site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24300 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was going to write a post about ripples in the pond of social sciences but plans are on hold due to a happening. Shooter kills one civilian and cop in Montreal outside a Hilton.

Officers were responding to a report at 11:35 a.m. of shots fired and a gun protruding from an upper-floor window at a hotel in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood when they encountered a gunman on the ground and exchanged fire, Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher said at a news conference. Dagher said the shootout took place outside a Hilton. The video indicated that the location is the Hilton Garden Inn Montreal Midtown.

Robots Sources say that "the headquarters of Aylo (the parent company of Pornhub) is located in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood of Montreal, Quebec." That might place this shooter in the neighborhood of Aylo's headquarters to target Pornhub, which fits with the general anti-degeneracy notions in a 104 page manifesto that surfaced. It has been so long since we've gotten a proper manifesto, and this is a proper manifesto (PDF). Broadly, we are reading the thoughts of a man who wants to represent, organize, and better the lives of "dispossessed" men-- with many topics familiar to this forum about men and women in Western world touched upon in the first half. Moral decay, Chad-Stacy hypergamy, and unfair, undesirable, or dysfunctional dating/mating norms. He wants to do this by replacing the capitalist "neoliberal hypergamy state" with communism, won and run by those formerly dispossessed, which would not be quite as common here. Some highlights I saw while reading.

To fix modern gender relations and society he wants to place theories of class consciousness to one side (by no means out of the way) while introducing a new biological consciousness so that dispossessed men can organize and act upon. Put those men to work in a revolution.

So, it may be said that the insurgency process of the dispossessed class exists in two main stages. The first of them is the spreading of biological conciousness to the dispossessed on a massive scale. This must be done because, as we know, the vanguard cannot form effectively until the conciousness of the dispossessed reaches critical mass.

The second stage is the seizure of positions of power by the revolutionary vanguard, and the subsequent usage of their newfound power to carry out the liquidation of the hypergamy state. The revolutionary vanguard should operate in a clandestine manner throughout this process however, not presenting their core doctrine as being the elimination of systemic hypergamy. Instead, they should take on the visible forms of a variety of political movements (e.g. conservative socialism, Duginism, communism, Islamic theocracy) in accordance with the social conditions of their respective areas, while keeping their main intentions either hidden or ostensibly marginal.

It'd be difficult to organize the incel vanguard on a good day, it's hard enough to get men to queue up on video games. To do so covertly, under the auspices of established political movements, seems extra difficult. Our author partly recognizes this, so he offers a stage one insurgent phase. First, pay more attention to women who lie about dating preferences and ruminate on it. Second, self-improvement ("body purification") but no weight lifting, because it takes too much time, is a bourgeois scam, and sports are suspect as well. No distraction from the revolution. After self-improvement there are a few paragraphs reminding future revolutionaries to avoid rap music:

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

Finally, become an insurgent, which means killing certain people identified later in the document. In short, he thinks the insurgents should kill pretty much everyone in a position of power or wealth including influencers of all stripes. That makes sense, reforming society and all. He also thinks all the drug dealers, gangsters, and so on should be liquidated. The author features many inspirational quotes by Bolsheviks, as well as other rabble-rousers such as Ulrike Meinhof and Robespierre. Following the insurgency comes the revolution.

The essential political conditions of a society in which capitalism/liberalism, and thereby, hypergamy itself, are not part of the established order of things, have mostly already been laid out by Marx, Engels, and others in works such as The Communist Manifesto. In my view, the most important of these basic conditions are:

The full abolition of private property,91 without compensation, and the subsequent nationalization of this property.

  • Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, with the establishment of a central bank and a planned economy.
  • The establishment of state control over the means of transport and communication

No mention of government issued gf's. I believe the hope it won't be necessary, though I don't think the author would be opposed.

To make monogamy prevalent again, one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income. One of the ways that this can be done 91 Private property as in bourgeois private property, and not personal property. 95 gradually, without using too much force, is to simply quietly start introducing robots into female workplaces, as robots will easily be able to perform the sedentary and easy jobs that females overwhelmingly prefer.

Without an income of her own, and without unlimited access to an unlimited number of potential mates, the female will simply need marriage in order to live, just as she once did; and thus she will engage in monogamy willingly. With the new order having introduced robots to replace the vast majority of female workers, the remainder of female workers may then be removed from their workplaces through some legislation that can be quietly passed and enforced on ostensibly mundane pretences, and this will serve to make the male-dominated fields free of what few females are in them or should wish to enter them.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we? This is boring social engineering in the context of the manifesto which drifts into more fantastical theory, like the cyborg-augmented "extraordinary branch" of the new state to "augment both the bodies and minds" as a kind of Stasi/special forces mixture. Did he forget to mention total war or eternal struggle? No, of course not.

Now, regarding the question of internationalism, it should be said that wherever capitalism survives, the hypergamy state survives, and wherever the hypergamy state survives, it can spread. Therefore we must not allow any liberal or capitalistic enclave, no matter how small, to remain in existence after we take power.

I rate the manifesto 6/10 with significant points given for effort in the context of modern manifestos. Points deducted for my personal revulsion to revolutionary Bolshevism, communism, tangents, and reddit posts. He shares a vision that I don't share with solutions I consider disastrous and/or unrealistic, so I could be unfair. Also, a neoliberal hypergamy state theory is not anywhere as novel or cool as the anarcho-primitivism based vision of Ted K. As an expression of deep frustrations in an atomized world I can understand, though I really think he should have made some money, bought some land, worked it, and entered the BAP-sphere with a Substack via Starlink.

EDIT: "I will go over this methodology briefly here, but for a more complete look at it, see my work The Smile of the Dispossessed; or, Further Instruction on the Implementation of Terror." All I can find by the first title is gay genre fiction, and I get no hits on the latter by a Seth Hatfield or anyone else. AI assisted hallucinations?

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?

I'm not sure there have been full-blown revolutionary communists here since the site move. I'm a socialist, but obviously I'm not missing (never been to Canada, actually).

So far as I can tell, the shooter himself managed to kill a male cop (Algerian immigrant named muhammed), then the female cop shot and killed some random guy (a rabbi working at pornhub?) and ran away from the shooter?

I think this is a pretty clear signal that women are not supposed to be performing martial roles like being police officers. That's a male thing. Being cool under fire is tough. Men went through thousands of years of brutal selection for martial prowess, bravery and tactical intuition. Boxing, fencing, wrestling, warfighting, streetfighting, wargames... these are all male things, male pursuits and should really be left to men. When there's some story about 'heroic civilian beats terrorist stabber/shooter' it's almost always a man, they are more likely to have that dog in them. Along with the terrorism, shooting and killing too of course. Division of labour, women have their own roles of great importance.

I don't disagree with you, but 'male cop kills innocent random person' is a much more common story than a woman cop doing the same- of course, most police officers are male, but it does demonstrate that this is not entirely caused by a weakness of her sex.

Good point. I recall an instance where this schizo US policeman got spooked and shot some random woman for no reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Justine_Damond

I believe that the heroic quality manifests in different times of their lives. A not insignificant number of women will go down to the knife for their children, even if they are personally the mildest and gentlest of creatures. Valor under fire is something that can only be partially trained, which is why the standards for soldiery and police work should be higher than the general population, and not lowered because of considerations to the representation of the sexes. You either have it or you don't.

I second this. The "mama bear" phenomenon is absolutely real, but I'm not sure if the average woman is quite as willing to put herself in harm's way for the benefit of a complete stranger as the average man is. And that's as it should be: men are stronger and faster than women, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

I'm reminded of the ending to Heinlein's speech to Naval Acadamey graduates:

In my home town sixty years ago when I was a child, my mother and father used to take me and my brothers and sisters out to Swope Park on Sunday afternoons. It was a wonderful place for kids, with picnic grounds and lakes and a zoo. But a railroad line cut straight through it.

One Sunday afternoon a young married couple were crossing these tracks. She apparently did not watch her step, for she managed to catch her foot in the frog of a switch to a siding and could not pull it free. Her husband stopped to help her.

But try as they might they could not get her foot loose. While they were working at it, a tramp showed up, walking the ties. He joined the husband in trying to pull the young woman's foot loose. No luck --

Out of sight around the curve a train whistled. Perhaps there would have been time to run and flag it down, perhaps not. In any case both men went right ahead trying to pull her free... and the train hit them.

The wife was killed, the husband was mortally injured and died later, the tramp was killed -- and testimony showed that neither man made the slightest effort to save himself.

The husband's behavior was heroic... but what we expect of a husband toward his wife: his right, and his proud privilege, to die for his woman. But what of this nameless stranger? Up to the very last second he could have jumped clear. He did not. He was still trying to save this woman he had never seen before in his life, right up to the very instant the train killed him. And that's all we'll ever know about him.

THIS is how a man dies.

This is how a MAN... lives!

Amen.

I don't think this single data point is evidence for much of anything.

However, almost every single vid I've seen of a cop panicking and shooting somebody inappropriately has been a woman. Including stuff like the one where she meant to grab her taser but got flustered and pulled her gun and shot him instead. And that would seem to support your point.

I don't think this single data point is evidence for much of anything.

Integrating women into combat roles was studied in the Marine Corps during Obama's time. It found that integrated units basically did worse across the board (something like 90 out of a 100 tasks). They were slower at completing tasks, navigating obstacles, firing accurately and the women got injured more often.

And these were women who were already Marines and the units had only a few of them to match how low the proportion of female Marines was. And even that small number was a blowout.

Now, they didn't do a study on whether women were more likely to lose their shit in combat, but I think the smaller , more fragile sex has some reason to be more neurotic about competing with men in their evolutionary niche. This is not just my argument, this is even the feminist argument, though they wouldn't put it that way. Don Lemon was excoriated for not understanding that women freeze up when being sexually assaulted by men.

but no weight lifting, because it takes too much time, is a bourgeois scam, and sports are suspect as well.

He's doing the meme. "While you wasted your days in the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated inner strength."

With the new order having introduced robots to replace the vast majority of female workers

Luxury straight patriarchal communism. Looking forward to the political compass memes.

I have shot an SKS a bit. Soft recoil, not heavy or awkward. That's a real WW2 semi auto carbine and it is amazing that this and the Congressional Republican baseball team shooting were not mass slaughters. I've been there fumbling with the stripper clip of rounds, but that's why you practice. These goobers don't and can't get the rifle to work. People who are suicide attacking their enemies but can't be bothered to practice a bit before hand. Perhaps range time is also a "bourgeois scam".

I've always felt like communist and incel logic were essentially the same, so it's interesting to me that it has taken this long for someone to combine them.

Houellebecq was writing about this thirty years ago. The sexual revolution has indeed always drawn sexless men into the extension of the domain of struggle.

Robin Hanson noticed it ages ago:

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/two-types-of-envyhtml

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/comparing-income-sex-redistributionhtml

This got him labelled the "incel professor" who wanted to enslave women in the mass media, even though he very obviously opposes any kind of coercive redistribution.

Not to be flippant about what is a very sad event, but he really did want State-Issued Girlfriends? I mean, "do away with hypergamy (which I presume he means female hypergamy, and not men wanting to marry high-value women), disseminate biological consciousness to the dispossessed, strip women of any avenues except 'marriage without your choice is the only thing between you and starvation, enjoy being treated as the serf in the domestic sphere!'" all sounds like it would fit neatly beside seizing the means of production etc.

State bureaus to ensure women don't lie about their dating preferences, keep records of single men and women, and start matching them up so no man has to go without sex on demand and the woman can starve (or more likely turn to prostitution) if she doesn't want to marry the guy picked out of the list of "so Bob here is thirty-eight and never had a long-term relationship, it's time".

"Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before."

Could have been lifted from several past discussion threads: prevent women going into higher education, prevent women having jobs outside the home, make women economically dependent on men again, take mate choice out of the woman's hands and give it to her family, and there will never again be any man without a wife to cook for him, clean for him, and fulfil his sexual needs (her sexual needs? don't be stupid, her role is to do what he likes, sex is not about mutuality).

There is still the problem of domestic violence, does the manifesto address this or is the presumption that once every man knows he is guaranteed a woman of his own as chattel, there will no longer be any impetus to beat and abuse their partners? Wouldn't that be nice if true, but violent men don't need an excuse to be violent.

make women economically dependent on men again

The steelman of that position is that women, by and large, are already dependent on men but that this has been made impersonal and invisible and that men are hence alienated from the fruits of their labour.

The productive professions that enable the machinery to keep running, so the argument goes, are dominated by men while many of the high-status positions occupied by women are sinecures either created or mandated by the state. Care professions are the big exception but one might argue that the outsized need for them is an effect of greater female participation in the labour market.

If men could offer protection and provision directly and personally, their value as mates, and hence their attractiveness, would increase as well.

You are presupposing a difference in attractiveness that has been artificially created by exploiting men. If this exploitation were to disappear, all those yucky low-status men whose contributions women are eager to benefit from (but from a distance, thank you very much) would suddenly become better catches.

Ah, right. Because it's only men who are productive. So what great productive profession was our shooter part of? What amazing high value creating triumphs did he achieve?

This is the problem here: "I'm a guy who should be getting All The Stuff but I'm not, and it's because... women! They're at fault! They should be forced to kiss my feet or starve in the gutter, that will solve all the problems!"

Guy who works as a gas station attendant is never going to become any better a catch than he already is, and that's not to say he's no catch, but making all women desperate will not get him a better mate than he could get now. He may get a low-tier on his level mate, but does he want one at that level, or are men not hypergamous too (just in a different direction)?

Ah, right. Because it's only men who are productive.

You are very smart, so I am just going to assume that your reading of my already hedged statement as absolute is a rhetorical flourish rather than a lack of reading comprehension.

So what great productive profession was our shooter part of? What amazing high value creating triumphs did he achieve?

Irrelevant. Good ol' Karl was hardly slaving away in a Manchester factory either.

Guy who works as a gas station attendant is never going to become any better a catch than he already is

If the money he brings home is what sustains a family, I'd beg to differ. Incidentally, I bet that the reintroduction of literal pay packets would significantly lower divorce rates because it would make the husband's contribution to the household more visible.

but making all women desperate

It's not like there aren't any incels who would want this, but the steelman simply calls for a levelling of the playing field and for stopping the coercive and impersonal wealth transfer from men to women which would open the door for voluntary and personal wealth transfer.

He may get a low-tier on his level mate

Great! That would be a system working as intended.

but does he want one at that level, or are men not hypergamous too (just in a different direction)?

No argument there. But they seem more flexible and more willing to settle (and better able to adapt to lowered expectations). Open to be proven wrong on that last one.

But that's the thing he's glossing over - women work easy, sedentary jobs so they can be replaced by robots, men work productive jobs.

I don't imagine he means every man will work down a coal mine or on an oil rig. Take women out of the workforce, and those white collar jobs are going to be filled by men - or they are just as vulnerable, the white collar men, to being replaced by robots. AI can now do your programming, why do I need you, Joe? What was this kid's degree in, and what kind of career did he hope for? EDIT: I see from one report that he had a degree in philosophy, so very much a non-productive field (by those who measure success in salaries with more and more zeroes).

I don't think he visualised working as an agricultural labourer or on a building site, the non-easy, non-sedentary work that women don't do.

So it's not about economic value, it's about dominance (and soothing his bruised ego over why he's not as successful as he imagines he should be. Women are to blame because society coddles them and devalues men. That's why he's not getting where he should be in life, because women are given an unfair advantage over him.)

We're concentrating on the part of the manifesto about women, but don't forget he also was anti-capitalism and blamed society for a lot of ills:

The manifesto also makes numerous disparaging remarks about the bourgeois social class – a reference to those who are more wealthy or privileged – as well as various types of people he views as swindlers, including proponents of Christianity and cryptocurrency. It also attributes blame for increased loneliness in young men to video games and pornography, while asserting the ranks of likeminded individuals are growing.

The guy does seem to have been socially isolated, feeling left out, probably indeed "university is supposed to be this party time of your life with friends and sex, why am I not getting that? it is the fault of society!"

The 25-year-old Lethbridge, Alta., man named as the suspected shooter in a Montreal attack that left three people dead is being described by neighbours as someone who rarely interacted with others.

...Hatfield graduated from Catholic Central High School in 2019 and went on to study philosophy at the University of Lethbridge, where he made the dean’s list.

Former classmates said he was quiet and introverted.

EDIT EDIT: Armchair psychoanalysis, which is the worst kind, but I get the impression (e.g. studying philosophy, writing a manifesto) that the guy very much valued himself on his intelligence. Maybe going to college and meeting other smart kids, in a field he presumed would be the area he achieved triumphs, showed him he wasn't as smart as he thought/there are other, equally smart, people out there. Maybe he didn't make the impression he had hoped to make. That would sting, and drive him even more inwards to rationalise his failures - it's down to capitalism, it's down to pornography, it's down to women'n'minorities getting unfairly favourable treatment, it's this cocktail of social ills that are not my fault and so I can avoid facing the changes I need to make in myself.

I would agree that his logic leads there, but he literally didn’t say government issued girlfriends. I suspect this is standard utopian logic.

Not directly, that's just a meme. I don't see why he would have been opposed to state issued girlfriends. If his ideal totalitarian government replaces all the women in the workforce with robots to encourage monogamy it's not much of a step for the state to coerce any slow to pair with guns or assignments.

Without an income of her own, and without unlimited access to an unlimited number of potential mates, the female will simply need marriage in order to live, just as she once did; and thus she will engage in monogamy willingly.

"Willingly" is doing a hell of a lot of work there. "I couldn't get a woman of my own until it was literally starvation or marry me" is not a recipe for good marriages, and all the old jokes about adultery and cuckoldry will get a new lease of life. If Sally can't stand Bob but likes Bill, unless Bob is keeping Sally locked up in the women's quarters then she'll find some way to meet Bill and have fun with him.

Swap in "men" for "women" in his manifesto there and see how that bites you. "Ugly, old, mentally ill or simply marrying this person is marrying down women can now have that husband they've always wanted, once men have no option but to marry and then will willingly take the ugly stepsister to bride". Yeah, do you think that works?

нет! Comrade Sally wouldn't dare offend the People's Revolution with counter-revolutionary acts of adultery against a fine worker like you, Comrade Bob. I don't believe it, a treasonous crime in service of the imperialist dogs. It would spit on the glory of the Party. As a precautionary measure, we shall re-educate her in Montana-lag for a period of no less than 5 years to confirm her commitment to the workers of the world. In the mean time you may take your pick of the comfort stock, Comrade Bob.

"I couldn't get a woman of my own until it was literally starvation or marry me" is not a recipe for good marriages

I suppose AI could arrange marriages based on some measure of physical attractiveness and compatibility. Still, it's hard to see how many would win with super egalitarian pairing.

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated. He's a more competent wordcel than Elliot Rodger, as in he reasoned himself into his conclusions (and the shooting) with less vitriol and more verbiosity to fit neatly into the motte. We had a meta-level thread on the reporting variations depending on the perpetrator. Essentially, when the perpetrator is revealed to be an incel (ideological) or any type of right-wing-adjacent, we must treat their alleged behaviours as deterministic, self-evident and an ideologically settled case. But when you prune the actual numbers, even Ross Kemp is confounded.

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

Definitely within the motte overton window, and I've seen the "redistribute the pussy" flavour of communism takes elsewhere too.

But capital reigns supreme. Capital is extremely conservative about predictability, any whiff of insurgency will be squashed immediately because capital cannot accumulate where chaos is ambient.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

He didn't mention race beyond a reference to racial issues as a tool of the ruling class.

"Rap is literally the cultural quintessence of the hypergamy state, congealed into a musical form. It is vile, repulsive, foul, and hideous in every way. What does it preach? The worship of wealth and sensory pleasures. The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and the pathetic ridicule of the weak, et cetera. How any of the dispossessed can listen to one second of that filth without instantly bristling with outrage and disgust, I have no idea. And yet, so many of them adore it, and find some kind of perverse enjoyment in listening to wealthy favoured males boast in rhyme about how many girls they have sodomized."

"But of course, all this is to say nothing of the stark fact that rap – in addition to being laughably worthless and disgusting – is also incredibly boring and dated now. It isn’t cutting edge, it isn’t fresh, and it isn’t revolutionary. This isn’t 1991 anymore, and rap has become a tired, corpulent, rotting old genre. It’s not even too much of an exaggeration to say that everyone and their mother now listens to it. One cannot step outside for more than five seconds without hearing someone blasting it from their car, and they literally play it at family diners now. All in all it simply isn’t the new and mysterious phenomenon that it once was, and it’s time for it to die forever."

"After we take power, the despicable ‘musicians’ and other people behind the propagation of rap should be some of the first ones that we liquidate, should any of them still be living by that point."

He felt very strongly about it to leave it in despite it being a personal tangent. I could understand why it irked him if rap was popular in his circles, though popular music in general is filled with similar messages if to lesser degrees.

Me? I'm not against rap. I'm not against rappers. But I am against those thugs.

What does it preach? The worship of wealth and **sensory pleasures The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and **the pathetic ridicule of the weak.

"I hate sexual hedonism and violent alphas punching down on the weak. This is why I'm going to start an armed anti-feminist revolution to guarantee every man's right to fuck, and if the hoes don't like it, tough."

"40 years ago, our great state recognized the intrinsic liberty of at-will employment, and the need to free workers of mandatory union dues. We became a right to work state. Today, I propose we take the next step in the advancement of human liberty; I propose we become a right to fuck state."

I think what irks him about rap is "inferior* males boasting of all the women they got" while he, a Nice Guy, can't even catch a cold.

*Does not have to be about race! It's about "these guys are low-class, trashy, thugs and criminals who undeservedly are getting lots of money and lots of pussy".

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated.

The "please let the shooter be white cis" crowd must be breathing a sigh of relief.

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

You can force a woman to marry you under this regime. You can't make her like you, and I think even the dispossessed men will be frustrated when the woman saddled with them clearly doesn't want to even be in his vicinity and only by force tolerates him around her.

Now, it could sort of work if there were dating bureaus where people did get realistic assessment of "no, you are not going to get Chad/no, you are not going to get the hot anime waifu, this is your level in potential mates" and people have a choice as to whether they hit it off with the assigned date. But if you are relying on force and coercion, you won't get "she really loves and values me for myself" if that's what you're after.

You can get workable relationships that develop into mutual affection and respect over time out of that system, at worst "well I have to get married, might as well be this guy". But I think if you want to think of yourself as "dispossessed", you won't settle for that. You want the hot, desirable girl lusted after by others but she is head-over-heads in love with you and thinks the sun shines out of your backside, not the relationship that's "we're mutual helpmeets in an up-and-down world, let's make the best of things, yes my hair will go gray and I'll get thicker round the middle after having a couple of kids over the decades, you'll go bald and need glasses and forget where you put things, we'll soldier on together".

I don’t think this really defensible after you look at civilized society say 100 years ago. Most people say 90% sorted themselves, changed their minds about what they can expect from the partner that they can get, settled, and learned to love their partner, let’s say varying definitions of love, and they had long relationships, made children, built a family, etc.

To me it seems like what you’re describing are these idealized fantasies that people have before they try to find long term relationships and sort of reset their expectations and self-perception for what they can actually get.

Yeah I mean I know enough relatives who grew up in effectively these conditions (My dad's in his 80s now, has a large number of female siblings most of whom married before 20 to get out of the house/after getting pregnant) and I don't think the average quality of match is some massive departure from what the same women would be doing circa 2025. It's all pulling from the same fundamental social networks for the most part, and 'I'm going to select for somebody who is a somewhat stable wage-earner' as a motivation produces different results to 'I'm going to select for whoever gives me the strongest emotional pull'.

I also feel similar about arranged marriage as a whole. I'm not supporting knifepoint 12 year olds marrying 80 year olds, but I've got Indian friends and that 'strong introduction to somebody of about the same SES as you' pathway seems to work pretty fine on the aggregate? Maybe I have insufficient faith in the ability of people trying to self-source 'love matches'

Well, were we have a winner of "most ineffective terrorist of the week". This event pushed the total tally of "incel" terror attacks worlwide in the last decade to about dozen.

Overall, incels have long way to go to be true menace.

Because most mass shooters are low agency, low competence (Exceptions: Tarrant, Paddock, Breivik). High agency competent people have greater tradeoffs, beware if that changes.

And since there is no trace of "high agency competent people" in incel movement, incel revolution is, so far, cancelled.

Periodically, we see an incel leader who seems to develop a sense of agency from his assumed role, and shortly after finds a girlfriend.

I read (glanced over and noted the arguments) the manifesto, and it leaves me with an awkward feeling.

Basically the guy is pretty much correct on the pure factual level about everything he's seeing.

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

The fact that he analyzed it with lefty-coded language is interesting but doesn't add much insight.

I find his ultimate methods abhorrent, unjustifiable and ineffectual.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome. Solving the problems he identifies requires coordinated efforts.

So I'll keep my points brief:

I've pointed out how Male Grievances are almost never given any legitimate airing in mainstream publications. Indeed, it is exceedingly rare for a male writer to get to publish a piece on gender issues at all!

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

No politician ever voices male grievances as part of a policy platform.

So as this guy found, if you have not built up a large following a la Clavicular, your concerns will never get heard, your voice will never raise above the din of social media. You functionally do not exist.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Oh, and add on that Lone wolf shooters like Luigi Mangione can garner significant female attention.

A lot of guys will connect the dots thusly:

"I have no real hope of getting a wife and happy family in my lifetime. I have no political representation. Nobody will listen to me if I speak out myself. No publications will ever stump for my concerns. I can't organize with other males to advocate for my interests, and if I DO become famous and popular whilst speaking out, I can just be killed in cold blood. However, if I do enough damage and spill enough blood, suddenly I have people paying attention to me... and if I survive I might see increased female attention to boot. Worth a shot."

Something something burning down village to feel warmth.

So my ongoing concern is that we're going to see a serious uptick in young male crashouts that involve (attempts at) mass killings or destruction, many of which won't be as thoughtfully targeted as this one.

Quoth me:

What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?

Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.

This guy was a 25. A Zoomer. The concerns he puts forth in that manifesto are WIDELY HELD amongst Zoomer males.

And these Zoomers are NOT BEING OFFERED A BETTER PATH FORWARD in the status quo.

Solve for Y chromosome.

"lefty-coded language is interesting but doesn't add much insight"

I think it does. He was an atheist, defended migrants while being critical of mass immigration, not seeming to understand that it is speficially heterosexual white males who are at the bottom of the pyramid re. victim status. Even if an Indian or Asian may scorn diversity quotas, he would still be part of a "minority" -- world-wide majorities, as Langan would say -- and above a white man who gets hated in the country his ancestors built and lived in for hundreds of years! Hatfield also was an atheist, somehow thinking that the big questions of "why live?" are somehow answered. Though as Vox Day -- as sex-obsessed as he is -- effectively argues in "The Irrational Atheist" and several blog posts, morality needs a law-giver. If I wanted to kill myself, maybe at the age of six already, why should it not be allowed? I hate life, only live due to having become a Christian (``born-again'') several years ago. Hatfield defended mass murderers like Mao and Stalin, too. What the media writes about this is of no interest, obviously, since they get paid to lie.

This had zero effectiveness in moving the needle on any cause he was pushing; he could have just as effectively taken a dump and made an MRA sculpture out of it.

On the systemic level, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. But they are pointed at something universal and timeless; fair or unfair as they are, they aren't changing now, tomorrow, or a thousand years in the future. The male sex will never be considered a victim sex or a sex worthy of public consideration. That's simply descriptive, not prescriptive.

That doesn't mean policy can't improve things for men, but it can't be on that basis. Get rid of credentialism; don't flood domestic markets with relative low wage competition; end the fad of preferential hiring of women for entry level positions. You can make arguments for those without asking people treat men as a victim sex; do that instead.

On the personal, non-systemic level, he will ironically probably receive orders of magnitude more romantic attention from a certain (unstable, disturbed) minority of women now, though he won't be able to take advantage of it.

This won’t work because even the majority of moderate, normie-adjacent leftists have been exposed to lots of 3rd wave feminist messaging and are now wise to this tactic. They will dismiss this narrative as loser-coded and claim that instead of being motivated by noble ideals of meritocracy, legal equality and civic nationalism, you just want to advantage shitty, entitled, reactionary and sex-starved garbage human males because you see them as your anti-feminist ingroup.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

Spend 10% of what US college degree costs to go live in the Philippines for a year or two and marry a Filipina hottie? He should have definitely at least tried that first.

You don't want to do this. It doesn't end well.

Only for foreign guys who marry the female equivalent of Chad. Guys move half way across the world for a "traditional wife" and then are shocked when marrying some girl they met in a bar ends in tears.

Could you elaborate a little? I can hypothesise some issues, but I have no direct exposure.

Seems like a big upgrade on “impotent terrorism and/or suicide by cop.”

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

The example to prove the rule: https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2068603499516989781

Rupert Lowe's candidate pulled <10% of the vote in Makersfield and I think Restore has similar numbers nationally. The only time I've seen a political candidate explicitly flag men's issues like this and it's the "call me racist, I do not care; they all have to go back" one.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Has the "death of the author" already kicked off merely a year+ later? Kirk was not killed for being an MRA he was killed for being a trad conservative influencer and particularly for being anti-lgbtq+. Any man that looks at this as "I can't become famous and speak out about men's dating woes or I'll be killed" is delusional. Your histrionics about this are actively a detriment to people taking men's problems as a class serious. There are a whole host of old MRA folks still around and kicking: Peterson, Farrell, Elam, Straughan, Pizzey, Hoff Sommers, etc. Nobody is killing MRAs for advocating for men.

Whilst I'd agree with the sentiment that Charlie Kirk's anti-trans stuff was most likely the thing that motivated his assassination, the polarization around him and him being treated like the antichrist by people on the left side of the Aisle was more a gestalt of his entire collection of opinions IMO

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

Yeah, but he was only 25 (if the reports I'm reading are correct) and a guy whose first impulse when faced with problems is "grab guns, plan out mass shooting" is not - and I may be wrong here - the most stable kind of boyfriend you would prefer. What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

I wouldn't imply this guy was bound for a happy ending, or that ANY woman was going to be a good fit for him.

But on the margins, the fewer stable relationships formed, the more you got guys who might have otherwise been able to get some kind of fulfillment from a family who are instead left out in the cold, and MIGHT be pushed into this sort of action. And to the extent guys like this can't even harbor a HOPE of getting a relationship, more of them might decide to not even try, and then the question is what they do with their lives.

They're not bought in to the future of their society, so where should they direct their efforts?

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

Also, since when did women, in general, actually prefer 'stable' boyfriends? Recall my point about Luigi getting fangirls. Although being conventionally attractive helps.

Part of this guy's whole argument is that women are selecting for traits like aggression, short temper, capacity for violence.

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

It has but they should take another look: https://carmelitegothic.com/

The fifth clip is monk cowboys... https://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.php

I found my retirement plan if the dating game doesn't work out in the next 3ish years.

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane. Especially when it's a guy who killed his last wife/girlfriend. Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

But historically there have been lots of guys who never got married, and lots of 'old maids', even in the days before women were allowed work or be independent of a man. There have always been losers in the reproduction stakes.

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane.

People draw wild, overgeneralized inferences from this. Supposing 1% of women are sufficiently deranged to get turned on by and reach out to serial killers. In the modern media ecosystem, that serial killer would receive millions of contacts indicating interest. Usually, it's more like hundreds (and, notably, only for the particularly handsome; I'd be curious about the more typical serial killer numbers). A cute female serial killer would probably receive thousands.

A vanishing minority of both sexes think like that.

How many cute female serial killers are there? We can't make the comparison directly because women tend to be accomplices, not killers themselves. I can tell you that Myra Hindley, for one, was not getting love letters from attracted men.

Takaoka Yuka got quite a lot of fandom - not a serial killer, but we started out discussing murderers in general (okay, sure, she didn't manage to kill him, so she's an attempted murderer, but it's the thought that counts).

I used to moderate a board for stalkers/fans of stalkers, and there was a lot of love for her there. I remember saying on said board that she probably didn't deserve as much sympathy as lots of them were extending - because while yeah, sure, host bars are designed to hook people into whaling away vast sums of money on parasocial fake romance, and as such getting murdered by angry customers is absolutely an occupational hazard that's baked in, Yuka was a hostess herself and thus couldn't really claim ignorance or innocence of that game.

Not a serial killer, but Casey Anthony got plenty of male simps despite killing her kid ("allegedly"). But that's probably because she was decently attractive and she presented herself as the partygirl slut archetype.

Yeah, I don't get it. My wires may be crossed for weirdness, but not that weird. It's like the women who are the 'other woman' or a mistress in an affair, going online to their own sub-Reddit about how the guy has been sneaking around on his wife and lying to her and constructing almost a double life for five years, but oh noes he still hasn't got that divorce so we can marry, like he promised me back at the start! Yeah, of course he hasn't you dummy, a guy who has demonstrated he's a cheater and liar when it comes to intimate affairs and you think he's not lying to you?

Well you say that..

"Academic and journalistic reviews of these massive files confirm that alongside hate mail, Hindley routinely received fan mail, expressions of romantic infatuation, and explicit marriage proposals from male strangers."

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Having someone willing to kill for you is sometimes fairly useful, particularly if you are bad at killing people. It was considerably more useful in the EEA, as @IGI-111 notes.

Yeah, but "guy convicted for violently assaulting/raping/killing previous partners" is not a good bet on "but the leopard will never eat my face".

Well, I was more addressing the "murderer" part than the specific "black widower" part.

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Your children inherit the drive and ability for violence which makes them more fit in a setting where this is rewarded, which was most of human prehistory. Evolution barely cares about the fact that you might get killed by the violent partner you picked so long as you can survive long enough to have children that survive you both.

If people couldn't turn off their rational self interest in the service of genetic fitness, humanity would have gone extinct long ago. You can call people who act on their instincts insane, antisocial, what have you, that doesn't change the existence of the instincts.

Guys violent to their partners tend to be violent to offspring as well, and mothers who can't protect themselves and their kids die early and leave no lasting genetic heritage.

It's a bit of a 'just-so' story, and I think the real answer is simpler: it's mental derangement, the same as other mental illnesses. We can dress it up all we like that "well, illness X must have some benefit or else it wouldn't have survived this long, it would have been evolved away" but we can see that craziness has survived over the generations just fine.

Mental illnesses stem from necessary processes or they wouldn't exist. Indeed almost every single one is simply an acute version of a healthy and necessary mode of thinking.

Moreover I think the attraction falls of the same cliff the returns of violent tendencies do in proportion to the danger to offspring. Purposeful killers that these women can talk themselves into thinking they can get on the good side of is far more attractive than indiscriminate low inhibition brutes, but they are both more attractive than a male rape victim, all things being equal.

That's like saying cancer stems from necessary processes or it wouldn't exist. Yeah, cancer is a physical process gone wrong, but it'll still kill ya. Same with mental illnesses - there is no cosy justification for wife-beaters that "oh but this is evo-psych, she wants my violent genes so the kids will succeed, so it's okay if I slap her around and threaten to murder the kids, I'm just demonstrating my genetic fitness!"

More comments

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

You don't solve societal problems on your lonesome. You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

Neither is easy, obviously. If you are of a sufficiently analytical mind, you can't just turn that off on command and genuinely believe that everything is fine. But the other option is a degree of enlightenment that is likely only attainable by the few.

Much more likely then that you just kinda suffer from a lack of romance, sex, and community for the rest of your days.

That said, I think most of this pain will be directed inwards. It is very hard to do stuff in the real world when your need for community is unmet. You just don't have the energy. Much easier to rage on the internet. If anything this will probably just lead to more self harm amongst men, which I doubt society will care much about.

You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

The third option is you lash out at the system itself. For a lone wolf this won't be particularly impactful.

I mean, Clavicular is maybe the ur-example of "lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all," he's only twenty years old and is clearly depressed at the life he's now 'stuck' in (by his own doing, naturally). This won't hold over the long term.

Where do we go from here?

MY personal belief is that once we start to lose the Boomers, the primary bulwark against political changes in this country, a LOT of political options that were previously stymied will come on the table.

We might be able to limit how extreme those options end up being.

I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.

It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.

That's where they rack up a body count.

That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.

It burns 4+ years of fertility.

In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

Probably not (see The Case Against Education). They were already lefties to begin with. Alexa, play the George Orwell quote.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

So you're saying that they were already indoctrinated in high school?

My thesis is that they're just way more susceptible to virtually any ideological brainwashing, just as the Orwell quote implies.

And college is completely captured by lefties at every level, so, that's where the brainwashing pushes them.

College is in my view a large part of the problem. Social Media and Tiktok is another. Arguably that's the mechanism through which they police each others' behavior once they're out of college.

College is in my view a large part of the problem.

It's a nice thesis. It has the disadvantage of conflicting with empirical evidence, though.

More comments

That's where they rack up a body count.

Then the answer is simple: men should now assume the responsibility that was traditionally put upon women, to curb the sensual appetites of the male (or rather, in this case, female). You should have self-respect and discipline, and gently but firmly decline to have anything to do with hanky-panky outside marriage!

After all, women can't "rack up a body count" without guys willing to be those bodies, now can they?

CORRECT.

My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.

But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.

I've already munched on that bullet.

I think we're in broad agreement here. Complaints about racking up body counts tend to be "but she wouldn't sleep with me, the bitch!" more than "it is shocking that the gentle and modest damsel is corrupted into these worldly lusts, alas".

More comments

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

That's simply not going to fly, for as long as people believe in blank statism. Unfortunately, the belief in blank statism has been self-reinforcing, due to policies under its belief leading to less competent people getting elevated to positions of status and power, leading to less rigor and more nonsense being taught as true, leading to more people believing in blank statism. Unfortunately, the beatings will continue until morale improves, or until enough of society is destroyed enough such that no one has the energy to carry out any more beatings than necessary to fend off starvation for one more day. I have no idea how to escape this cycle outside of maybe pinning my hopes on AI actually enabling fully automated luxury Communism, but that's a long shot.

This is why I've said that if I were to become emperor of Earth, one of my first decrees would be to outlaw all demographic-based statistical analysis, under penalty of summary execution, with all civilians being deputized to carry out this punishment. It probably wouldn't be enough to fix it either, but it seems like less of a long shot than AI saving us.

blank statism

Probably a typo that you made a few times, but also an accurate description of current government efforts to address various demographic disparities.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Should be return to to 1978 as in 1979 women reach gender parity in attending college. I'm not sure people get how long we've had an egalitarian society, but we are coming up on 50 years. So unless your theory can account for the 14 years prior to 1993 as being ok, you should probably adjust it.

My suspicion is that the rise of 'useless' genders studies degrees and major overproduction of women with degrees took off in the 90's, hence why we didn't really get a swarm of SJWs until the 2010s.

Colleges were hives of leftist thought long before then, but that was counterbalanced by there being ample alternative routes for one's career before that point.

Also, look at the stats on women getting Masters and Doctorate degrees to see where the problem became SERIOUS.

A far wiser man than either of us once noted that the principled application of left-wing equality and classism rhetoric results in sexual justice for incels.

A not insubstantial reason for the rightward shift of young men is that they notice that the left applies Marxist logic to every problem except the one problem that they are bothered by most of all.

"A far wiser man than either of us once noted that the principled application of left-wing equality and classism rhetoric results in sexual justice for incels."

Well, left winger would answer that sex is not necessity like food and shelter, and historically aware person would answer that lack of sex is not revolutionary force, that all historically documented revolts and revolutions were triggered by shortage of food, not sex.

Ahem:

“You can’t compare this to, like, poor people who complain about being poor. Food and stuff are basic biological human needs! Sex isn’t essential for life! It’s an extra, like having a yacht, or a pet tiger!”

I know that feminists are not always the biggest fans of evolutionary psychology. But I feel like it takes a special level of unfamiliarity with the discipline to ask “Sure, evolution gave us an innate desire for material goods, but why would it give us an deep innate desire for pair-bonding and reproduction??!”

And they'd be so wrong it's actually kind of embarassing.

Unmarried men surplus is probably one of the most well established predictors of political instability, it's just not as strong as famine, and it tends to coincide through banditry.

"Partheniae"

Mostly mythical event "at least three distinct traditions", and not rebellion - sending excess populaiton overseas to found new city was SOP at the time. None of the traditions say that Partheniae wanted to get laid, but to get land of their own.

"Sabine women"

Pure mythical event.

"Nian Rebellion"

From your own source:

"Their slogan was "'kill the rich and aid the poor.". Not: "Let's get laid!"

"Crusades"

Economic motive for crusades is completely discredited by modern scholarship - crusading was never profitable, emarking on crusade ruined both ordinary nobles and great kings, but they persevered for centuries, as if they really believed in Holy Land. And sex motive was never ever proposed by anyone.

If lack of sex is common motive for revolutions and urprisings, you would be able to cite numerous examples from well documented history, where well fed and comfortable people go set the world aflame just because they can't get laid.

I did not bring up the crusades and as you point out they are not relevant, so I don't see why you have to reflexively bring up Riley-Smith. The existence of the juvenis as a class generated by primogeniture, which is Duby's central relevant claim here is far less controversial.

And if that is criticized it's under the auspices of primogeniture not being as universal as he assumed, not because it can't mechanically generate the social class he names and its set of incentives.

As to the Nian Rebellion, I'm just going to straight up link the article that makes the relevant claim https://kar.kent.ac.uk/11430/1/surplus_men_IS_article.pdf I think it's a bit silly to deny that the Guang gun existed as a class because you want to believe bandit slogans literally.

Moreover, these are but the most famous examples, you can draw from an almost endless well here, James Barrett or Ben Raffield have made this same argument for the Viking invasions among others: https://profmarkcollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Raffield-et-al-2017-EHB.pdf

The claim that a surplus of unmarried men generates social instability because it creates incentives for defection and banditry is supported by a lot of cross discipline scholarship. I could also have mentionned the work of Laura Betzig which goes over a similar argument on 104 societies, surely that's numerous examples enough: https://www.academia.edu/48337408/Despotism_and_Differential_Reproduction_A_Darwinian_View_of_History

Now it's not airtight and beyond question, what is in social sciences, but the idea that this widely shared and not fringe at all thesis is something that an "historically aware" person could dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous.

Indeed thé crusaders bragged about being unusually non-rapey by the (low)standards of armies at the time. We can probably take this with a grain of salt, but it does indicate sex wasn’t the motive(armies which are motivated by sex slaves tend to brag about how many and how beautiful their captured women are).

Just because you don’t believe in medieval Catholicism doesn’t mean they didn’t.

A not insubstantial reason for the rightward shift of young men is that they notice that the left applies Marxist logic to every problem except the one problem that they are bothered by most of all.

No joke, this is one core reason Marxist movements will always fail, since sexual reproduction is a massive bottleneck, and yet by all lefty logic every person should be 'entitled' to reproduce, yet women are biologically wired to jealously guard their own reproduction, so 'distribution' of sexual contact, let alone actual reproduction, will ALWAYS turn hierarchical, unequal, and skewed towards the 'attractive' males, whilst attractiveness itself is never equally distributed.

Capitalism is unique in that it solves this in a way that enables a man not endowed with reproductive value at birth to channel his energies away from zero-sum conflict toward things (productive economic value) that benefit both himself and society.

I wouldn't say that's unique to capitalism, you are describing most functional social orders throughout history, hell probably the very concept of civilization as a whole.

"one core reason Marxist movements will always fail"

Strange that failure of IRL Marxism (after brilliant success after success that culminated in Marxist governments controlling one third of human race) had nothing to do with this "core reason".

No one opponent of Marxism, whether outside or inside Marxist states, ever cited lack of sex as reason why Marxism is wrong.

Yes, Marxism has multiple "core" reasons for failure; it's probably reasonable at a certain point to just call them reasons.

Still: can you imagine any factors that muddy the link between "X is a reason that Marxism fails" and "X is reported as a reason that Marxism fails"?

For example: can you imagine a social incentive against saying "I oppose X because it leads to me having less sex?"

I don't think the lack of explicitly reporting a particular reason is good evidence the the reason wasn't important.

But people being "entitled to reproduce" was never an actual issue in Marxist societies?

It's not clear to me how that connects to my comment.

Its not lack of sex, its the basic impossibility of economic calculation when society reaches a certain level of complexity.

The problem is, the distribution of sex is intractable at EVERY level above, maybe, the village, without some distributed coordination method.

Go look at various attempts at forming small scale communes and see how many of those failed because one guy started hogging all the women despite the representation that it was all about free love and equality. Okay, its also because all the labor ultimately fell on the men, or a small subset of them, they can't even get the distribution of LABOR right in these cases.

Ironically, you're thinking too big. Not every "Marxist movement" is the Soviet Union.

Oh, and just a note guess what China has to start cracking down on in the name of Marxism.

Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.

Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.

This issue is even more present in hyper-capitalist Korea and Japan it doesn't have anything to do with Marxism. It has to do with Asian family social structures being traditional while the economic structure has become more egalitarian along with small family size. Women don't want to get married because they are expected to work, take care of the house hold, take care of the children, take care of her husbands parents and take care of her parents. It's gotten to where Asian families are attempting to unload the entire social burden of an extended family onto one 28 year old woman it's not sustainable and is a big part of the collapse of birthrates and marriage in these societies.

China under Mao didn't have these problems. Many other more horrific ones but not these ones.

Videos:

A combined angle synchronized of three videos: https://x.com/The_Tradesman1/status/2069354541657804927

Closer distance, clearest view of female cop probably shooting the civilian (reported a Rabbi?): https://x.com/Breaking911/status/2069136830054727705

Longer distance: https://x.com/Breaking911/status/2069111728852414927

Video backups:

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069354457117388802/vid/avc1/1280x720/5HMLCJhzDVe_P9pw.mp4

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069136759535837184/vid/avc1/356x640/5a2XMFxz2oj710_8.mp4

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069111662708195328/vid/avc1/528x944/7WQTnZ_PspNQhDlz.mp4

Manifesto backup:

https://files.catbox.moe/he2mxy.pdf

Or you can just use the Kiwi Farms thread. (I think people have mentioned previously that Catbox blocks access from many locations. It also has an explicit rule against uploading "heavy gore".)

With modern technology, one would think that it would be possible to put women in frontline combat roles. Yet empirically, this doesn’t happen. Watching videos of the shooting, it hit me that there must be some psychological “it” factor for tactical situations that women don’t reliably have.

I think most men lack it as well but those that don't just tear it apart. I think it was Generation Kill where I learned that a tactic when ambushed is to leave the vehicles and "assault through" the ambush. 1st Recon had zero KIA.

You can beat it into men, and if in the process you destroy a few you can't beat it into, nobody cares. That's what military training is about.

A Communist incel angry about free internet porn going spree shooting, leading to a Canadian woman cop killing a Jewish figure hits so many culture war points that it basically proves the simulation hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt.

I had previously wrote a comment about how there are certain events that are "culture war nexuses" that somehow seem to bring a million things together into one incident

He also picked what some are saying to be the neigborhood of pornhub's parent company. Some are even saying the jewish man who was shot worked at pornhub. (unverified)

That's a very painful watch. It's not so absolutely clear that I want to stake a wager on it, but there's... very few alternative explanations I can come up with. Doubly so in Canada; it's not like the cop could argue that she though it was a CCWer gone mad.

((Extremely dark humor: given the allegations that the shooter was incel- or incel-adjacent, it looks like even going on a spree shooting wouldn't make a woman hit him.))

The Hilton in question is literally across the street from Aylo (Pornhub) headquarters. Aylo is listed on Google maps, it's easy to verify. It would be an insane coincidence if that was not his target.

My guess is that this incident will get pushed out of the news cycle pretty quickly. Only one civilian was killed, and based on video taken of the incident, many online suspect that the female police officer accidentally shot and killed him. There is video of the civilian fleeing towards her position, the police officer appearing to be startled, pointing her firearm towards him, and then the man falls to the ground. Police refuse to confirm or deny this.

Fucking hell, man.

Relevant life advice from Sam Hyde:

"If you ever catch the eye of a female cop: I hope you wore your bulletproof vest. I hope you have your vest on, man. I am praying for you, unironically. Because that gun on her waist at some point is going to accidentally go off. She's going to draw it out thinking it's a taser, she's going to have her finger on the trigger before she's ready to fire. Something you did made her feel threatened. You're taller than her, she feels threatened for her life. The only recouse she has physically is to shoot you."

My guess is that she passed through the police academy with lowered physical standards compared to her male counterparts. Fundamental negligence in governance.

There is video of the civilian fleeing towards her position, the police officer appearing to be startled, pointing her firearm towards him, and then the man falls to the ground. Police refuse to confirm or deny this.

Local media claimed it, claiming sources close to the investigation confirmed it.

C’est à ce moment qu’un passant, Michael Mizrahi, un commerçant de 68 ans, se retrouve dans la ligne de tir alors qu’il va s’acheter une boisson tout près de sa boutique de vêtements sur le chemin Devonshire. Sur la même vidéo, on voit l’homme surgir derrière la policière, arrivant du côté d’où tire le suspect. Dans le chaos, l’agente abat le sexagénaire. Son décès sera confirmé au début de l’après-midi. Des sources proches de l’enquête nous ont confirmé que c’est bien la patrouilleuse qui a tiré.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2026-06-23/fusillade-dans-cote-des-neiges/le-tireur-a-montreal-pour-viser-pornhub.php

Broke: High status men are the real danger to society because they're too right-wing.

Woke: Incels are the real danger to society because they're too right-wing.

Bespoke: Incels are the real danger to society because they're too left-wing.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?

People making this general argument on the motte are rightwing traddies or dissident righties. Another piece of evidence for horseshoe theory. Are there even outed Marxists on the Motte at this point? Our ideological diversity leans pretty right, such that people that are left of the motte average are more likely to be centrists, and a few dissident progressives. I'm not sure I remember any outspoken old-school Marxists in the last 3 years.

To be fair, to notice the modern society's atomization and hypergami ills you already need to be not in the middle of the overton window politically. Normies are too busy watching the footy/superbowl/whatever they call hokey to care about this stuff.

I think this demographic makeup dates back to the SSC days. Even in 2019, Scott noted that he attracted readers across the political spectrum, with the exception of Marxists.

He banned the pre-eminent Marxist of his time, Marxbro.

Freddie de Boer being a major exception. He's worth like 50 readers alone.

Let's take a pause from the gender politics and think about the Canadian language politics. If Seth Hatfield is the perp's real name, then this is an Anglo-Canadian incel who wrote a manifesto in English (based on a quick skim of the citations, I don't think the author is familiar with Francophone culture) and travelled to Quebec to commit incel terrorism.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

They will be too busy trying to get the SKS added to the list of banned rifles -- although watching him fumble with the stripper clip to reload makes me think that The System Is Working, maybe?

Clearly the SKS is only about as dangerous to the general public as the average cop.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

I was going to disagree, but Marc Lepine seems further outside normal French Canadian culture than I remembered, with an Algerian father and growing up for a few years in the Caribbean.

Even discounting that one, I don't think we in Quebec can really give anyone lessons, not even americans, when it comes to grisly random shootings/murders per capita.

I mean, QC can certainly give Americans a lesson on how best to throw your weight around and fuck up the rest of the country using that as an excuse. It's why it's politically important for the guy to be from AB, too.

Of course, those consequences also directly led to Tumblr Ridge, so...

It was reported early on that he's albertan.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

No one here in the media care to do so, the "incels are an omnipresent danger" is a more important narrative for our elites than any grandstanding about our obvious and unquestionably superior culture ;)

We're just RETVRNING to tradition when 17 women reproduced for every man. Ignore the rest of the schizobabble about how everyone gets laid under communism or whatever.

Possible explanations:

(1) It's the patriarchy, my friend. Older males hogged all the nubile women for themselves, and they preferred to hand over their marriageable daughters to men of similar status to themselves. Dowries and bride prices meant that only the successful families could afford to have their daughters married off, and this left a lot of young men stranded since they didn't have resources to marry.

That's slightly tongue-in-cheek, but Irish history pre- and post-Famine show huge changes in marriage; before that, marriages happened young because you could always further sub-divide that plot of land, give some to a son, he grew potatoes - the wonder crop - on it and that fed a family. Post-Famine, marriages took place at older ages, inheriting land and property became concentrated around the eldest son, the eldest daughter might get married or be consigned to the role of care-taker for the aging parents in the family home. Wars and famines do make huge cultural changes.

(2) It's the patriarchy, two: polygamy, where men married more than one bride (e.g. sisters married off to one man, cousins marrying cousins, as in this movie about a 15th century Hindu devotee who marries his two cousins). Also, have you seen how the Roman upper classes married and divorced multiple times for political alliances, for one example?

(3) Widowers. Women die in childbirth and post-puerperal. A man left with a child or children will probably remarry quickly, and men can have several wives over their lifespan in this manner.

Here is everyone We're just RETVRNING to tradition when 17 women reproduced for every man

A reminder for anyone reading what that statistic actually entailed. Clan warfare that wipes out male lineages, not massive harems.

There is a gigantic difference between the male-line/female-line extinction rate ratio and the number of women who reproduce per every male.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats