to reintegrate them, incels are now treated as an existential threat to western civilisation and the entire deradicalisation-industrial complex has begun to aim all their efforts at them. Given their persecution complex this will only ends in tears. The inevitable outcome is the politicisation and radicalisation of young lonely men who will go from whining about Chad and Stacey on message boards to reading Evola and building nailbombs instead. Given that this will be rather lucrative for certain organisations it would not surprise me if that was the intention.

Glynis Roache
Glynis Roache
8 months ago

Human beings are predisposed to making sense of patterns. I’ve read that it is an evolutionary development that arose from peering through foliage at prospective predators and making deductions about who they are and what they’re up to. Like many evolutionary theories, it may now be discredited but it certainly seems to work for journalists. They are great at extrapolation and joining dots to make a coherent and smart sounding opinion piece that can occasionally leave the rest of us still blinking through the foliage.
   

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
9 months ago

It sounds like they are looking to create the monsters out of their imagination to justify their own beliefs. Something tells me this might not be a good idea.

J Bryant
J Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I suspect they’re not doing it to justify their own beliefs, but to maintain their status as “experts” on allegedly dangerous groups. It’s a lucrative gig if you can make it last.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Interesting essay. The regime media and our technocratic leaders need to demonize someone I guess. This is what they know. I thought this paragraph was enlightening.

“And then something strange happened: journalists and extremism experts who had once made careers out of covering jihadists started to cover the far-Right in almost exactly the same way.”

Harry Child
Harry Child
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Exactly – it would seem that it is the media that is corrupt, chasing after any incident to expound their own inflated agendas to make money by selling exaggerated stories.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

For a guy who owns a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
9 months ago

A number of security experts made a good living for over two decades by obtaining time-costly PhDs on the topic of extremism/terrorism and pointing fingers at people seeking to do harm to Western interests in the Middle East.

But their market was seriously scaled back or closed with the US military drawdown. Demand-side was precipitously down, but the supply-side of their services was static. The security experts still had mortgages to pay and families to feed.

What do people (who point fingers at others for a living) do when they can no longer collect healthy paychecks?

Like good entrepreneurs, some of them discovered an entirely new target. Namely, those who live in the Western World.

And they found powerful – albeit gullible – buyers in government and business who feverishly believe that anyone who disagrees with them politically might actually be ‘Nazis’ out to get them.

These delusional folks were ready to provide healthy paychecks to confirm their personal biases, and the out-of-job experts were ready and willing to start pointing fingers at anyone the buyers politically disliked for those paychecks. Mouths to feed and all that.

As a cynical extremist/terrorism expert might say, “it’s a living”…albeit not a very good one.

Last edited 9 months ago by Cantab Man
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

Or “Kosher Nostra rules OK”!

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

The battle with Islam has been joined on a rather different front as the uber-conservative Salafis are avowedly peaceful.

Islam is now attacked on the historicity front. It is especially vulnerable there, as it is focused on one man and one book.
Since Muhamad wasn’t the son of God, the book is alleged to be the direct link to God. Uncreated, it is claimed to be the directly received word of God – a thing Christianity or Judaism never claim.
But Islam is very vulnerable. The territory the historicity battle for Christianity had been fought on over the past 100 years, is in modern-day Israel and Jordan.
Which it turns out, is the same area where Muhamad is from. And where the religion started.
All the earliest proofs are from this region.
(Mecca was added in later. Not even sure it existed when he was alive.)
We’re in a war now where a tactic is to hold up the 29 differing versions of the alleged ‘directly received’ Word of God.

Which one is right? They can’t say.
Even senior US Muslim scholars have admitted ‘the standard narrative has holes in it.’
You don’t need to draw a cartoon of Muhamad these days.
You just ask where he was born and why the ‘directly received’ communication from God has stories in it clearly nicked from the Jewish apocrypha?
Or why early Qurans have badly erased text with something else written over the top ?
That is much more effective.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Do you think pious Muslims are paying attention to “senior US Muslim scholars”? Reddit atheism is water off a duck’s back for the believer, regardless of his faith.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
8 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

It isn’t Reddit atheists raising these questions.
The chief one is a Christian polemicist and missionary called Jay Smith.
He goes onto their turf and debates them.
There’s just enough facts like this in his prosyletising to scare the Muslim missionaries.

Last edited 8 months ago by Dumetrius
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
8 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Mr Smith’s preaching is admirable but would I be right in suspecting you don’t believe Our Lord was crucified for our sins, died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead? What would you offer Muslims in place of their certainties, their rituals, their almsgiving, etc? It has been noted that religious people are generally happier and have more children.
Individual Muslims will be swayed by good Christians, not by someone disproving Muhammad’s flight into Jerusalem on a magic horse or discussing Uthman and his Korans, etc. And if you think Islam is bad, one wonders what a post-Islamic society will look like. What replaced Christianity in the West? A resentful, heretical species of apocalyptic Christianity stripped of Christ, devoid of mercy, incapable of forgiveness and looking to tear down the world. We’ve yet to see where this will lead us.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

It is NOT what replaced Christianity that counts, but what preceded both it, and Islam.
The polytheistic world of the Pax Romana, devoid of the concept of sin and devoted to hedonism.
“Dives in Omnia”, sums it up perfectly, or as some Roman wit put it in graffiti scratched into the floor of the Forum in TIMGAD (Algeria):-
“Venare, Lavare, Ludere, Ridere, OCC EST VIVERE”*

(* To hunt, to bathe, to play, to laugh,THAT IS TOO LIVE.)

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
8 months ago

O Charles you incorrigible infidel, the values of a vir are unsuitable for a homo. How many people would sink into despair if they didn’t have some tedious employment to occupy them? Deus help them!

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
8 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

I am a product of Philip Rieff’s era of the ‘Therapeutic Man’. I am interested in Christianity. Was raised in it – Catholic school, mass at least once a week, often more.
But I don’t go to it for those certainties, & never did. I’m just not wired to. I tried to revive faith as an adult but never found anything suitable. I am not well suited to sit in a pew.
Doesn’t mean I don’t diligently practice a spiritual tradition however. Have done so for 25 years.
It looks like Jay Smith has a good offer for these Muslims.
If you move to their countries, even for a shortish time, they go hell-for-leather in trying to get you to convert or ‘revert’. Took a lot of arguing before they’d let me be.
I see no reason why Western countries should not do the same when assessing migration – 10 extra points for conversion. Tho it’s admittedly unlikely they will. Which is sad, that we don’t have the guts to try.
I did find some figures the other day showing that conversion to Christianity is rising among Muslims – in certain places.

Last edited 8 months ago by Dumetrius
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
8 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Are you a thelemite? And may I ask how sincerely you explored Christianity before the pew became unbearable? Catholicism has so many, many different paths to travel towards God.
It’s surprising to hear of your experiences in the Middle East. As much as they’d like to convert you it’s not been my experience they’re particularly aggressive about it (although seeing you at prayer will completely change their attitude towards you). When I produced an English-Arabic edition of an ibn Taymiyyah book from my bag it elicited no little bewilderment in pious Muslims in the mosque where he had preached.
Yes, there are goodness-knows-how-many secret Christians in the Middle East. In Hebron I even met a Jew who was secretly a Christian; he wasn’t a ‘Messianic Jew’, he was normal Jew who secretly read the New Testament. It was very interesting to hear him talking about the passages that were most important to him as a Jew who believed Jesus was the Son of God.

Paul Devlin
Paul Devlin
8 months ago

Am I alone in noticing (or being worried about) the sentences being handed out recently to young men for membership of far right organizations that have not committed any terrorist acts? Recently, I saw a man was given 11 years for membership and possession of a digital copy of the Anarchists Cookbook. Membership of the IRA or UVF will get you 5 years. What’s going on here?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
8 months ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

“Recently, I saw a man was given 11 years for membership and possession of a digital copy of the Anarchists Cookbook.”
You can provide a link to this of course?

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
9 months ago

The Guardian had described Davison as “a hate-filled misogynist…”

When reading the Graun, just remember that ‘misogyny’ is a typographic error where commas would be used.

On a slightly more serious, but no less cynical note, I think this is just the latest moral panic to sweep the nation. It’s a safer subject for the fear mongers because the genuine threat from incels is far less than jihadis. On top of this, there is far less risk of creating even more violence from media pot stirring. The media get to have their cake and eat it.

Colin Goodfellow
Colin Goodfellow
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

The artical is essentially empty. The wanna be chattering class piddling on the decending chattering class. Tysons the lot of it, a new way to suck and blow wind. Does this forum have no editors at all?

Kelly Madden
Kelly Madden
8 months ago

The incel-therefore-terrorist beat is probably another example of the stupidity of the progressive press.

Much more likely: The social and psychological problems leading a man to mass murder make it difficult for him to attract women.

Just a hypothesis.

Last edited 8 months ago by Kelly Madden
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
8 months ago
Reply to  Kelly Madden

Unfortunately for the mass murderers their many female admirers only appear once they’ve been caught. Imagine their frustration!

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
8 months ago

Such a claim is more correct than is assumed. Online Islamism, incel culture and gender activism have produced comparable levels of violence.
The first obviously acts on the level of war and terrorist militias, the other encourages the pathology of lone-wolf violence, and the third is doing immeasurable (violent) damage to childhood, schooling and paedriatric culture.

David Morley
David Morley
8 months ago

Incels also have that great advantage that one can both fear and hate them – but at the same time feel and express blistering contempt. Both dangerous and, almost literally, impotent.

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
8 months ago

The one big thing that these jihadists, incels and white supremacists have in common is that they cannot bear children.