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.
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.
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.
“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….
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.
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.
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.
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
8 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.
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.
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
8 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.
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
8 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.”
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.
For a guy who owns a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Cantab Man
8 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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
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?
“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
8 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.
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
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.
Unfortunately for the mass murderers their many female admirers only appear once they’ve been caught. Imagine their frustration!
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
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
8 months ago
The one big thing that these jihadists, incels and white supremacists have in common is that they cannot bear children.
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.
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.
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.
“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….
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
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.
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.
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.
That is the way of the world, good women usually bring out the best in their men and force them to grow up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
For a guy who owns a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
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.
Or “Kosher Nostra rules OK”!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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?
“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?
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.
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?
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.
Unfortunately for the mass murderers their many female admirers only appear once they’ve been caught. Imagine their frustration!
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.
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.
The one big thing that these jihadists, incels and white supremacists have in common is that they cannot bear children.