Mr. Trump Goes to the United Kingdom

trumpqueen

President Trump has been greeted by the secular orthodox with unthinking hostility as he visits the United Kingdom.

The Guardian, which prides itself on being the vanguard of what is vaingloriously called “progressivism”, eagerly reported on the protests attended by a broad cross-section of feminists, professional agitators, communists, student radicals, transgender activists, and opportunity sniffing politicians. Many of the attendees interviewed did not appear to have jobs and nearly all of the photographs of the protests show a high ratio of women to men. One suspects that many of the protesters are state subsidised in some way.

Although all the protesters were smug and professed apoplectic rage, some were more smug and outraged than others. None more so than the left-wing politicians giving speeches, each of which seemed enormously pleased with themselves.

It has not yet occurred to these politicians that hitching a ride on a sinking ship is not very smart. Cheap tickets on the Titanic do not work out to be quite as much a bargain as they may first seem. In the same way, the identarian, virtue-signalling, minority fundamentalist form of politics is experiencing the first signs of striking an iceberg in within the Western world. Intelligent politicians would do well to disembark instead of trying to clamber aboard and throw the engines into high gear.

Firstly, identarian politics is no longer is doing much other than providing an easy way for people to climb the ladder of their public careers. Secondly, it has become a parody of itself as it embraces a philosophy that is nakedly unsustainable and irrational. A brand of politics is always in trouble when it starts becoming funny.

Thirdly it is doing genuine harm to people for whom the most compassionate thing anyone could give them is a dose of reality. Locking people in a prison of their own delusions and pretending those delusions are true is as cruel as treating a sick person as if he were healthy; or releasing a madman into the community and holding him to standards designed for the sane.

Fourthly, minority fundamentalism has become cancerous on the body politic, using vicious and intimidating thuggery to try to silence dissent. From shrieks of “microaggression” as medieval villagers might once have cried “witch!”, to the documented efforts to get people fired for having beliefs disfavoured by the identarian drones, it constitutes an attack on free thought, free speech, and the once-assumed right people had in a democracy to freely differ from others and still be accepted as citizens.

Lastly, (and it is jolly good news), identarian politics is also beginning to disintegrate from within. It is destroying and excluding its own practitioners as seen in the Pride 2018 parade just a few weeks ago in the United Kingdom, where the organisers literally apologised for the parade being led by lesbian TERFS. These lesbians now feel excluded from their own movement, as explained in their campaign cheerfully titled, “Get the L out of here”. I will write more on the internal war between second wave feminists and the transgender movement in a future article, but it is noteworthy that this internecine conflict has already turned violent. There has been a court hearing in the United Kingdom involving the battery of a 60 year-old feminist by a young transgender activist and (in all probability) a female friend.

These are the sorts of people – yes, with a smattering of kind but woolly-headed old lefties wearing floppy sun hats – who turned out to greet Trump. They did not greet him as the man with whom the United Kingdom will rely upon heavily to secure a favourable trade deal for its economic future. The risk of national economic upheaval was not enough to dampen their truly mindless rancor. It gives credence to the moral (and theological) view that even human self-interest will be set aside for the sake of resentment. After all, it is the petty resentments of sinners that cause them to embrace fiery damnation forever rather than kneel before the Almighty and receive paradise.

Trump is not detested by this crowd because they can articulate with reasonable detail any of his policies to which they object. They tend to paint in broad bush strokes using a simple, vivid narrative structure that omits much need for thought – e.g. “He’s locking up children on the border!” or “He’s a misogynist!”.

The majority of the protesters do not give the impression of being particularly bright, alas. It is certainly questionable whether most of the protesters would be able to make a rational case against the policies or issues they claim to oppose.

The Spectator demonstrated as much in a hilarious article written by Lloyd Evans, who did some boots-on-the-streets work and actually went out and interviewed the anti-Trump protesters. Evans found they had a very fuzzy grasp on politics altogether with instances of truly symbolic grandstanding on the streets. For instance, the communists were out in force. Evans offered an amusing account on his effort at trying to score a free copy of a communist newspaper from a communist newsstand as he imbibed the atmosphere of the protest. Needless to say, he could find no communist willing to give him a freebie not even during the crisis of Trump’s visit! Capitalism, Evans found, is alive and well among the purveyors of Marxist worldviews in the United Kingdom.

Evans also wrote about a man selling t-shirts commemorating the protest. According to Evans, the t-shirts were being sold at 10 pounds a piece, and the seller reported that he was doing a ripping trade, parting with about six shirts every 10 minutes. The shirts carried simple, unimaginative anti-Trump slogans, such as “No to Trump”, but a masterstroke lay in the printing of the date upon the shirt: “London July 13th 2018”. As Evans correctly inferred, this was attractive to protesters trying to build a personal archive of their activism. It was a way for them to say, “I was there.”.

All of the source material coming from the protests suggests that the animosity toward Trump really has very little to do with concerns for the best interests of their country (after all, what other reputable capital city would fly a “baby blimp” over its ancient institutions in order to purposefully insult the world’s most important leader? And what kind of mayor is Sadiq Khan to give permission for such a stunt?). The animosity is not even driven by a knowledgeable repudiation of Trump’s international or domestic policies.

Rather, the rhetoric at these protests reveals that the hostility principally arises from what Trump represents: he is a symbol of the imminent funeral of identarian, virtue-signalling, snowflake-nurturing, safe-space building, minority fundamentalism. The desperation of those wedded to identarian politics is palpable, for they can hear – as yet afar off – the audible chiming of the end of their era. And not before time. The suspension of rationality shown by the practitioners of identarian politics is frightening to behold.

The following interviews and comments were published in the Guardian demonstrating this in spades. The Guardian evidently felt this would be convincing. But to whom? The commentary seems like a black hole at the terminus of rationality.

Corbyn attacked the US president for his comments on Thursday that Boris Johnson would “make a great prime minister”, saying it was “not his business who the British prime minister is”.

Addressing a packed square, Corbyn said: “We are asserting our rights to democracy, our rights to freedom of speech and our rights to want a world that is not divided by misogyny, racism and hate.”

It is not surprising that Jeremy Corbyn should jump on the opportunity to address the minority fundamentalists because this is his meal ticket. That his audience were minority fundamentalists is evident from the language Corbyn chooses to use. With his politician’s acumen, he has sensed precisely what kind of language he needed to use to tap into this rich vein of emotion, hostility, and best of all, resentment. Resentment springs eternal in the human breast, and no modern politician can go far wrong if he provides both succor and justification for the resentments that crackle among the masses.

In true form, Corbyn tried to put a noble gloss on what is a crass political surge. This is seen in the conceit that the protesters had gathered to “assert rights” to democracy, as if they were latter-day revolutionaries standing up against a malignant tyrant. It is a supreme irony indeed that democracy is most threatened by the disdain for free speech shown by the bullying and oppressive cloud of identarian snowflakes currently swirling in a blizzard through London.

Corbyn’s own dislike for the sinews of democracy (freedom to think and speak as one pleases) – as well as his willful misrepresentation of Trump’s comments – is obvious in his remark here. For when Trump expresses an opinion about Boris Johnson, this is professed by Corbyn to be a kind of political interference in the internal workings of the United Kingdom. Therein one finds a thinly-veiled appeal to nationalism, with the subtext, “Who will rid us of this troublesome American?“. This, in its own right is remarkable because national identity is the one identity class in existence, other than religious identity, that identarian fundamentalists seem to both loathe and fear.

Of course the usual meaningless buzzwords are inserted: “misogynist”, “racism”, and “hate”. One may well ask: what does any of this actually mean? How can Trump hate women when he is married to one and has a devoted daughter who by all accounts both respects and loves her father? Is Trump a “misogynist” because he is crass? Or is he a misogynist because he does not conform precisely to the wishes of the feminist movement? Is Trump’s immigration policies racist because he wishes to stop the uncontrolled traffic of human being across the United States’ southern borders?

These words are utterly bereft of meaning.

In our brave new world, however, even asking questions about this terminology is regarded as “offensive” or a “microaggression”. Thus, crucial terms pass undefined and without scrutiny. Their meaning gets wider over time because there is no objective authority to delineate the boundaries of the terminology. It is at this point that language become dangerous and slippery because when words no longer have fixed meanings, there cannot be a shared reality. When there is no share reality, true discourse becomes impossible. All that is left is assertion, uncritical acceptance, and censure. Liberty itself – which is predicated on a shared reality – becomes hostage to minority fundamentalism.

The identarian words Corbyn pumps out with his chilling mechanical style, no longer describe specific attitudes or behaviours. Rather, they are synonyms for “bad”. Corbyn is really saying that Trump is “really, really, really bad” and that women and non-Caucasian people should be really, really, really worried.

Among the Americans who turned out was Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for the US adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had an affair with Trump. Avenatti said he was there to send a message to “our brothers and sisters here in the UK and around the world that … there’s millions of Americans that are outraged by his conduct and by his behaviour.”

Here, the Guardian uncritically references a lawyer working for an “adult film star” (that description is a purposeful effort to soften the fact that she was involved in the pornography industry, which many feminists argue exploits women). The lawyer and his client are engaged in a sordid court action against Trump. The whole affair is tawdry to the maximum level.

That there might possibly be a less-than-altruistic motive at work here never seems to occur to the Guardian.

I suspect most Americans are not at liberty to take a casual holiday in the United Kingdom in order to attend a political protest. It would be nice to be so empowered. Furthermore, I suspect very few thoughtful Americans would arrive with such singularly uninteresting commentary.

Mr Avenatti’s statement to the press is monumentally boring in the sense that it says nothing of significance and is laced with hyperventilating superlatives that now seem to be the vogue. In effect he travels to another country, marches in the streets, gets his name into the press (by virtue of aforesaid tawdry court action not because he says anything interesting), all so that he might inform the world that there is opposition to the president within the United States.

He seems to think this might come as a revelation to the world. Perhaps he could point to a single elected leader of a democratic country that has no domestic opposition?

In Soho in London, a group of house music DJs including A Guy Called Gerald performed on a giant sound system under the banner “No to Brexit, no to Trump, no to Theresa May”. The actor Laura Carmichael, who played Lady Edith Crawley in Downton Abbey, held an “End Violence Against Women” banner.

The confusion of issues here is palpable. There are threads of Brexit, meshed with distaste for Theresa May’s government, blended with a little violence against women for good measure. These (and other issues) mingle in a cold, jellylike blob that must seek a bogeyman. This is hardly ideologically coherent.

Hundreds of protesters gathered outside City Hall in Belfast and thousands gathered at George Square in Glasgow.

Among them were Roberta Logan, 32, and her sons Magnus, six, and Aidan, three. “It felt important to bring them today to teach them to stand up against things that are wrong,” Logan said.

Roberta Logan deigns to explain precisely what she means by “things that are wrong”, against which she is supposedly teaching her sons to stand. Although her stated aims are laudable, it is questionable whether the lesson will stick. At the age of six, young Magnus is still learning how to read and write and may just be starting to work on his lower multiplication tables. Later in life he may dimly recollect the hullabaloo, but he is certainly not mature enough to understand the “wrong things” without the issues being simplified down to the level of lies. As for young Aidan, unless he is a particularly precocious three year old (as Kim Jong Un is purported to be, driving a car at the age of three), he will certainly not remember the protest nor will he learn anything from it.

If I could hazard a guess, I would like to bet that Roberta turned out for the protest for her own reasons. Her children, nonetheless, formed a perfect virtue-signalling opportunity when approached by the press. For what better way to communicate the depth of your disdain for a leader than by insisting – contrary to all common sense – that what you are doing for yourself you are really doing for others? And surely the best of all virtue-signalling is to seek to inculcate your uncomprehending children with the purest identarian values.

The declaration of the impossible is the apotheosis of minority fundamentalism. You show your devotion best with assertions that are overblown to the point of irrationality, or which are physically or mentally impossible. Like the claim that a three year old child is really being taught to oppose Trump. The only thing that surprises me in this article is that the Guardian was unable to find a protester with a dog, professing to be in attendance in order to nourish the political well-being of his canine.

Emily Darnell, 40, an executive assistant from Haywards Heath in West Sussex, made a banner that tipped its hat to Mary Poppins, reading: “Super Callous Fragile Racist Sexist Nazi Potus.”

“Trump is just a vile, vile man so I felt really motivated to come here,” she said. “I think it is really important that so many people are here so that he knows how Britain feels and how women feel about him. He is such a loser.”

At Oxford Circus in London, James O’Brien from Ireland was selling Donald Trump toilet paper, calling out: “The most satisfaction you can have in a toilet, kids.”

Anne Howard said she thought protester numbers had been bolstered by Trump’s “insulting behaviour” to Theresa May in his interview with the Sun published on Friday.

Lastly, we have a final illustration of the intellectual quality of the protest. This section seems both grotesque and childish, a combination that has long been a stock-in-trade for the horror genre whose authors have learned how to turn the innocent accouterments of childhood into repulsive, disturbing and degrading narratives.

You will note that here Emily Darnell believes herself to be the mouthpiece of both “Britain” and “women”, which must surely come as a surprise to the British women who do not find Trump to be the pantomime villain she believes him to be. Naturally, her opposition arises from her disdain for him as a person, and she expresses this by corrupting a fun nonsense word from an innocent family movie into a lengthy insult. Her sad parody of the Mary Poppins song, it must be said, has the characteristics of the ungainly word salad so beloved by the left, yet is completely emptied of the joy and winsomeness of the original – a perfect representation of left-wing identarianism.

James O’Brien has gone even further in illuminating his fellow citizens that they might join his cause. Apparently wiping fecal matter off one’s anus and onto a tissue imprinted with the president’s face is a political statement. It may express contempt and resentment but it in terms of anything more meaningful it is the equivalent of the toilet humour so beloved by small children.

If this is the intellectual state of the virtue-signalers, then we may hope for sunny days ahead.

Deus Ex Machina: The Substitute gods of Secularism

china-social-credit-system-in-america

Voltaire famously observed that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

In the letter written in verse Épître à l’Auteur du Livre des Trois Imposteurs, Voltaire addresses the secularist who desires to abolish God:

But you, faulty logician, whose sad foolishness,
Dares to reassure them in the path of crime,
What fruit do you expect to reap from your fine arguments?
Will your children be more obedient to your voice?
Your friends, at time of need, more useful and reliable?
Your wife more honest? And your new renter,
For not believing in God, will he pay you better?
Alas! let’s leave intact human belief in fear and hope.

In these pithy and energetic lines, Voltaire argues that an absence of faith in God does nothing to enhance the moral quality of either society or the individual relationships that make it up. To the contrary. Voltaire claims that the moral condition of society would decay. Without hesitation he lays at the feet of the secularist (the “faulty logician”) the moral culpability for the disintegration of familial harmony, fiscal honesty, and even spousal fidelity. Any man who desires to rid the masses of faith in God, implies Voltaire, is essentially encouraging them down a path of crime, both petty and criminal.

Voltaire was, of course, a deist, not an outright atheist despite the New Atheists often seeking to claim him as one of their own. His views, therefore, are typical of the popular deism of his time. Deists saw value of faith primarily in its the utilitarian value, and this attitude is certainly reflected in Voltaire’s epistle.

Over and over, Voltaire argues that with no God to obey, and thus no inward conscience to speak to a man about his duties toward others, no matter how bad the man might be now, he will be all the worse for God’s absence. Widespread belief in God, whomever that God might be (deists tended to be more agnostic on that score; Voltaire himself admired Hinduism), must be regarded as a social good by the mere virtue that faith in God serves to elevate man’s conduct.

He goes on to argue:

My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it,
Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.

The national fabric (and even religions themselves) may be pockmarked with rogues and evildoers – the “lizards and rats” – but the Architect of the system exists nonetheless. Voltaire points out that the greatest thinkers, most significant reformers, and the best legislators of history each recognised the importance a “sublime system” to forward the enlightenment of society. Cicero and the others would have taken extreme umbrage with the New Atheists who argue that religion darkens society.

God is necessary, says Voltaire, because faith in him accomplishes two important tasks. First, it serves to reign in wickedness, and secondly, it serves to provide courage and motivation to those who want justice to prevail. Faith in God has driven the most profound reforms in history, from Wilberforce’s emancipation of slaves in the British Empire, to Amy Carmichael’s struggle against child temple prostitution in India, to the prosecution of war criminals following the Second World War. Most of the greatest charities have been founded by principled, deeply religious people. Thus, faith in God is doubly positive for society.

The first task – putting a brake on criminality – is self-evidently worthwhile and good, because it results in less evil. The second task of faith is not as obvious, but just as vital. Indeed, it may even be more vital than the first. People need reasons to believe in justice; they need to have grounds for hope so that they can transform their moral environment for the better. Faith in God provides that impetus.

Voltaire builds on this theme more in a subsequent verse:

If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminences disdain,
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.

God is the refuge of the powerless, says Voltaire. When tyrants oppress their weaker fellow creatures, God is the ultimate source of consolation. Where else may a man go? In what else may he trust when confronted with human weakness, evil, hostility, persecution, or aggression? What other hope does the oppressed and dispossessed have, except that his injustice will be avenged by the divine Judge? When a man has nothing, he can at least avoid total spiritual breakdown in the sure knowledge that his tears contain inherent value in the eyes of his Creator.

History illustrates Voltaire’s observation rendered in flesh. Myriad are the stories of oppressed people finding their solace in God, from the Hebrew slaves who cried out to God to deliver them from Egypt, to St. Paul singing hymns in prison. Or the slaves on the cotton plantations, beaten mercilessly and worked on the end of a lash for sixteen hours of the day or more. Had they sought their hope in the material world alone they might have succumbed to abject despair. Or the men and women starving in German concentration camps, surrounded by death and barbarity. These might have been brutalised beyond recovery if not for trusting in the final justice and redemption God would surely bring upon their tormentors, in both this world and the world to come.

For these reasons (and others), Voltaire argues that God is so fundamental and necessary to human existence that should humankind ever find itself without deity above them, they would soon have to create a simulacrum of God just to fill the gaping void. Looking back over the bloodiest century in human history, an age of atheism, Darwinism, and the generalised corrosion of faith, one cannot help see considerable prescience in Voltaire’s observations. From beginning to end of the last century, history has witnessed ideologies venerated like religious creeds; political parties proclaimed as infallible products of destiny; and political leaders elevated to the status of demigods.

Throughout it all, armies of humanists, secularists and atheists have tried hard to promote the idea that God is unnecessary and faith is toxic. Richard Dawkins has ascribed faith the properties of being dangerous and suggested that religious institutions do wicked things to people’s minds (how those institutions should be deemed “wicked” in a godless universe where one man’s principles are not objectively better than another’s, is anyone’s guess). Christopher Hitchens frequently spoke about his discomfort with the idea that God should be constantly watching over human lives. He thundered that the biblical God was nothing more than a celestial dictator. Get rid of him, and live free.

The secularists have offered lovingly painted word pictures of a future without religion, which often have the character of a Utopia in which humanity lives out an endless college experience of learning, engaging in creative pursuits like playing music, and having polite and reasoned interactions with people of other ethnicity and cultures. Scientific solutions could be found to the problem of crime. And soon society would flourish with high-tech answers to all of society’s deepest conundrums. They have argued that without God, human beings would finally be able to proximate to their full potential and nobility. People would be no longer bound in the mental prison of superstition. To paraphrase Stalin, life would be better; life would be happier, with more resources for the material needs of the people instead of the wastage of religion.

In the light of the effects of militant atheism in the Soviet Union and other regimes, such claims practically constitute an article of faith in their own right, if not a new and horrible form of delusion. Still, such a sentiment – and that is all it is, for it is neither rooted in historical nor present reality – is widespread in this age of declining faith.

Yet, for all of the hubris and confidence of the New Atheism, Voltaire’s dicta is finding an almost poetic fulfilment in the modern world. Societies are discovering that the best means of regulating human behaviour is through widespread surveillance, and this is being provided by the technology of mass observation and, more recently, the algorithms to judge human activity. Since most people no longer believe themselves accountable to God, and those who do seldom take their accountability seriously, it is necessary to fill the vacuum with a surveillance system that has some of the characteristics of deity. It is necessary to invent God, although since it is the work of human engineering, it is a cold, impersonal and ultimately merciless transposition.

CCTV cameras are nearly ubiquitous in the United Kingdom, with Londoners being watched by more cameras than virtually any other population in the world. The United Kingdom has embraced politically correct secularism with a degree of enthusiasm that exceeds anything found virtually anywhere else. The subsequent levels of criminality, entitlement, social discord, and crude behaviour have made Britain a true outlier even in Western Europe. This is made it necessary to convert the nation into a monitored state, worthy of the Big Brother regime one of Britain’s native authors dreamt about, not yet a full century ago.

There are 5.9 million CCTV cameras in the United Kingdom, or 1 for every 11 people. Moreover, in an effort to protect themselves from antisocial behaviour, home CCTV cameras are purchased in great numbers by private residents for monitoring their yards and streets. Predictably, this has led to new forms of conflict between neighbours. Some neighbourhoods bristle with cameras as warring neighbours seek to capture each other on film engaging in actionable offences. The volume of such material is staggering. There is now enough CCTV footage captured of neighbourhood disputes for entire TV shows to construct episodes largely around privately captured CCTV footage.

But technology is evolving beyond the old school cameras filming in isolation. A new technology, aptly named “Eye in the Sky” is being trialled in India. This programme uses floating cameras mounted on drones to monitor large crowds in festival settings. The programme will be capable of identifying fights, knife attacks and other altercations through the use of complex algorithms. It will then alert authorities who will be able to respond.

China is going even further in its pursuit of social excellence, by creating a “social credit system” that is not just meant to deter ne’er-do-wells from breaking the law but also exert positive pressure upon their citizen body to be virtuous. Within this system of massive interlinked databases, a person’s every action is monitored by a vast array of interconnected cameras, facial recognition software, online ID tracking and the tracking of personal activities like work and study.

A person’s actions are ascribed positive or negative points. Thus, jaywalking, losing a defamation lawsuit, or not working enough hours will lower a person’s social credit score, while benevolent acts like donating blood or volunteering in the community would boost the social credit score. Only people with a high enough score receive social rewards like foreign travel and access to other benefits.

The potential for governments to shape people’s behaviour and thinking through the means of such a vast apparatus is frightening. Governments – even in democratic countries – already exercise a high degree of control over people’s moral and behavioural comportment, but a social credit system would raise the degree of influence to near total control.

And yet, despite its implications for democracy and its totalitarian character, it is undeniably attractive in the sense that we instinctively recognise that social virtues are far too hit-and-miss in the modern world. In the West, at least, there are very few penalties for objectionable, anti-social behaviours. Whatever the popular view to the contrary, in Western countries people are seldom incarcerated and seldom fined, yet antisocial behaviour (loud music late at night, public urination, casual assaults) is on the increase for which there are few remedies. If the law exercises restraint in the West, it is only because of a residue of the majesty with which it was once invested. And of course, as Voltaire implied, if people think they can get away with something, they will do it.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. It is a tragic irony that this statement should be fulfilled in the most concrete and material terms in the modern world. No doubt Voltaire pictured a collective of godless men inventing a spiritual deity in order to finally bring some order, inspiration, hope, and self-restraint to themselves. He probably did not imagine that humankind would literally turn to machines, computers, mathematical algorithms, and ranking indexes to make people accountable and virtuous. Such is the bitter fruit of godlessness.

Sex for Breakfast, Death For Lunch: The Incel Movement (Part II.)

Sad1

This is the second article in a three part feature series written in response to the van attack in Toronto which killed 10 people. Part I. considered the PUA and MGTOW identity groups that have appeared in the last decade. In Part II. the “incel” movement is explored in significant depth. Part III. finishes the feature series with a demonstration of how orthodox Christian theology offers renewal to the damaged, and the lens by which to properly interpret the sociological forces at work in our time.

  1. An Overview of the Incel Movement
  2. Black Pills, Red Pills, Chads and Staceys
  3. Hypergamy and Misogyny
  4. Racist, Right-Wing, and Rebellious
  5. The Empty Self and Authoritarianism
  6. A Online Colony of the Morally Deranged
  7. Making Sense of the Subculture

AN OVERVIEW OF THE INCEL MOVEMENT

The “involuntarily celibate” movement – “incel” for short – consists of men who have very limited sexual intercourse. But unlike MGTOW, incels want sexual fulfilment and many regard its absence as a criteria for victimhood. They are celibate against their will, they argue, and celibacy does them harm. Yet, most incels would further argue that their celibacy is not a mere accident or the happenstance of their situation. It is the grim product of a conspiracy against them by genetics, society, and above all, by women.

Given the premise of their worldview, it is unsurprising to discover that the incel subculture tends to be simultaneously dark and childish. Such a combination tends to yield an alarming propensity toward violence and hatred. Where the rhetoric is not grotesque or borderline criminal, the views they express and the solutions they propose are suggestive of a deep personal dysfunction. Certainly no mentally healthy person, no matter how sexually frustrated, could ever arrive at their conclusions. Like the MGTOW movement, the true source of their misery is brightly revealed within the sheer unprincipled irrationality of the philosophy they push.

It is important to recognise that incels are not all alike. Some are genuine in their despair. They really do feel like outcasts and cannot understand why they have seemingly missed one of life’s great rites: the formation of a meaningful relationship. Others are celibate due to physical disabilities (although many within the disabled community hotly reject being associated with incels). Still others describe social impediments that look strikingly similar to high-functioning autism. Autism can make forming relationships very difficult, as this incel explains:

Sometimes, I feel like I don’t know what’s holding me back either. I have high-functioning autism, which has been my go-to explanation for a while. A lot of people with autism struggle to find partners and deal with late-stage virginity, so it’s probably not a coincidence, but it can be hard to tell the precise ways it impacts me.

For a while, I’ve assumed that little autistic behaviors like stimming, talking to myself etc. make women subconsciously categorize me as either a creepy weirdo or a pitiful, childlike sexless being. My current therapist challenged that a bit, saying that it sounded like the cognitive distortion of mind reading. I don’t know if I completely buy that, since it’s pretty well documented that women are always on high alert for potential creeps and awkward guys can get unwittingly categorized as such, but it may be worth thinking about.

Aside from that, there’s the fact that social rituals generally aren’t as intuitive to people on the spectrum as they are to neurotypicals. I can look back at my first few pursuits in late high school/early college and see that I went about it pretty clumsily, so I may’ve just learned the ropes of both reading and displaying signs of attraction a little too late to capitalize on the dating market in college, and now find myself thrust into the decidedly narrower mid-20s dating market.

Such men are clearly intelligent and competent within their sphere, yet uncomprehending. For these, the incel movement provides an explanation that makes sense of their frustrations with the subtleties of human relationships.

The incel movement is also heavily colonised with men who exhibit a grab bag of disturbed sexual and relational behaviours. Already the incel subculture has bred at least three mass murderers, two of whom explicitly described their actions as a service to the incel philosophy. Quite apart from the lethal violence that has flowed from its bowels, incel forums are loaded with men whose self-described behaviour is not merely “creepy” but deviant. The behaviours they record represent the classic precursors to rape, sexual violence, destructive paraphilias, or other criminal perversions.

In between these extremes are a vast mass of men who are intensely lonely, anxious and sad. They have entered the subculture and embraced its misogynistic narrative as an explanatory device for their personal inadequacies and frustrations. In fact, within most incel circles, women are blamed for practically every problem in contemporary society. Women are routinely denigrated. Violence toward them is often celebrated. Yet at the same time incels are consumed with the thought of sexual intercourse.

Regardless of the motives behind each individual person’s involvement with the movement, in virtually all cases they are highly depressed and their participation in the subculture only aggravates their condition into outright despair. One moderator of a popular incel forum told the Washington Post that three members of his forum have attempted suicide. This gives some inkling into the mental state of the people gravitating toward the movement. A single suicide attempt would be rare for an online group, but three is a statistical tsunami.

An investigation into the subculture by researchers from Georgia State University found:

…involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. Those problems prevent incels from forming relationships — which in turn makes their depression and anxiety more extreme.

Clearly incels suffer with relational disorders. This becomes dangerous when it is united to a sense of victimhood and oppression. Indeed, incel forums tend to get shut down precisely because they descend into vicious bigotry, racism, violent rape fantasies and credible threats of doing harm to others.

This article was written to expose how the movement’s premises are deeply inimical to Christianity. This is only to be expected. Whenever large numbers of perverted, unhappy, or dysfunctional people collaborate, they build extensive online manufactories of hatred. Many incels certainly hate women, but there is also a deep vein of religious and racial bigotry within the incel subculture. In other words, the typical incel is not a Christian and is disdainful of Christianity. I found nearly inexhaustible examples like this:

Christianity is based on a series of transparent and idiotic falsehoods, beginning with its central premise:

There is a heavenly magical Jew in the sky who loves and cares for you.

Talk about mind-boggling stupidity. How do you even go about proving any of that nonsense? And no, your magical book does not count as evidence. Not to mention the other problems with the religion, such as nearly destroying western civilization, retarding scientific and technological progress, promoting hundreds of years of bloody internecine conflict among Europeans, and giving rise to liberalism and communism (yes, these are of Christian origin).

If Christianity is a dying religion in the west, it is because of science and mass literacy. No need to explain things with god doing this or that, like they did during the Dark Ages. Only an idiot would believe in Christianity these days, which is why it’s growing so rapidly in places like Africa and Latin America.

Groups which exist to share hatred with each other – even as a coping mechanism – are lethal to human flourishing. They provide disturbed people with plausible-sounding justifications for perversion. They encourage the dismantling of boundaries that would not otherwise be breached. And they plunge the vulnerable, hurt and isolated further into despair.

Despite this, they represent the mission field of the Christian Church.

BLACK PILLS, RED PILLS, CHADS AND STACEYS

Nailing down the incel worldview is difficult because we are dealing with a large number of men who have built a common identity around a single characteristic: the lack of sexual relations. Aside from this one characteristic, there are numerous subdivisions within the subculture.

Its most extreme manifestation is the “black pill” stream. The term is derived from The Matrix movie in which the protagonist is given the choice between a blue and red pill. If he swallows the blue pill, he returns to a life of simulated delusion. If he swallows the red pill, he embraces reality which will be much less comfortable. When incels talk about the “black pill” they mean that the “true reality” is far more savage than most people could ever believe. Thus, only the bravest and most honest incels take the “black pill”.

To “take the black pill” is to embrace a package of beliefs that include elements of social Darwinism, biological determinism, pessimism, dystopianism, and thoroughgoing nihilism. Black pill incels vehemently affirm that their fate is sealed; their future is fixed, and it consists of nothing but a grey, colourless blur.

Red pill incels, by contrast, are less pessimistic. Red pill incels have awoken to the “truth” that society is rigged against men and all women operate in certain ways for their own advantage. But whereas black pill incels conclude that hopelessness and passivity is the only response to this truth, red pill incels retain hope. They believe that they can take action. They can improve their confidence, work on their “game”, utilise some Pick Up Artist techniques, and improve their looks (something called “looksmaxxing”). In other words, this variety of incel do not forfeit the individual responsibility to improve themselves.

One incel explains the difference in this way:

Red-pill is focused on average-looking dudes to improve their looks and help them gain confidence to date women. A 5/10 guy can become a 6-7/10 after working on all of these things[:]

  • Working out regularly and building muscle, getting lean, dressing well, having nice haircuts etc.

Black-pill is for dudes who are just downright ugly and will never really find true love or be in a relationship. Think bottom of the bell-curve genetics. No amount of self-improvement will ever make them conventionally attractive[.]

To which another forum member replies:

Sometimes incels post pictures of who is an incel according to them, whether it’s some ugly celebrity, some random picture of a somebody found online, or a picture of themselves. Most of the time the caption says the person is a subhuman incel, and most of the time they’re just average looking person, not the scum of humanity, not the biggest loser of the “genetic lottery”.

Really ugly people do exist, but most incels are rather delusional when it comes to their own look.

The latter post correctly illustrates the twin beliefs which tend to result in the utter despair that is common among a broad cross-section of incels. On the one hand they are rigidly fixated on looks, yet concurrently have an unrealistic self-appraisal of their own appearance.

The narratives about appearance result in twisted exemplars. Incels commonly label the most romantically successful people as “Chads” (or sometimes “Brads”) and “Staceys”. The name comes from an imaginary man called “Chad”. Chad is a hypothetical “alpha male” who is the ultimate sexual machine. Incels theorise that this man would reflect the highest levels of romantic competence. He would be handsome, athletic, intelligent, wealthy, have irresistible sexual allure for women, and have an unparalleled degree of social mobility and independence. Chad could happily rub shoulders with the Manhattan elite and then flourish just as well in a dockside mafia gang.

Incels will often refer to Chad as if he were a real person. On incel forums they write laudatory biographies of him, with graphic details about his prowess with women (one incel wrote that Chad would have lost his virginity at 12). These biographies shower superlative adjectives upon Chad as if he were an object of religious veneration.

Here is a typical incel post:

Chad is a man who automatically and naturally turns girls on due to his appearance and demeanor [sic], in much the same way that your typical FA [Forever Alone] automatically and naturally turns girls off.

Chad feels and exudes confidence, in part because of his privileged upbringing but mainly because he has had positive feedback his entire life.

Girls don’t play games with or flake on Chad, because they know he can instantly replace them. They wouldn’t dream of answering their mobile phones while out on a date with him.

Conduct which is considered “creepy” or “mysoginistic” [sic] or “harassment” when done by average guys is excused or even celebrated when Chad does it. If Chad playfully pats a girl on the rear end she will admire his courage for having done so. She will hope he does the same again, or more.

Girls think carefully about what sexy clothes they can wear to catch Chad’s eye. At clubs and parties, they will try to sit in his lap or grab at his crotch in hopes that it will lead to the opportunity to perform fellatio on him.

When Chad cheats on his girlfriend, she invents excuses for it and puts all the blame on the girl he cheated with. To do otherwise would be to risk losing Chad as a boyfriend.

It is significant that part of this fantasy includes socioeconomic factors. Chad is not poor and underprivileged but enjoys wealth and educational opportunities from an early age, turning him into a confident adult who enjoys access to power. In other incel posts, race and age are mentioned as a key part of Chad’s character. He is almost always described as young and white, although there is a black counterpart who is given the name “Tyrone”. As these qualities stack up it becomes apparent that Chad represents for incels a totem of power which they feel is absent within their own masculinity.

Chad illustrates the recessional nature of incel profiling. As time goes on, the characteristics he is said to possess become more narrow. The narrative turns upon itself in ever-decreasing circles. Most of Chad’s characteristics relate to looks. This reflects the incel obsession with attractiveness as the prime mover of a sexual relationship. Since incels are rigidly fixated on a collection of exterior female characteristics as sexual triggers, they assume that all relationships work on the same basis.

Crude illustrations of “Chad” circulate within incel forums. He is usually depicted with luxuriant blonde hair, ripped muscles, strong profile and a chiselled jawline – jawlines being a physical feature that incels discuss frequently. It has been noted (not unfairly) that there is a definite element of homoeroticism in the “Chad” phenomenon. Incels who write about him adopt the angle of a female viewer and psychologically feminise themselves. Some incels openly admit to wanting to have sex with Chad.

On the other hand, a “Stacey” is an attractive “high value” woman who is only interested in one thing: getting an “alpha bad boy” who is powerful and competent – in other words, a “Chad”. This places “Staceys” beyond the reach of incels since they do not have the attributes they associate with masculine power. Stacey is therefore highly desirable to incels but at the same time completely unattainable. This inflames a deep resentment because incels think attractive women will readily have sexual intercourse with many Chad-like men but will not, of course, ever have sexual relations with them.

HYPERGAMY AND MISOGYNY

With few exceptions, incels are unremittingly misogynistic.

This is a true textbook-definition of misogyny not merely a flippant label. There is hardly a negative stereotype of women that has not been ram-packed into their philosophy. Incels believe that women are fickle, disloyal, treacherous, gold-digging, and callous. The full personhood of women is routinely denied. Instead women are viewed mostly as an assemblage of body parts or as mobile genitals. It is normal for them to be called “sluts”, “whores”, or terms even more repellent to a normal person.

Neither is this hatred just idle chatter. Three incels: Elliot Rodgers (2014), Chris Harper-Mercer (2015) and Alek Minassian (2018) have each committed acts of massed murder, targeting women. In two cases, lengthy manifestos were left by the killers with elaborate justifications for their actions. These men have become icons within the incel subculture. They are often referred to as “saints”. The anniversary of their massacres are celebrated on many online forums. Incels literally celebrate these men as folk-heroes and revolutionaries, as if they were latter-day Robin Hoods standing up for the sexually oppressed.

The murders are constantly discussed on incel forums and a lot of incel humour involves references to the killings. Some incels reject violence, but there is a troubling ambivalence among the majority.

Violence and suicide are frequently encouraged on incel forums. A BBC reporter, Johnathan Griffin, writes:

I saw one forum thread where someone was saying they wanted to take their own life, and various commenters suggested violence.

One said: “DON’T be selfish. Go to an elementary school and kill some children before you commit suicide. Please!?!”

Messages like that aren’t unusual in the incel community. When someone mentions that they have suicidal thoughts, they’re often egged on by other posters.

As we speak, Liam, the 19-year-old UK incel, tries to joke about Rodger’s murder spree.

“I don’t think it was even that wrong,” he says, laughing nervously. When I push, he does say: “It’s common sense, it’s wrong to kill people.”

Incels believe that society is “gynocentric”. By this they mean that women are favoured to the detriment of men. They argue that feminism caused this. Feminism has not only allowed women to be more assertive about their rights but also fortressed female values and concerns in modern politics. Some incels blame their sexless condition on feminism. They see themselves as victims of women (and gynocentric society) and they speak the language of victimhood.

Incels also claim that women are naturally “hypergamous”. (Less pretentious incels use the term “gold-diggers”.) They argue that women have an instinct to seek higher status sexual partners than themselves.

Hypergamy is a legitimate sociological concept for a pairing where one partner does have higher status in a measurable variable like wealth or education. Nonetheless, hypergamy does not define female behaviour, and it is not isolated only to women. Sometimes women “marry down” too, a practice termed “hypogamy”. These behaviours are most common in stratified societies where social mobility is limited and marriage is governed by complex rules of kinship, caste, tradition and status. In modern egalitarian societies, neither hypergamy or hypogamy are a mainstream aspect of romance. Most people tend to marry someone who is their educational or class equal.

To incels, however, hypergamy (or at least their interpretation of hypergamy) is a fixed law of human relationships. Since they see themselves as being at the bottom of the heap – “ugly, semi-educated, and poor” – and since no woman is going to partner with someone with less status than herself, they have no chance at having sex. Not ever. Lots of incels genuinely think this is the reason they are celibate. They blame female “hypergamy” or “gold digging”. Having no “gold” they are not being “dug” by cold, calculating women.

Incels have an utter obsession with physical attractiveness as the main ingredient for romantic fulfilment. It comes up time and time again on incel forums. Not a forum exists where looks are not discussed. Any suggestion that personality, behaviour, or intelligence plays an equally important part in attraction is viciously disparaged.

Another equally fixed belief is that women are naturally do not describe their own desires truthfully. Women are “naturally” dishonest or indirect, so they cannot be listened to as a guide to romance! Incels routinely malign the idea that women could be attracted to inward qualities, even when women themselves say they are.

Incels – particularly black pill incels – typically employ a morose selection of junk science titbits to support their case, of which the following is a standard example:

The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities.

Both young women looking for men and mothers seeking boyfriends for their daughters consider a minimum level of attractiveness to be an important criterion in a potential mate, the researchers concluded.

One incel replied:

Everything a woman says they are attracted to only applies if the man is good looking.

Comments like these betray a fundamental inability to make commonsense deductions from a rational observation of how the world works. Or, it is a sullen determination to argue for an untruth because of a sense of enjoyment in being vengefully dishonest.

A normal person learns very early in life that while looks are important to some people, relative attractiveness does not determine a person’s fate. Looks are not destiny. Yet incels insist that women superimpose attractiveness over every other consideration despite what women themselves say.

Female dishonesty and treachery is thus an omnipresent theme in incel dialogue:

This is what kills me about women they are never honest. When a woman makes an effort to compliment a man you should know that man is a chad even if they don’t admit. I remember one woman was talking about how that waiter in some restaurant is kind and professional when I went to that restaurant guess what? he was a [profanity deleted] chad and she didn’t mention that.

To which another incel replied:

Yeah because they aren’t aware they are grading looks. They think a good personality is good looks subconciously [sic]

Finally, another poster commented:

Women are naturally wired to do and say things indirectly.

This is a convenient way of dismissing women’s views and forcibly impressing incel beliefs upon all contrary data. So, whenever a woman comments about romantic attraction being more than a sum of body parts for her, it is normal on incel forums for her to receive sharp disdain and contradiction. If her comments do not fit the incel philosophy, then she is either consciously lying because she does not want to admit the truth, or she is being coy. Or perhaps, she does not really know her own mind and simply repeats socially acceptable lines like a human tape recorder on playback.

RACIST, RIGHT-WING, AND REBELLIOUS

Subcultures often have interesting overlaps with other currents active within the cultural mix. The overlaps provide clues about the dynamics within the subculture, where it has come from, where it is going, and what gives it impetus. In the case of the incel subculture, there is a heavy correlation between incels and racism, extreme right-wing views, degrees of financial difficulties, and a generalised iconoclastic tendency that permeates the movement. This latter characteristic is nearly universal. Sacred cows are slain on incel altars. Cultural heresy is enthusiastically celebrated. Anything that is politically correct is pilloried with rhetorical tomatoes soon following after. The other characteristics may not be descriptive of every incel – for example, some incels appear to come from privileged, progressive backgrounds while others incels are certainly not racist – but judging from the sort of posts found on forums, incels are more likely to fit into these categories than they are to belong to the inverse.

The overlap between racism and misogyny is noticeable to anyone who takes an investigative or anthropological interest in this subculture. The Toronto Star made this very observation in a recent expose on the incel movement published shortly after the Toronto van attack:

In all the discussions around Incels or involuntary celibates — a term violently wrested out of an obscure internet subculture and thrown into mainstream lexicon after last week’s van rampage in Toronto — a less talked about aspect is the overlap of its foundational misogyny with racism.

There’s a reason for that. It’s complicated.

“When you have these communities that don’t have coherent ideologies on a lot of things, they’re united in their misogyny, not necessarily united on the racial stuff,” says Arshy Mann, a reporter for Xtra, a Toronto-based LGBTQ magazine, who has been surfing the larger “manosphere” subculture for a decade and researching Incels for the past six months.

For the sake of fairness, it must be underscored that not all incels are racist. Such a disparate movement united primarily by misogyny will naturally have texture in relation to its various attitudes toward race. In fact, there are many non-white participants within the subculture and this is reflected by a blend of ethnic backgrounds represented on incel forums – for example, the so-called “currycels” and “ricecels” (incels of south Asian and east Asian extraction). There are black incels too – “blackcels” – with their own bête noire in the form of “Tyrone”, the black counterpart of “Chad”.

Nonetheless, racism is endemic within the movement. It is found everywhere on incel forums; racist viewpoints are discussed in a laudatory manner by the so-called nazicel subgroup; and racist adjectives are casually employed within normative forum discussion apparently without thought. There appears to be no concerted effort to delegitimise this behaviour by most forum administrators.

Virulent racism flowed in nearly equal proportions to his misogyny from the icon of incel angst, serial killer Elliot Rodgers. Rodgers was crystal clear in classifying people of different ethnic backgrounds on a sliding hierarchy of value:

Rodger, the half-Asian 22-year-old Santa Barbara, Calif., killer of six people (and then himself) in 2014, hailed as some sort of patron saint for the Incels, was so fixated on whiteness he bleached his hair and fantasized about tall, blonde girls. He saw their rejection as a rejection of his non-white parts. So he reserved in his so-called manifesto particular venom for boys of colour who got attention from white girls.

“How could an inferior, ugly Black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more …”

Rodger’s rage wasn’t reserved just for Black people, though.

“How could an inferior Mexican guy be able to date a white blonde girl, while I was still suffering as a lonely virgin?”

“How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from them?”

On one black pill forum the question was asked: “What’s your opinion of Hitler and National Socialism?”. The fact that this question was raised is significant. It is not a question that is usually raised within a normative social setting, although it is sometimes posed by adolescents wanting to test the boundaries of decency.

A poll was taken on the forum. Although its sample size was restricted only to a self-selecting group of online participants, nearly half of the respondents – 47% – indicated they were “neutral” concerning Nazism. Meanwhile, 35% of those surveyed selected options to indicate that Hitler “did nothing wrong” or was “a good person”. Only 17% of the respondents thought Nazism was an evil ideology.

The subsequent comments quickly descended into historical and moral derangement. Some incels praised Hitler; others denied the Holocaust; and still others indicated that Jews needed to be monitored and isolated within societies.

One incel wrote:

The holocaust did not happen. They were work camps, not death camps.

Another agreed:

Honestly he was the best leader in all of mankind’s history.

Anti-Semitism quickly appeared:

…war does not help anyone and neither does removing the juden [sic]. the juden [sic] race must be isolated within countries and controlled.

Another incel claimed that Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism constitute the very grounds for according them admiration:

Adolf Hitler and many in the NSDAP were great men, up holders and defenders of traditionalism and steadfast soldiers against Jewish Tyranny. They took on the Jews and they deserve all the admiration and respect we can give them.

This thread continued to dozens of posts, with many incels contributing their anthems of praise for Hitler and Nazism, along with sickening remarks about Jews. It demonstrates how any ideology of hatred eventually combines with extreme right-wing persuasions. Indeed, in recent months there has been an increasing segue between the incel subculture and the alt-right movement, now generally accepted as a basket of immature iconoclasts who not only hold virtually fascist viewpoints – in the truest sense of the term – but work to rehabilitate the legitimacy of such viewpoints in mainstream culture.

In one sense a lot of this type of discussion is simply designed to be nonconformist and shocking. Part of the internal dynamic of the incel movement – and the related MGTOW movement – is a reaction against politically-correct opinions and the people who tend to uphold them. It is a form of rebellion against all that is deemed by respectable people to be “safe”, “sensible” and “normal”. Perhaps some of this attitude among incels arises from the feeling of being outcast.

How do outcasts form a bond? How do outcasts construct a group identity? To understand incel group psychology we should consider the behaviour of adolescent males who experience persistent failure in school. Every message they receive tells them that education is valuable and important. It is a message reinforced by teachers, parents, television, and government leaders yet they are equally conscious of their academic inability. They cannot attain success. But they see that their peers can.

Young males frequently cope with these circumstances by openly (or clandestinely if they have a weaker personality) rejecting authority, sabotaging others, writing demeaning notes, finding people to bully, and by embracing maverick opinions that are purposefully intended to be shocking. The more shocking the better because it distinguishes them from the crowd and gives them notoriety when they may have little else that is deserving of attention. In the same way, many incels bond in a fellowship of iconoclasm to the extent that incel forums often seem to be a contest in who can write the most derogatory, bizarre, and disturbing things. It is doubtful that all incels necessarily believe what they write.

Moreover, incels are increasingly aware that they have become media villains, associated with danger, with racism, terrorism, and with a movement commonly described as dark and subversive. Some of the incel forums have featured in stories published by serious media outlets. This is quite a satisfying payoff for any person who feels disempowered and disenfranchised. By merely participating on some forums, they have become part of a subculture that has sparked a minor moral panic.

Long time observers of incel forums have come to this conclusion as well:

That’s what makes this postmodern form of extremism so interesting. Everything is a half joke. It’s like that Simpsons… episode where the dude says “He’s cool….” and the other guys goes, “Dude, are you being sarcastic?” and he responds with “I don’t even know anymore…

The “movement” is consistently sexist, racist, sadistic and ridiculous to the point where it seems like it’s just everyone being edge lords…

Another commentator in close contact with some incels writes:

…if you examine the way they openly sh*tpost outside of their preferred safe spaces and domains, you realize they seem to be actively drawing attention to themselves and their outrageously edgy OMG you can’t say that! beliefs in a very specific way.

Don’t believe me, go look at some of the incel advice threads on here in the past month or two. Several of them have an underlying tone of “I’m afraid I’m going to turn into a racist if I don’t get laid,” or “look what women made me do” (also evident in several PMs I have received…).

They are aware that a lot of people are starting to think this way, that the incel / soft-right is a gateway into extremism, terrorism and ethno-nationalism, and they’re making attempts to leverage that belief because they honestly think it will get them laid. They’re saying to you, on this sub, “Look if I don’t get [sex] then I’m going to turn Nazi.” Like that’s an ultimatum.

It’s the same type of logic they use on actual women, in actual social situations, even if just online, and it’s exactly consistent with the rhetoric they use “in private” when they think nobody is watching – “if women don’t give us what we want then we’ll destroy ourselves and do everything we can to destroy society, because if we can’t have what we want then nobody can have anything!” It’s the ultimate exercise in petulance.

THE EMPTY SELF AND AUTHORITARIANISM

Setting aside the incels who spout politically-incorrect views for sport, other incels are very serious about their extremism and hatred. They hate women with a seismic vengeance; they hate people of other races; and they even hate each other (solidarity in the incel world only goes so far; their forums are permeated with incivility and rage). It is precisely these sorts of venomous incels who tend to hold the frightening Nazi-style opinions and show an uncomfortable interest in violence – for example, animations on their forum profile of teenagers cocking rifles in their bedrooms.

At the same time as writing streams of blood-curdling slurs and slanders – casually talking about the extermination of Jews or referring to women’s genitalia, breasts, and buttocks in graphic terms – incels also commonly embrace a highly distorted conception of men and women in which the fundamental dynamic is power and authority. They see the two genders in Darwinian terms where biology determines that men ought to be domineering and women slavishly submissive. For instance, some incels will insist a man has a right to sexual intercourse with his wife even when she does not want it, and as he is the stronger he has a right to take what he desires. Given such a worldview it is perhaps inevitable that rape is routinely glorified in incel circles since it serves as a symbol (to them) of male potency, authority, and control.

The topic of Islam often results in an collision of authoritarian extremes among incels. Some incels find the religious subjugation of women compelling while others are repulsed by the religion due to the ethnicity of its adherents. This results in one of the many internecine squabbles that are characteristic of incel forums, in this instance conflict between incels who prioritise male supremacist fantasies above racial ones and other incels for whom the fantasy of white racial supremacy is more important:

The women are separated from the men. They have to wear burkas to cover their faces. So, in fact, Islam is very much agreeable with reason and the physics of the universe. Who in their right mind could object to a religion where a holy man will receive as his property 72 virgins in paradise?

Similarly:

Society determines male status, and if society lowers male status, the males already on the lower end of the ladder feel it the heaviest. Spandrell argued that this is why Islam is so successful: Islam raises the status of men. The downgrade in status that drives Muslim males to terrorism in the West is the same that drove Alek Minassian to kill pedestrians, [and] 4 years ago drove Elliot Rodger to kill 6 people.

Other incels disagree. For these men, cultural bigotry exercises the greater imperative and outweighs even their interest in domineering women:

I see the sandn*gger masses across the world, have read the Qu’uran [sic] and spoke to many [M]uslims at college. They were primitive cultureless low IQ [profanity]. I have enough experience with it to know it[‘s] nonsense. Maybe Islam was relevant back before the dark ages when Persia was a major power, but now its just a bunch of paedo worshipping neckbeards (literal neckbeards) who move around in herds like sheep because they are too [vulgarity deleted] to go it alone.

The authoritarianism expressed by this type of incel manifests a psychological need for control. It is particularly obvious from the “black pill” forums that these men keenly feel that a sense of control is missing from their lives. Unfortunately the incel philosophy heightens the despair and fear that comes from being out of control by magnifying their supposed powerlessness to change their circumstances and reinforcing a viewpoint in which life is significantly directed by a whirlwind of vast, impersonal biological forces.

The sense of being small and powerless comes up in many aspects of incel conversation. For example, money is a frequent topic on many incel forums. Although some incels come from privileged backgrounds, there is abundant evidence that a majority come from lower socioeconomic strata. This can be seen in the frequency with which money is discussed on incel forms; the advice on squeezing government benefits from the system; the low standards of education revealed in many posts; and the poor living conditions that incels describe. Being relatively poor in a consumerist culture is both a frightening and emasculating experience for these men. It is even more galling when the media regularly shows them examples of women or people of non-white ethnicity, who earn more than they do.

Despite this package of inadequacy, for many of these incels the chief locus of powerlessness – the very definition of their lack of control – is their physical appearance. Perhaps they lack the strong jawline, or a muscular build, or a manly nose and thus they conclude that they can never have sexual intercourse or a meaningful relationship with women. Short of plastic surgery – too expensive and risky for most incels – they can do nothing to change themselves. Of all the issues of their lives, physical appearance overshadows everything else. It is the thing that they most wish they could change.

This profound feeling of inadequacy requires a compensatory mechanism or otherwise the individual incel would have no choice but to confront the empty self. For this is surely what lies at the root of the behaviour of many incels. It is evident from reading numerous incel forums that many not only suffer from extreme depression and anxiety, but from any number of personality disorders. The most obsessive show clinical traits of Body Dysphoric Disorder. For these incels, the gravitation to online forums and to shrill, threatening, militant, and aggressive behaviour is nothing short of an effort to medicate an empty self.

An empty self results in a fragile personality that must be sustained by outward resources. In a consumerist society this means products, approval, flattery, status, pleasure, and power. It means aligning with the images that are presented in advertising and movies. An empty self is maintained by validation from the world outside. When that validation is lacking, the true empty self is exposed.

When incels are drawn out on their feelings they often describe this in despairing terms:

I feel like I get caught in a cycle. Like I hate most everything about me, I want the external validation so badly, which causes me to be even less confident.

Like I wanna be sure of myself and be confident around women, and just people in general. I get that’s a more attractive quality. I just can’t figure out how to break the cycle and stop thinking like this.

Maybe it’s oversimplification on incels part, but to get these traits that people want, you’ve got to experience this sorta approval that comes with physical attraction

Incels primarily seek outside validation through sexual intercourse or a romantic partnership. To these they attach a supreme importance because in a sexualised culture there can be no greater fulfilment for an empty self than sexual satisfaction with a willing partner (sexual activity with a prostitute does not count for most incels). The absence of such sexual validation engenders a profound (and painful) inadequacy. This in turn often leads to the development of either an authoritarian personality or the embrace of authoritarian beliefs and attitudes like misogyny, Nazism, and racism.

Such beliefs provide two necessary scaffolds for a fragile personality seeking validation. Firstly, it grants a much-coveted feeling of control – even if it is completely illusionary. Secondly, because these beliefs are shockingly counter-cultural (like Nazism) they provide perverse validation. By identifying with despised authoritarian beliefs, incels feel that significance is conferred on them from the outside world. This occurs when the world reacts with horror and fear. To the incel, this translates to respect, power, and significance. “I am feared,” they reason, “because I espouse Nazi beliefs, therefore I am significant“. Or, “The horror expressed at my beliefs reassures me that I am seen as dangerous to the status quo, therefore I have power.” All of this is small potatoes – the fourth place ribbon – but it is at least something flowing from the outside world that can soothe an empty self.

Control and validation are the keys to understanding such men. The most hostile and despairing incels desperately want the feeling of control. Not only because they lack significant control over the things that matter to them, but also because control is a critical part of their conception of masculinity. Control is an attribute incels universally associate with their male fantasy figure “Chad”. Lacking this feeling of control and power themselves, they seek compensation in the embrace of beliefs or fantasies that have historically permitted males to control others. They may have no control in their own lives but they can vicariously experience the thrill of control through projection and fantasy. By tapping into beliefs that have conferred power on other men in the past, they discover a compensatory authoritarianism that corresponds to their powerlessness.

Thus they constantly articulate rape fantasies (projection to a past when men used to control women); use racist slurs (to project to a past when white men controlled blacks); talk admiringly about Nazism (when white men were able to control Jews and other ethnicities), and so on. This explains the explosive misogyny and the prevalence “rape talk” among incels. These things are spoken about so ubiquitously precisely because they confer a feeling of control over women whom they intensely desire, yet cannot control.

Neither is the thirst for control merely rhetoric for this stripe of incel. For when they have the opportunity to exercise genuine control over women, they do so. This is vividly illustrated in an interview conducted with an incel by French journalism student Jean-Gabriel Fernandez. The interview was conducted in April 2018 and published on an incel blog which describes itself as:

Anti-modernist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, anti-MRA [Men’s Rights Activist], anti-seduction, pro-patriarchy/reactionary, pro-Islam…

Incidentally, this self-description is a handy summary of the political and social opinions that tend to rinse around the sprawling online communities of incels and MGTOW groups. The third part in this series of articles will discuss this in more detail.

Fernandez asked the incel operator of this blog about his views of women and he was brutally forthcoming:

Since around 2014 I have become a reactionary anti-feminist who believes that that women should be married off as virgins and not be allowed to vote while males should only be using prostitutes before and during marriage.

I believe that four key traits of a good society are 1. monogamy, 2. good religion, 3. female premarital chastity, and 4. widely available prostitution. Number 1 and 4 aren’t contradictory, because sleeping with prostitutes isn’t considered actual cheating in sane societies. Actual cheating is having a lover you invest in.

I see most modern Western women as sluts one should have no moral qualms about raping and as completely incapable of a committed relationship or marriage.

The incel blogger then went on to describe his chequered romantic history. When he was younger (he is presently 28 years old), he had the opportunity to have a sexual relationship with several women – one of which, by his own admission “aggressively” offered him sex. Nonetheless, he was too skittish to pursue them.

Later he had multiple sexual encounters with women he deemed “slutty” and had ongoing sex with a “friend with benefits”. Later, the friend with benefits asked him to father a child with her because she wanted to be a mother. At the time the incel blogger had been stinging from insults he had received on a forum in which other participants had taunted that he would never reproduce. Thus, in order to prove that he could easily reproduce and that, in fact, reproduction was no great accomplishment, he agreed to have unprotected intercourse. When his sexual partner fell pregnant she moved away with his daughter whom the blogger admitted that he had never seen and does not have any interest in meeting. In his own words, “I do not care about this daughter” and having had a child, he has demonstrated “it isn’t so hard to breed”.

He describes making threats to kill one woman and later being charged by the police. He also admits to doing “illegal things” which he did not wish to elaborate on. However, he has found happiness within a world where he can exercise control:

In early 2017 I became a Muslim and moved to [place deleted in original] for a while. There I was introduced into their Muslim community. I met my girlfriend via Tinder. She claimed to be 18 years old but was in fact just 17 (she lied about her age at the time). This relationship is different than the ones I had before. I now know how women are dealt with in the current non-patriarchal rotten society. My girlfriend is tightly controlled by me and my Muslim community, and she is available to them in every way. I realize now that good relationships are only possible in a patriarchal, coalpha society.

Also, I’d like to mention one more thing. The leftists/liberals say that incels promote violence etc. But you must understand what the liberal definition of violence is to understand just how hollow that is. Liberalism is hatred of the whites. An act of rape is a crime of rape only when a white rapes. Other acts defined as rape by liberals are whites having consensual sex, whites asking a girl on a date, and every other act a white does to get a relationship and sex.

When asked by Fernandez if he had ever raped someone, the blogger replied:

I obviously won’t/can’t say if I practiced it myself but it is quite obvious from my posts. I believe it isn’t morally reprehensible if the raped ones are modern Western women who feminism turned into worthless scum. This doesn’t mean that all women everywhere deserve to be raped. Women in non-feminist places shouldn’t be raped and even some women in feminist places (like Amish or Mormon women in America) don’t deserve to be raped.

On a related note, many of my enemies have this fallacy that because I hate modern Western women I must hate all women. This is a basic misunderstanding of my positions. I don’t like women on location x (Western world) and time period y (modern time) and even then there are exceptions like the ones I mentioned

The incel blogger clearly articulates his view that the subjugation of women to male authority and control is a prerequisite for him to respect them enough not to regard them as candidates for rape. He singles out a few women within the Western world who are exempt from being targets of justifiable rape, all of these being women who exist largely in traditionalist collectives (although his assumptions about Mormon women seem a bit out of date since Mormon women can and do hold feminist viewpoints too).

He hastens to indicate that he only hates some women in some places in some time periods. He has no grudge against pre-modern women or the women who live in places where the law does not treat people equally, without regard for gender.

In the same interview – and in a dazzling display of moral and intellectual malformation – the incel laments:

My blog has a somewhat low reputation but only because those criticizing it are leftist scum that oppose my reactionary views, just like they oppose [anything] that I write… humanizing incels in the first place.

There is a constant view that incels are “entitled”, ie believing they are owed something, when this simply isn’t true for most of them. This “entitlement” is a leftist buzzword to attack all white males and nothing else.

However, current anti-intellectual incels sites… have a deservingly bad reputation, as they are filled with crazy people and ideas.

It apparently does not occur to the incel blogger that he is also a crazy person with extremely sick ideas, and that the people who criticise his blog very astutely recognise the absurdly entitled and narcissistic individual at work. A person who can develop an apologia for rape with a straight face and argue that the targets of sexual assault are fair game, suffers (at best) from a delusion of his own supreme importance, which may be satisfied at the expense, pain, and suffering of others. He is an “entitled” young man by any stretch of the language.

In this interview, the incel all but admits that he has raped women. This behaviour is consistent with his clear desire for control over others and his authoritarian beliefs. He thinks his masculinity entitles him to domineer women and have sexual access at his whim. He thus finds his Shangri-La in a community where his teenage girlfriend, ten years his junior, can be continually monitored and controlled by a team of “alpha males”. This, in the incel blogger’s judgement, is “a good relationship”.

If ever a person demonstrated the Freudian concept of the “narcissistic wound”, it is this deeply disturbed young man. And if ever there was a young woman for whose safety one may rightly fear, it is the girlfriend of the operator of this blog.

AN ONLINE COLONY OF THE MORALLY DERANGED

The incel community is heavily colonised by perverts. The subculture acts like a magnet, pulling into its black hole a motley assortment of morally deranged men. Their perversions range from the grotesque to the criminal; from fetishes to bizarre fixations, but in nearly all cases such interests could only arise from dysfunctional personalities.

In the incel subculture, men with perverted appetites find an environment that not only refuses to judge their conduct, but accepts it as a natural part of the background colour of incel culture. It is taken for granted among many incels that the community is an enlightened Gomorrah for the sexually crippled, welcoming migrants from whatever cesspit they happen to originate from. There is a spirit of invitation, “We’re all friends here, and no matter how morally deranged you may be, we’ve all suffered at the hands of perfidious women and we’re all in this together.

Such tolerance of perversion is an inevitable phenomenon in a world where women are targets of hatred and disdain, and where the participants drink so heavily from the toxic fountain of violent pornography.  There are no limits on many incel forums to how depraved a man may become. There are no boundaries; no rules; and no limits. This is a Wild West of sexual anarchy.

The online forums function as connective hubs not only for sharing their ideas but also for trading the sorts of digital goods that have value in the incel world: photographs, videos, vicious memes, and graphics. In online discussions, sexual behaviours are described in lurid detail, and techniques are shared for effectively pursuing disturbed behaviour. In the process of sharing this material, the forums serve to normalise aberrant behaviour. The pseudo-scientific nature of the discussion clothes their fantasies in the robes of plausibility (at least to their minds), and thus rationalises their behaviour.

It serves to explain precisely why a sizeable segment of the incel community do not have sexual relationships with women: women avoid men who have sub-normal sexuality. Neither can it be argued – as some incels will argue – that a lack of sexual expression causes the sexual perversion, and thus women are to blame for making them the predators and creeps that many of them surely are. Examples abound of incels admitting that they had opportunities for sexual intercourse but turned it down because it was the wrong sort of woman who was making the offer. The woman did not align with the fixations and obsessions of the incel, and therefore did not count.

We have already witnessed the omnipresent rape fantasies which soak the forums ceaselessly. Many of these are accompanied by rubbish evolutionary psychological explanations which tells us that the search for scientific legitimacy is widespread among incels even if their theories are scientifically illiterate. The following is typical:

Incel01

Other incels get the thrill of power and control in other ways. The following is an incel’s description of stalking a young teenage girl, and doubtless terrifying her. He recommends other incels try stalking women as a form of “harmless psychological fun”, but cautions that they should only do so if they know their limits. Given the frequent correlation between stalking and sexual assault, this is a very cold comfort:

Incel02

The incel writes that he enjoys stalking women. It gives him “a good feeling”. He explains that this is a gratifying activity for him because the fear shown by his victim confers a significance and importance on him which he would otherwise lack. Neither is this an isolated event. It is apparent from his post that he has experimented with stalking women often enough to know that following them at night produces the same result with less effort than following them in the daylight.

To say that this is disturbed conduct is an understatement. This incel is a deeply disturbed individual and what he describes is the sort of scenario that results in the making of a sexual predator. We may safely surmise that when the thrill of stalking women wears thin, this man may seek further gratification with more violent or forceful encounters. If not escalation, his description manifests a nexus of symptoms that demands continuation in the future: it is habitual behaviour, it excites him, it is dependent on a degraded view of women as prey (as in the description of the girl as a “fawn”), and it demonstrates strikingly malformed moral regulation. The fact this incel describes this as “low-level behaviour” indicates that he has already travelled a very great distance down the rabbit hole of sexual pathology.

Other incels describe fixations that are less dangerous but still subnormal. One incel, whose profile bears the message “remember the dead shooters” and a rant about a “final solution for the entire human race” whom he hates, wrote:

i wanna sniff the chair she is sitting in

To which another incel wrote:

I also have this fetish but only on hot women…. Have u ever sniffed a chair after a girl leaved the chair tbh

The original writer replied:

i thought about it alot in high school when attractive young girls got up out their chairs never did it because i didnt need another label on me..

The other incel admitted:

I actually did it 1x but i wont do its cuz its too risky.

Stomach-churning discussions on incel forums abound. Some researchers have noted, for instance, that there is a significant interest among incels in incestuous relationships. One woman posted a screenshot of a message she received from an incel who asked her whether she had “ever been penetrated by her father”. When she reacted with understandable anger, the incel apologised for his forwardness and then messaged again, “But has this ever happened to you?”

The number of examples of aberrant sexual interests are practically inexhaustible. Many demonstrate the imprint that pornography has made on young men, since it is apparent that the primary sexual experience and education for many of these incels has come through the channel of pornography. Their reliance on this source for knowledge and experience of sexuality means they only experience sexual arousal at stimuli that is repellent to a psychologically healthy, sexually normal male. For instance, there is a substantial interest among incels in the topic of sexual degradation and sexual domination. Both of these are standard themes in modern pornography, which is not chiefly about the human body, but rather about the interplay of power. Therefore it is not surprising that so many incels associate sex with force. Neither is it surprising that so many incels harbour preposterous fixations on the size of genitals, and have notions about the sexual act worthy of adolescent gossip in the corners of a schoolyard. For instance, one incel wrote a post in which he insisted that a woman’s vagina will grow in length the more often she has sexual relations with a man with longer genitals.

In contradistinction to this poisonous stew of sexual deviance, the sexual intercourse practised by normal people (“normies”) is often presented as boring, “vanilla”, and of secondary value compared to the grotesque appetites they have developed. All of this goes a great distance toward explaining why these men do not (and cannot) form normal relationships with women and cannot have healthy sexual intercourse. It explains precisely why they are celibate. For in the first place, women tend to avoid men with subnormal sexual interests such as smelling chairs or violent fetishes. In the second place, a healthy and normal sexual interest is a prerequisite to forming a healthy and normal gendered relationship.

The fact that such fantasies are largely accepted within the incel subculture as a natural part of the rich tapestry of sexuality, confers legitimacy upon them in the minds of their practitioners, and perversely reinforces the very behaviours, imaginations, fantasies and appetites that cause a large number of incels to be repellent to women. They are conscious that their sexuality is freakish, but their subculture reassures them that freakish sexuality is okay. They are continually reassured that their isolation is the fault of women, or the fault of biological determination, or genetics, and not the fault of a disordered mind or a unhealthy imagination which could be remedied (as so many things in life can be) with a refinement of their moral sense.

When incels do exist in a relationship with a woman, they tend to sabotage the relationship. Below is an account from one young woman who dated an incel. This story provides ample witness to the inadequacy of the incel theory that behind their sexless state lurks a complex of female injustice. This, and other accounts just like it, proves that in many cases the problem really does lie with the incel himself; within his psychology, his habits, his appetites, or his character. As Shakespeare wisely observed from the mouth of Cassius: “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves…“, a citation that seems a particularly apt backdrop for this testimony:

A lot of people seem to think if these guys had women in their life they would be better. I’m here to tell you that’s wrong.

So when I first met the dude I had no idea. I thought he was cute and we seemed to have a lot in common. As our relationship progressed he started using all these terms I hadn’t heard before. “Cuck” [cuckold] and “beta” [“beta male”] were thrown around all the time. He was also obsessed with Redit [one of the main forums where incels connect].

Then came his weird obsession with my sexual history. I was a 21 year old girl at the time and had lost my virginity at 19. Apparently this was totally scandalous to him and even though he had feelings for me, he wanted a virgin. He seriously never shut up about how he could only be with a girl who’s a virgin. Everyday he went on and on about how he was an outcast and the world treated him so badly, especially women.

He actually had other girlfriends in the past so it’s really strange that he disliked women. Then I found out that when one of his former girlfriends wanted to break up with him, he threatened to kill her. Yet somehow throughout this story it was still her fault. He also had girls who wanted to be intimate with him in the past and he rejected them. Only once, when the girl he was dating was a virgin, he wanted to have sex. He kept pressuring her so much that she broke up with him. Again this was somehow her fault.

I can’t even begin to describe the delusions this dude had. He was obsessed with being cuckolded, especially by black guys. He even said I wore certain things just to get ploughed by dudes. He was also super-obsessed with race and anti-Semitism. I’m half-black but he reassured me it was OK because I “looked” more white.

There’s so much more I could go into but it would take forever. Basically access to women isn’t going to help these men at all. They love playing the victim and it all comes down to entitlement.

This is a fairly humdrum account. Many similar examples exist in which the young men exhibit traits of a deep-seated neurosis. Here, the young man displays an unhealthy idealisation of female virginity. Multiple sources of testimony indicate that this is very common among incels who are prone to attachment anxieties. The young man in this account was fixated on female virginity probably from a fear of a negative comparison being made between himself and another sexual partner.

In this account, the incel also made threats to kill a previous partner. This aggressive behaviour appears with monotonous regularity in the online record. Lashing out with such anger demonstrates a severe inability to self-regulate emotion and demonstrates the paranoia of relational breakdown, which the incel subculture tends only to exacerbate. In the minds of neurotic incels romantic relationships end when another male swoops in and seduces the woman away. Since they believe that a woman’s behaviour is biologically determined, they are certain that she will embrace a “higher status” male whenever the opportunity is presented.

Many of these neuroses probably arise from childhood relational trauma. In other words, these are men who have experienced avoidant or dismissive parenting styles, and possibly witnessed one, or multiple, relationship breakdowns. Even so, this does not explain the origin of insecurities for every incel, and whatever insecurities a man may have internalised, the subculture itself actively reinforces and inflates them through constant prattle about the unreliability of women, the supposedly promiscuous character of “Chads” and “Staceys”, and puerile speculation about which man any given woman may be sleeping with.

More than anything it is basic misogyny that feeds these incels’ habitual lack of regard for women as people. Note that throughout the above (admittedly abbreviated) account, the young man treated his girlfriend with disdain and viewed her feelings as secondary to his own. His sexual desires and emotional needs were vastly more important than hers. It is clear that he was not relating to her as a person but as a collection of characteristics. This kind of perversity is common among incels. They do not have romantic relationships because they cannot (and do not) relate to women as if they were complete persons.

Instead, over and over again, it is evident that many incels relate only to women as if they were assemblages of discrete characteristics. They relate to a woman’s race; the size of her breasts; her status as a virgin; her attractiveness out of ten; or her weight. The presence or absence of such characteristics becomes the central concern for the incel such that these characteristics assume the nature of an all-consuming passion. These incels do not want to have sexual fulfilment; they want to have sexual fulfilment with a white, virgin number ten. In many – if not most – instances, this kind of thinking is probably the result of long-term exposure to pornography.

So far, these are all instances of sexual paraphilias. It is not fair to say that all incels exhibit paraphilias although there is unquestionably a high incidence of abnormal sexual interest within the culture. In the search for a social patterns, it is not accurate to say that a paraphilia or even a neurosis is a conclusive necessity for identifying as an incel. But there is one characteristic that can be singled out as practically emblematic. It is a characteristic that is shared by the overwhelming majority of incels to the extent that it nearly deserves the status of being predictive, and that characteristic is anger.

The raw anger that is exhibited by incels – both toward others and themselves – is surely the most definitive feature of the subculture. The omnipresence of anger is noted repeatedly by academic researchers, investigative journalists, psychologists treating incels, and virtually anyone who has ever had anything to do with incels. It is even acknowledged by thoughtful incels themselves:

I had a LOT of internalised anger [after high school]. I wouldn’t really consider myself “happy” today but I’m definitely FAR from being an incel…

…the thing is.. if I had been on Reddit then and stumbled upon that community, I really think my life would have been worst. I would have ended like them [incels on the forums] to the worst level. It’s the thing that makes me the angriest about them, how they make young boys keep that anger and never get better. And that’s why I’m happy to see the media is now talking about them and denouncing them.

The anger displayed by incels is explosive, toxic, and murderous. It is almost always expressed in self-pitying terms as if the incel were a genuine victim, is very frequently interlaced with hatred and contempt for groups of people, and sometimes finds expression in dark, sinister revenge narratives.

Revenge narratives range from the plausible to the preposterous. Some narratives are formulated with a degree of rationality (if such a term is applicable), while others are sheer fantasy, weaving in imagery and concepts of the Final Solution, wars, rape and other miseries to be visited upon the world at large. In most instances these narratives include mass murder, specific torments for attractive men and women, with a special arrangement of grotesque “punishments” reserved for attractive women.

The following is a typical example:

incel10

Neither is the anger merely theatrical. The subculture has already given birth to multiple serial killers whose anger translated to violent action. In the case of Elliot Rodger, the methodology he employed to murder his victims amply reveals his dark inner state. His three roommates were stabbed to death as they entered their shared apartment. The autopsy report noted the high number of stab wounds sustained by each victim. One victim, George Chen, was stabbed 94 times, indicating that the attack had continued long after the victim had died. In similar fashion, the two women Rodger killed each respectively sustained seven and eight gunshot wounds. Once again, Rodger had continued to shoot at them even after it would have become apparent that his victims were dead.

In the killing spree at Umpqua Community College, in October 2015 had many more fatalities and (if it is possible) is more disturbed than the random nature of Rodger’s murders. The incel Chris Harper-Mercer corralled a group in a classroom at gunpoint. There he unleashed his rage (one victim was shot multiple times), but also contempt for his victims and evident pleasure at acting out his revenge scenario. Victims were forced to beg for their lives before being shot; one person was forced to watch as others were killed; and one victim was shot trying to get back into her wheelchair at his order. Survivors said that Harper-Mercer smiling during his killing spree. Like Rodger, he finally shot himself to death when the police wounded him in an exchange of gunfire.

Anger and hatred have destructive consequences when they are left unchecked and nourished by a narrative of victimhood.

MAKING SENSE OF THE SUBCULTURE

The incel subculture is both disparate and unstable, held together by very thin threads of commonality. It is also riven with contradictions. For example, although many of its participants are fascinated by order, control, and authoritarian ideologies, it is a fundamentally anarchic movement that has atomised very quickly into a plethora of subgroups that turn in ever-tighter circles. Incels within different these subgroups denounce other incels. One division centres on the incel principle of “lookism”, which is the idea that involuntary celibacy is mostly the result of physical ugliness. This belief is common among “black pill” incels but not necessarily within other incel groupings who may regard feminism as a more primary cause of their plight.

The fragmented nature of the community keeps it neutered when it comes to any kind of mass action, even though incels often fantasise about revolutionary schemes that would punish and humiliate with graphic enthusiasm. But although these men may daydream about channelling Lenin, the average incel resembles more a sexually frustrated Mr Bean whose incompetence and solitariness keep him from being too much a threat.

Not that all incels are conscious of this. Alek Minassian, the Toronto van murderer, wrote about an “incel rebellion” and referred to a grand uprising in which incels would “overthrow all the Chads and Stacys!”. Unwittingly, this was a savagely ironic statement because the anarchic and solipsistic properties of the incel subculture render it absolutely incapable of coordinated action. Point blank. For all the talk of rebellions and uprisings; for all the discussion about changing the world, the subculture has produced no political, social or cultural action outside of its own circuit. Even its serial killers were lone-wolfs whose murder sprees were self-consciously performed (either wholly or in part) for an audience of fellow incels.

Online surveys indicate that the largest cohort of incels are young men between the ages of 18 and 29. Many of these men are broken by difficult life experiences, and sadly the onset of cynicism and the feeling of hopelessness has occurred early in their lives. No carefree youth for these. Some incels have grown up in undeniably traumatic circumstances, or in conditions of poverty, family breakdown, and mental illness. Others have been bullied at school, or are autistic, misunderstood, depressed, or haunted by feelings of deep unworthiness. Others still are clinical neurotics and have a need of affirmation and love from the world greater than the world is able to give them. The brokenness of this community cannot be understated. It consists of human wreckage, self-confessed outcasts, adrift on the sea of life with no idea how they got into their current predicament, why things went wrong, or how they can possibly make things better again. Their lack of a relationship is the capstone on a miserable life.

One cannot help but be moved when these young men describe the tragedy of their lives. For example, one former incel wrote:

I’m not incel anymore, but I am still sympathetic to some of the struggles that other self-identified incels go through. Misogyny, threats of violence, racism are absolutely reprehensible, but underneath that anger are some really broken people.

At the same time it is undeniable that incels are frequently unpleasant individuals, immature, disproportionately resentful, prone to exhibitions of entitlement, narcissism, and practitioners of deviant sexual interests. In turn, this gives rise to the group construction of a pretend world in which they paint themselves as victims or as the human detritus of a cruel and capricious society. Yet they also like to see themselves as special, either as great martyrs (“my life is hell” is a common expression) or as overlooked heroes chronically misunderstood by the “normies”. In this sense the narratives and theories of the subculture, no matter how preposterous they might actually be, are an unconscious attempt to compensate for deep feelings of inadequacy, abnormality, and usually a diminished set of social skills.

The strong overlap between the incel subculture and the alt-right is also highly significant. If there were no correlation then we could correctly deduce that the political values, beliefs and experiences of incels were irrelevant to the subculture and understanding the motives of the people involved in it. Or, put another way, an absent correlation between these factors would show that being an incel made no difference to the political views that person was likely to hold. But this is not so. The opposite is true. The relationship between incels and the alt-right movement is so strong that the former is virtually a fail safe predictor of the latter. Incels can be reliably predicted to hold alt-right beliefs. Of course, the reverse is not true. The entirety of the alt-right movement are not incels. But most incels hold alt-right views, to some degree or another.

This relationship is largely built around the alt-right’s gleeful image of being the ugly stepchild of politics that prides itself on stepping outside the square of political correctness to “speak the truth”. It presents itself as edgy, but also as the misunderstood and marginalised political affiliation that is deplored by the elite because it challenges prevailing orthodoxy with views amounting to cultural heresy. Heresy in any age, whether political or religious, has always had a particular allure for a particular sort of person. In this case, the draw for incels probably has much to do with the alt-right’s opposition to feminism and its enthusiastic destruction of feminist shibboleths, like the “wage gap” and the “#Metoo” movement.

Feminism is the arch-enemy for incels. It is their nemesis whose idols must be energetically smashed in order to destroy its cultural and social power. When mentioned among incels, feminism is almost ubiquitously referenced in the bitterest terms. Incels regard themselves as both a demonstration of the collateral damage of feminism, and they also view themselves as a pocket of resistance against it.

There is some validity to their grievances. In fact, the emergence of the incel subculture itself as a distinct entity should be viewed, at least partially, as a peculiar reaction against feminism and its radical excesses. This can be missed in the welter of condemnation from feminist blogs, news organisations and researchers who typically write about incels in monochromatic terms. Many articles have been written in contemptuous tones about the “fragile masculinity” of these young men or the “aggrieved entitlement” they display. The following is just one example:

Hegemonic masculinity dictates that men are expected to have sex; not having sex as a straight (white) man is deviant. Most other demographics are stigmatized in some manner for having or expressing interest in sex. Celibate women are more likely to be successful compared to celibate men. In general, celibate men tend to be in lower socioeconomic classes or unemployed, whereas celibate women tend to be of high status. Celibate men, while being marginalized for being celibate, blame women for their emasculation, not the powers that be (the patriarchy). They thus believe that their emasculation is justification for revenge violence against women, which they believe will restore their masculinity.

These sorts of analyses about the causes of involuntary celibacy and the attendant beliefs and attitudes found within incel circles are too simplistic and general, and are often blinkered by the assumption that the ideology of feminism is always an intrinsic good, that its suppositions are self-evidently true, and the perspectives of those who think otherwise are worthless. As this article has sought to show, the causes of involuntary celibacy are varied. It is difficult to capture the texture of this movement because it is highly diverse, highly disparate in its proposed reactions (e.g. the “red pill” stream versus the “black pill” stream), and highly unstable. Involuntary celibacy generally arises from an insecure identity. The insecure identity is created by a range of factors. These factors include childhood trauma, depression, sexually abnormal interest, autism, a defective view of women, an empty self, anxiety, socioeconomic marginalisation, a neurotic temperament, and Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

The anger among incels is part of a complex coping mechanism that cannot be easily boiled down to a gravy of simple interpretations. Their anger necessarily intersects with the system of beliefs they embrace in which the world is dominated by “Chads and Staceys” who live out a hypergamous dynamic. Yet, no matter how ridiculous, this an effort by damaged people to resuscitate a sense of self-value and belonging.

This is the keystone to really grasping the subculture. Sexual fulfilment for incels has nothing to do with slaking a burning sexual appetite that leaves them frustrated and miserable. Or put another way, they are not driven by a biological need for orgasm. Instead the desire for sexual intercourse masks a craving for status. Some Incels see sexual intercourse as a transition that advances them from one life condition to another and often feel depressed because they seem unable to make the transition that others easily can. They want the status of sexual activity and hope it will give them feelings of acceptance, connection, normality, and confidence. Other incels want the status that comes from having sexual intercourse with a specific type of woman under specific circumstances. For these incels, it is not that they cannot find willing partners. Rather the partners they find are not good enough for them. They will not settle for a “6” when they “know” they deserve a “9”. Finally, other incels want the status that comes from having real control over a women as a means to fulfil their construct of masculinity.

Their silly theories serve as both an explanatory framework that alleviates incels from the responsibility for their predicament, and also positions incels as victims of powerful forces over which they have little control. Many incels readily accept this premise because it confirms their preexisting feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness. Yet, at the same time they urgently desire control. Perversely, taking a regular bath in dismal thoughts encourages them to see themselves as martyrs and this provides a compensatory sense of significance. It is better to belong to an underground movement of oppressed and misunderstood victims – who gather to lament and tear their shirts at their hellish lot – than it is to be a solitary weirdo in a world of people who are having sexual intercourse and forming romantic attachments.

An intelligent grasp of the subculture must see all of its nuances. It consists of both dangerous and harmless men. It consists of men who are childish and unworthy, and others who are damaged and socially untutored. But whoever they are, the subculture they have created offers nothing. It may be an effort to medicate their sorrows, but ultimately it twists, destroys, and is self-defeating.

The Anglican Church of Tasmania Sells Up

133101

(Photograph: ABC, 2018)

The Anglican Church of Tasmania is selling 55 churches and a considerable portfolio of other properties.

Its survival strategy appears to be congruent with its sister branches elsewhere in the Western world. Having haemorrhaged most of its believers as a consequence of no longer proclaiming anything of worth, it has astutely recognised that the only way to keep the religion lumbering on for the immediate future is to approach the church in much the same way that a corporate headquarters approaches its outlets: cull the weak, close the unprofitable, sell the fat. In other words, the ruthless application of economic rationalisation.

The sell-off will raise about $30,000,000 for an estimated 200 survivors of abuse at the hands of Anglican clergy in Tasmania. But it is likely that the sale will generate three times that amount which will then be ploughed back into the very parishes that were unable to sustain the churches they sold in the first place. It thus kills two birds with one stone. It neutralises the issue of abuse survivors and also creates cash.

If there is anything that demonstrates the unenviable conundrum of the Anglican Church, it is this. With congregations in free fall decline, the only means to raise liquid revenue is to sell their property. But raising money for your heart by selling one of your kidneys is never going to be a sustainable strategy.

The financial situation of the Anglican Church more broadly reflects its theological situation where it increasingly represents a hollowed shell, propped up by the pillars of tradition which are so flexible in meaning as to reach the point of utter indifference. The rotting edifice is occupied by ageing liberals and once-radicals from the 1970’s who seem to think they can capture the affection and attention of people by being edgy and “not stuffy”. Such as allowing the Vagina Monologues to be recited in their churches.

In any case, the Bishop of Tasmania Dr. Richard Condie has his work cut out for him since he not only faces the burden of a rapidly thinning flock but also opposition from the very faction of theological liberals that have worked so tirelessly to shrink the number of souls in his cure.

They describe him as “fundamentalist” because he believes what St. Paul wrote about homosexuality. The bishop has even made statements in which he hints at the centrality of scripture. He has said that within the Anglican Communion there has been an “…erosion of confidence in the truth of the Bible that has led to an erosion of teaching about sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, the resurrection, about abortion, euthanasia, and all kinds of things, such that this is not recognisable as historic biblical Christianity“. In other words, the communicants and clergy of the Anglican Church, many no longer recognisably Christian, are in desperate need of evangelism.

It gives one some indication as to how far off the ranch the Anglican Church has travelled when a “fundamentalist” within their ranks is anyone who believes the Bible. It also explains why they have a shortage of Christian communicants. To have churches brimming full of Christians, you need to present actual Christianity, oddly enough.

My sheep hear my voice and they follow Me… But they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.

Sex for Breakfast, Death for Lunch: The Sons of the Sexual Revolution (Part I.)

hippie-history-festival

This is a three part feature series written in response to the van attack in Toronto which killed 10 people. Part I. considers some of the male-centric identity groups that have appeared in the last decade. In Part II. the Toronto terrorist’s particular sub-culture – the “incel” movement – is explored in more depth. Part III. finishes the feature series with a demonstration of how orthodox Christian theology can answer objections, philosophically overturn the new morality, offer renewal to the damaged, and properly interpret the sociological forces at work in our time.

  1. Unfinished Business: The Sexual Revolution
  2. Pick Up Artists (PUA)
  3. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

It may not seem that our society is lurching toward a crisis point when you are squirrelled away in a warm home on a rainy morning.

Life seems to trundle on with apparent normality; the sun continues to rise, the seasons come and go. And yet, for all of this, the substructure of our civilisation is being dismantled by the ongoing effect of the sexual revolution which in the past week has turned lethal. Within Western nations there are ferocious disagreements about the proper constitution of sexuality, gender, and family and since these things are so elemental to the human condition, everything is touched by the conflict – law, religion, sport, entertainment, and politics.

The upheavals in these domains have plunged Western society into troubled airspace. Issues of sexuality, family and gender are centrepiece moral and ideological conflicts. It is fair to say that an internal war is being fought over the regulation, identification and management of sex and gender. In the process, the foundations that have been taken for granted by Christian civilisation are being smashed apart along with the institutions that once adorned them.

Many examples could be provided to illustrate how far this revolution has spread. Just this week The College Fix published the findings of a video experiment. Students planted small yellow signs on the grounds of five Catholic college campuses that read: “God’s Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman“. The student researchers claimed that every sign they installed was vandalised or removed within minutes. Some were tampered with by college staff while others were interfered with by students, but none lasted longer than ten minutes. A couple of these signs were later replaced with pro-homosexual marriage signs which were, of course, left undisturbed.

The fact that this quiet tussle occurred within the institutions that the Roman Catholic Church charges with propagating a semblance of a Catholic worldview in their people, shows the depth to which the ideas of the sexual revolution have penetrated and how much further they have yet to run. University campuses are at the forefront of the cresting wave, breeding a new generation of radicals. What we observe is not encouraging and does not bode well for the future.

Conflict is the summary word. Far from bringing harmony, the sexual revolution has engendered vast conflict. Sexual and family conflict have exploded in severity and volume. Scandals in respected institutions are common. Worse, much of this is now aired publicly for broad consumption which exercises a further warping effect on people’s minds and hearts. The more people hear, see and read of sexual mayhem across the complex of human interaction, the more it encourages suspicion, feeds pharisaic codes of behaviour, and expands the appetite for pushing boundaries.

Revolutions have a habit of spiralling out of control. The sexual revolution, as a distinct cultural force, is no different which is why sexual issues are now among the most savagely fought over within our society.

As competing forces interact revolutions create enemies within and without. Factions coalesce, often implacably opposed to each other. Rivalries form; outcast villains reinvent themselves; schools of exclusive thought emerge; and enmities harden. For some people, the initial triumphs of the revolution are enough. They become the conservatives. In other circles, the boundaries are still too tight, too fuddy-duddy, and must be pushed even further. And so radicalism turns in upon itself, creating feverish hothouses of intellectual agitation. These, in turn, grow their own offshoots. As centres of agitation blossom they come into conflict with each other, a good example being the recent rivalry between lesbian feminist groups and transgender feminists.

Two weeks ago, we saw the dynamic of radicalism at work. The sexual revolution has bred a new and unique form of terrorism which targets gender.

Much of the world now knows the name Alek Minassian, who killed 10 people in Toronto by driving a van down a sidewalk. Minassian is the latest instalment in a list of young men who commit mass murder due to their sexual grievances which they have transformed into the manifesto of victimhood and oppression.

Alek Minassian belonged to a men’s movement known as the “involuntarily celibate” or “incel”. The incel movement is obsessed with sexuality and gender. It often lurks in cyberspace’s shadowy fringes where incels can connect with each other without too much scrutiny. Even so, their forums do get shut down sometimes. This is because incels have an uncomfortable tendency to sink into violent fantasies involving rape, murder, or the active harassment of women. They tend to encourage each other toward deviant or predatory behaviour that in some cases is criminal, and in other cases should be taken as a coded plea for psychiatric assessment.

But incels are not alone. Minassian’s vile act has caused the spotlight to fall more brightly upon a wide range of male-centric gender movements that are growing alarmingly across the world as the sexual revolution introduces more destabilisation into human relations. Each movement is an outgrowth of the sexual revolution in its own right, but interestingly, in some cases may be seen as a grotesque act of protest against it. It hardly need be said that each is putrid and vile in its own way.

This confederation of male movements – despite the fact they sometimes violently disagree with each other – do share a number of things in common. First, a negative view of women (and of modern society, supposedly run by and for women). Second, a distorted view of sexual intercourse. And thirdly, a putrescent view of masculinity that is strongly informed by Darwinian fantasy.

PICK UP ARTISTS

“Pick Up Artists” (PUA) or the “seduction community” consists largely of men who languish in the teenage fantasy that they can transform themselves into a living Adonis and have women fall at their feet left and centre. Whereas most teenage boys, even at their most hormonal, never lose the ability to distinguish between their fantasies of female availability and the stark limitations of reality, the men who are drawn into the PUA community seem to be locked into the fantasy with a childlike obsession.

The fundamental premise underpinning the PUA movement is the belief that women are susceptible a range of seduction techniques. You do need need to be particularly attractive for these techniques to work. They have a life and power of their own independent of the man wielding them. So much are these techniques regarded as a sovereign panacea that it forms the internal narrative of the subculture. The literature of the PUA community abounds with stories of fat, middle-aged, bald, sweaty men who walk into a bar alone at the beginning of a night, and leave at the end of the evening with one (or perhaps two) gorgeous women on their arms. The claim that men can obtain dating prowess through process alone is an article of faith within the PUA community. They truly believe that their techniques can more than compensate for kilos of extra flesh or sketchy personal hygiene.

The techniques themselves are risible. For instance, one technique called “negging” encourages men to subtly attack a woman’s insecurities with backhanded compliments that allegedly will then make her work for his approval. A PUA might look at a woman’s shoes, for example, and say, “Wow! Nice shoes. They look comfortable” or, “That’s a lovely dress. I saw a lot of people wearing that shade last year“. It is believed that negging makes a man more interesting to a woman. PUAs explain that the average woman is habituated to receiving flattery and compliments from men and associates this with weakness. Therefore a man who “negs” her will seem more interesting, less docile, and project the allure of confidence.

All this is based on the much-ballyhooed claim within PUA circles that women fall for jerks and predators while they merely “friend zone” nice guys. Street wisdom of this sort is the foundation for many PUA techniques. It’s the sort of conclusions one would draw if they observed merely a narrow slice of human interaction, such as the goings on in a rowdy bar. Such is the childish nature of the foundation into which the community places its faith. Nonetheless, the PUA community energetically asserts that these techniques work and, when properly applied, will enable a man to have sexual relations with virtually any woman he desires.

The Guardian, in its review of an expose of the inner working of the group, made this observation:

The jargon of the art, as explained in both The Game and The Layguide, is aggressive and militaristic. Going into clubs and deploying your newly found techniques is called “sarging”, supposedly named after someone’s cat but inevitably evoking “sergeant”. The woman you want to seduce is the “target”; her friend might be an “obstacle”; a male friend who accompanies you is your “wing”. These latter terms were taken by Mystery from the film Top Gun, in an apparently unconscious tribute to that film’s fervid atmosphere of homoerotic competition. The places in which seduction is practised are known collectively as “the field”, as though the protagonists were soldiers or spies. If they come home with a woman’s telephone number, a basic token of success, they write a “field report” and post it to the internet for appreciation and commentary. (“Sad sack artists”, The Guardian, 2005)

Give the character of the “seduction community” it is not surprising to discover that the PUA community consists of a few highly promiscuous men and many, many virtually celibate men. There is a smattering of men in between these extremes who can “pull” dates and have intercourse. They are involved in the community because they want to refine their abilities and pull better dates and have more intercourse.

This produces a group dynamic in which the majority lovelorn defer to the promiscuous, who represent (in their eyes, at least) the apotheosis of the art of seduction. The most promiscuous PUA are held in awed reverence. They take pretentious nicknames like “Mystery” and are attributed nearly mystical powers by the men in their orbit. The writings and media materials of these “seduction artists” form the basic manifesto of the group. In some cases, having sexual intercourse with multiple women and then writing about how they did it seems to be their full time occupation.

Such an obsessive focus on sexual intercourse suggests a severe dysfunction. This is confirmed by one former PUA by the name of Neil Strauss. Strauss became an iconic figure within the community and his writings continue to form the backbone of PUA techniques. Nonetheless, he has since abandoned the community and published an expose of it. He describes the way his mind worked as a PUA:

While waiting for his drink, Strauss falls into conversation with a group that includes two middle-aged tourists and a young woman. The woman is in her 20s – tanned, blond, wearing denim short-shorts. Game-klaxon! I watch to see how Strauss will react to her, only he doesn’t. He chats with the tourists, about nothing much. Then he chats with her, about nothing much. And then he walks away.

“The old me would have been performing everything for her attraction,” Strauss says when we’re out of earshot. “Thinking of sex with her. Or how to lure her away from her boyfriend, what have you. Even in, like, a work meeting – if there was a woman in that meeting, everything I said was for her, to get her phone number afterwards.”

If this seems abnormal, it’s because it is. It represents the substructure of a mental disorder, perhaps several. Interestingly, the dysfunctional nature of this behaviour was apparent to Strauss while he was still a practitioner of “the art” and a luminary within the PUA community.

Yet even when he reached a point where he wanted to pull away from the community, he was unable to disentangle himself. The inability to stop a destructive pattern of behaviour is usually a criteria for a psychiatric disorder.

Strauss reflects on this period of his life with a classic illustration of addiction:

He kept on spending, by his reckoning, “thousands of hours, thousands of dollars” in bars – preying. It was a lifestyle, Strauss says, that fast became “a recipe for self-hatred”.

Ultimately, Strauss discovered that a lifestyle built around radical promiscuity – both the practice of it and the teaching of other men to behave in this way – was neither healthy nor satisfying. He realised that the lifestyle was actually the external projection of a troubled and unstable psychology. The uncomfortable boundary line between his personality and the techniques he promoted is a topic addressed by several feature articles written on him by magazines and newspapers.

It is remarkable to consider that the fevered jetsam and flotsam of a troubled psyche can constitute the lifestyle advice pursued by thousands of men in the PUA community. It is a little like following the lifestyle advice of a doctor who is a cocaine addict and a kleptomaniac: the dysfunction of the expert tends to invalidate the advice he offers because it calls into question its true genesis. Nobody wants to (or ought to) base their life on the outflow of another person’s psychological disorder. That’s a recipe for making the madness spread.

By opening up his psyche to trained therapists for the first time, Strauss learned he had quite an assortment of mental and emotional conditions. In short order, he was diagnosed with anxiety syndrome, depressive disorder, two forms of sexual disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. “It was like a hammer hitting me on the head,” he says. “I really thought I was normal.”

The misogynistic qualities of this community are self-evident insofar that even to subscribe to these ideas requires a degraded and monochromatic view of women as a mandatory prerequisite. The average PUA views women not as people with their own inner life but primarily as a means to his own gratification. The PUA is seeking gratification of sexual desires as much as the gratification of his ego and pride, and it often seems this latter distinction means more to them than sexual release itself. Having sex is an accomplishment that attracts a certain status within his circle. It’s not dissimilar from a group of hormonal teenage boys who boast to each other about the girls they’ve kissed.

The female quality that matters most within the PUA subculture is physical attractiveness. In fact, it is quite normal for a PUA to refer to women as numbers on a sliding scale ranging between 1 and 10. “I saw a 9.5 talking with an 8 the other day, and I went straight in to get numbers from them both“. Women are viewed essentially as disagreeable and evasive robots who will, nonetheless, dispense the desired action if you punch in the right programme.

In the world of the Pick Up Artist, men must take their cues from nature. They must be dominant and in control of conversation, since women (even if they deny it) have an innate evolutionary desire to be dominated. They must also be flashy and showy, like a male peacock. Indeed, “peacocking” is a term they use to describe wearing some distinctive article of clothing or jewellery – perhaps a feathered hat or an oversized skull ring – in order to stand out from the crowd. They are inspired by apes and lions and the dominant postures these display to assert themselves over females. They attempt to practice the same subliminal body language cues which allegedly make women swoon in submission, or at least, make them unconsciously more susceptible to submitting to a sexual advance. Thus it is that relationships, according to the PUA community, are not about the love and delight a man discovers in a woman – her mind and spirit as well as sexual intercourse – but about sex and the techniques required to get it.

Strauss, in an interview with The Atlantic, give some insight into how extreme it gets:

It’s true, that’s when I went to such an extreme that everything’s a technique. The guys would practice taking photos with each other to see how they could look more dominant in a photo. They engineer their behavior to such an insane degree.

It is a sub-culture that is so lunatic in its method – like the formulas of a mad scientist who thinks he has cracked the secret to immortal life – that only a particular kind of person could ever be drawn into this sub-culture. The requisite quality is a simple faith in techniques and programmes to penetrate the mystery of relationships, which nobody illuminated by real world experience could ever maintain with a straight face. But an attendant quality within the PUA community is either a severe lack of social skills or personalities that approach sociopaths where manipulation and power are the keys to the entirety of the human existence. Worryingly, their own materials seem to testify that the closer to true sociopaths a PUA approaches the more successful he appears to become. It does not say much for the community at large.

The “game” appeals to the mindset that supposes everything can be reduced to a technology, a program to follow. “Think of tonight as a video game,” Mystery instructs his students before taking them out sarging. And so it attracts the kind of men who are super-analytical but interpersonally hobbled. As Strauss wryly notes of the eventual population of the dream Los Angeles seduction house: “The point was women; the result was men. Instead of models in bikinis lounging by the Project Hollywood pool all day, we had pimply teenagers, bespectacled businessmen, tubby students, lonely millionaires, struggling actors, frustrated taxi drivers, and computer programmers – lots of computer programmers.” The sell is that, with the special techniques they learn from Mystery and other gurus, the ubergeeky can often give a convincing simulation of being a regular human being, even if, like one sarger in this book, they are in fact near-sociopaths.

MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY

“Men Going Their Own Way”, usually abbreviated MGTOW, is another sub-culture that has congealed in the “manosphere” over the past decade. Unlike the PUA sub-culture which consists largely of the would-be promiscuous, this community consists of men who commit to living a life without romantic obligations, without children, and without strong attachments to society and the national community.

Adherents of the MGTOW lifestyle claim that society has become so feminised it is now actively hostile to men as a deliberate policy of administration and governance. This hostility toward men is primarily seen in the uneven sentencing between genders who may commit similar crimes (judges and courts come under special censure by the MGTOW movement), but these men also decry the gender ideologies pumped out by universities as well as the generalised marginalisation of male pursuits in modern culture. They argue that the Western world was built by men, yet has now embraced a feminine ideology that leaves no room for full-blooded male expression and identity.

Like many social protests, there is a kernel of truth behind the trappings. There is merit to the argument that the roles of men as fathers, workers, builders, creators, and leaders are no longer really honoured and supported. Unfortunately the MGTOW movement goes much further than this to assert that the remedy is to abandon society altogether. Many MGTOW will claim that any man who does not identify as part of the MGTOW sub-culture has become a useful idiot of the social feminisation programme. Furthermore, the men who defend the social system and the place of women are “white knights”. A white knight is any man who has become docile and deferential to both women and the feminised social system.

MGTOW claim that men have been emasculated across a range of domains. Sadly, it is not difficult for MGTOW to find ample evidence of the unfair treatment of men. Unlike the men’s rights movement, however, they do not posit solutions and therefore do not even attempt to work for change. To do so is pointless MGTOW argue because the social arrangement is so wildly unbalanced in favour of women that any change is scotch-taping a gaping crack or rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. Since the cards are rigged to yield aces for women, reforming the card table is pointless.

Instead, the MGTOW solution is to disengage from work, social obligation, children, and politics, and above all, to disengage from women. For most MGTOWs this involves embracing a bachelor existence and making no effort to look for a long-term relationship. This does not necessarily mean all MGTOW forswear sexual relations; some MGTOWS will engage in sexual activity with prostitutes or have a string of short term relationships with women. Such sexual relationships are considered acceptable within the sub-culture providing the relationship is entirely about the man’s gratification and serves his desires, goals and interests. He comes first.

This means that MGTOW typically relate to women with a conscious and premeditated lack of attachment, even with those they are having sex with. More advanced MGTOWs actually embrace their virginity or celibacy and commit themselves to keeping it – something known as “the full monk”.

Given this attitude toward sex and relationships one might be forgiven for thinking that MGTOW must be a relatively niche phenomenon, perhaps isolated to a smattering of disgruntled men, cracked misogynists and borderline misfits. It is hard to imagine too many men forgoing sexual relations for the sake of a lifestyle philosophy.

(One of the reasons God planted sexual desire into the human creation was to propel the two genders together and cause them to both need and desire union. To surmount this God-given impulse requires a great deal of rebellious effort. Martin Luther once observed that sexual desire arose from the original command God gave to his creation to “be fruitful and multiply”, and consequently, the yearning for sexual congress “was the last thing to die in man”.)

But far from being limited to a bag of human odds and ends, the MGTOW movement and various localised versions of it – such as the Japanese “herbivore men”; the soushoku danshi (“grass eating boys”) – now boast a significant and growing number of practitioners of this lifestyle. In Japan, 60% of men in their twenties, and 70% of men in their thirties are now classified as “herbivore men” with no interest in romantic or sexual relationships at all.

The rise of this phenomenon has caused something of a moral panic in Japan. A lack of romantic enthusiasm among their young men combined with rapidly declining population does not give demographic cheer. It is worthwhile seriously weighing up the long-term societal damage. It gives us some inkling into the population cost that a movement of this sort could one day have.

Although there are some regional distinctions between soushoku danshi and MGTOWs – MGTOW are a lot more aggressive in promoting their ideas unlike their Japanese counterparts – yet the worldview of both shares the common disengagement with traditional male roles:

Yoto Hosho, a 22-year-old college dropout who considers himself and most of his friends herbivores, believes the term describes a diverse group of men who have no desire to live up to traditional social expectations in their relationships with women, their jobs, or anything else. “We don’t care at all what people think about how we live,” he says.

Many of Hosho’s friends spend so much time playing computer games that they prefer the company of cyber women to the real thing. And the Internet, he says, has helped make alternative lifestyles more acceptable. Hosho believes that the lines between men and women in his generation have blurred. He points to the popularity of “boys love,” a genre of manga and novels written for women about romantic relationships between men that has spawned its own line of videos, computer games, magazines, and cafes where women dress as men.

Fukasawa contends that while some grass-eating men may be gay, many are not. Nor are they metrosexuals. Rather, their behavior reflects a rejection of both the traditional Japanese definition of masculinity and what she calls the West’s “commercialization” of relationships, under which men needed to be macho and purchase products to win a woman’s affection.

Neither does the MGTOW movement only encompass burnt out adults (young or old) whose dating or marriage experiences have turned them cynical and jaded. The media has reported on a growing number of teenage boys who are entering the movement as early as the age of 15. These represent a distinct and significant sub-set of the the movement – the TGTOWs: Teenagers Going Their Own Way. For these teenagers, relationships are fraught with the potential for abuse, dysfunction, pain, and breakdown. and many of them are deeply mistrustful of women. They have seen girlfriends make accusations against male relatives or friends, or they have had horrendous familial experiences. They thus choose to disengage early and seek for a life lived in secure solitude inside a small controllable circle.

It is a view of the self and of broader society that is close to a kind of moral solipsism: “the self is all I can trust“. Other TGTOWs maintain nearly exclusively male friendships, play a staggering amount of video games, work a minimal job, make no progress toward the usual accoutrements of adulthood like home ownership, and satisfy their sexual impulses with pornography.

A distinct flavour of revenge permeates the MGTOW movement. It is impossible to encounter any tendril of the movement without being exposed to its acidic hostility toward women, non-MGTOW men, and the social structures that hold a nation together. This thirst for vengeance is reflected in a recent MEL magazine expose of the MGTOW sub-culture. The quotes from its adherents shine a very strong light on the deep sense of alienation and anger these men seemingly experience:

MGTOW (pronounced “MIG-tau,” at least per everyone I spoke with) is a worldwide social phenomenon and online community of heterosexual men who have chosen a lifestyle that avoids legal and romantic entanglements with women at all costs. A Man Going His Own Way values self-ownership above all else, believing that he — and only he — has the right to decide what his goals in life should be. He refuses to surrender his will to the social expectations of women and society since he believes both have become hostile toward him.

Some MGTOW make a pledge of celibacy. (“Cut off the **** supply and raise awareness against the millions of chicks that use men and disrespect our natural role.”) Some engage in sex with prostitutes exclusively. (“The only honest women.”) Others sleep with tons of women; they’ll just never marry them. (“Even if a man has only three lovers in his entire life, he is getting more than his own grandfather — who had to marry her first.”)

The movement’s prescription is to vent its rage and punish the whole of society by deliberately opting not to fulfil any constructive or meaningful role in it. To varying degrees (since some MGTOW are quite successful men), its adherents choose social parasitism as a lifestyle. In its most extreme manifestation they purposefully build nothing, contribute nothing, serve no one, and do not participate in any form of familial life. Additionally, they actively preach hostility against the institutions that hold society up and promote a corrosive attitude of ambivalence and mockery toward these.

Although it may be tempting to regard this movement as too silly for words, it cannot be denied that their strategy is plausible. Any widespread male withdrawal from social life would lead to adverse long-term effects. For this reason the MGTOW movement should be considered potentially the most destructive of all the misogynistic movements, because while this movement is not an immediate danger to life and limb in the way that the incel sub-culture has become, yet by growing to a critical mass (and it is growing rapidly) its effects would be far more destabilising and hazardous.

MEL’s expose gives a good taste of their attitude toward the world at large:

Most MGTOW will tell you it’s more of a philosophy than a movement, punctuated with a serious helping of ZFG (“zero f***s given”). MGTOW are unapologetically selfish and, unlike men’s rights activists, aren’t looking to change the status quo, but instead trying to opt out of marriage, fatherhood, cohabitation and/or whatever else society expects of them — like a flock of indifferent ostriches.

Smitty the Great Oneanother MGHOW, employed a slightly more combative analogy in his description to me: “MGTOW are the Viet Cong of the gender war. The men’s rights activists don’t like us because, while we agree with them on some things, we won’t be their cannon fodder in a war we know they can’t win. Pickup artists hate us because they can’t make money off us. Feminists hate us because we won’t fight them. And women hate us because we won’t give them what they want.”

The MGTOW sub-culture produces streams of video content on the internet that tends to focus on the worst excesses of feminism (such as the infamous “Trigglypuff” recording), or instances of poor female behaviour. Interviews with women who lament the lack of male attention they receive are quite popular, and are taken by MGTOWs as evidence that the movement is gaining traction. Videos of feminist speakers, protesters, academics, or bullies are almost ubiquitous.

Given this preoccupation with poor female behaviour, it is not surprising that at the hub of MGTOW philosophy lies very negative views of women. Women are almost always presented as unreliable, entitled, spoiled, ruined by feminism, spiteful, arrogant, unfeeling, hurtful, money-hungry, and dangerous. Avoiding romantic entanglements is typically presented as a self-protective behaviour.

Digesting a steady diet of skewed materials of this sort, women are spoken of in terms that would curdle milk. Terms like “slut” or “whore” as a normative term of reference for a woman is quite usual. Women are sometimes referred to by their genitals. The abuse is not coherent. On one hand women are often insulted for being “ugly”, fat, stupid or insufficiently attractive but on the other hand, attractive women are attacked because they are attractive. Their appearance opens them to excoriation for their clothing, makeup, or poise. Their sexual activities are speculated over with malicious satisfaction.

Women who have professional qualifications – such as judges, doctors, lawyers or politicians – are regarded as innately dangerous. The common assumption among MGTOWs is that professional women will always act to the detriment of men. It is a striking historical inversion insofar as it resembles the attitude seen among radical feminists of the 1970’s for whom all men were agents of a mythical patriarchy.

Clearly the men involved in the MGTOW movement are angry and resentful. The community crackles with rage and hostility, and this is not only directed outwards. Sometimes the guns are turned upon their own, as MEL magazine notes:

I found the last three weeks I spent in the MGTOW Manosphere to be, for better or worse, reminiscent of 6th-grade recess — playful, petty and short-tempered. Make no mistake: These guys are bullies. Or as they put it, “Turning betas into men is a group effort, no one is in charge … and a good amount of time is spent shooting flaming arrows at each other for no apparent reason.” Immature? You bet.

A typical example of the profanity-laced commentary can be found on this forum (caution: contains extreme language and seriously degrading content). Below is a typical sample, censored for moral purposes:

You guys out there who aren’t Australian, don’t understand just how ******* **** women in Australia are. The courts, the laws and the police are totally against men, the police are the worst white knights you could ever imagine too. Unless you are Chad Mc**********, Australian women will not be nice to you, even during general interactions in a social environment. They’re totally ****, I mean I wouldn’t even **** an Aussie girl with someone elses **** let alone my own (again).

The above sample of MGTOW discourse hints toward a classic MGTOW narrative, which may be described as “The Lamentation of a Good Man“. These are saccharine mini-autobiographies in which the author will describe himself as good-looking, hard-working, athletic, adorable, funny, clever, and basically an all round excellent egg. Despite these qualities, his relationships either do not last or he cannot enter into a meaningful one. Women treat him poorly. He does not find the relational Shangri-La.

The lamentation usually concludes with the MGTOWs revelation that his experiences have proven that women are shallow and fickle. They cannot recognise a good prospect when it is right in front of them and can never be trusted. Of course, it does not occur to these men that their conclusion and its self-serving premise is so tragically flawed that it actually reveals their problem.

Like most sub-cultures, MGTOW embraces a spectrum of men from those who want no children or long-term relationships but are happy to have temporary relationships, all the way to the ultimate fulfilment of the MGTOW philosophy which is disengagement from the broader economic and social structure of his country, and going “off the grid” altogether. At this extreme, MGTOW allies itself with other conspiratorial groups that also preach against the federal government, although the MGTOW solution – to hide away in a cabin somewhere as a completely self-realised individual – is a passive response that does not fortunately lend itself to violent behaviour.

Our True Theology is Revealed in How We Handle Money

afron-_plousios_mesa

What shall I do? I shall pull down my barns and build greater. (Luke 12:18)

  1. Our true theology is revealed by our approach to finances
  2. Jesus presents the radical view
  3. Covetousness is the weakness of man
  4. St. Augustine describes the two motives of covetousness

1. There are very few things that reveal our true theology as precisely as our approach to finances. A person may profess to be deeply faithful to Christ. He may radiate piety, smiling humbly and making references to God all the time. Or she may regularly attend church, never absent from the pew. An external performance of Christianity is as old as the faith itself. And yet, our Lord takes pains to teach us that if our theology has not reached the wallet and chequebook – if the way we view finances are no different from the shrewd unbeliever – then our faith is, at best, questionable.

Our relationship to money – and indeed, to goods more broadly – tells us a lot about where we are in our relationship to God and the extent to which we trust God to be our provider. It shows to us the extent to which we are truly content with God. When we are content with godliness, this will manifest in both satisfaction and gratitude for the things we possess in the sure knowledge that all that we have (and no more) has been given to us by the express design of our Father for our own good.

Our attitude toward money is a great revealer of the quality of our conversion. Whether we are fretful about losing our property; worried about the markets; or whether we agonise over the future tells us much about the authenticity and depth of our faith. And, of course, how joyfully we give to others – “for God loves a cheerful giver“. Giving generously is particularly demonstrative of true conversion, for mankind in his dead nature is never tempted to divest himself of his money. He does not struggle with the inborn impulse to hand money over to others.

Quite the opposite. The prevailing sin of mankind is to be covetous, avaricious, greedy and grasping, which is why St. Paul could describe money as the “root of many evils”. On one hand, man ceaselessly wants more than he has. On the other hand, he holds jealously to what he has gained already, like the proverbial dragon guarding his store of gold.

The Lord addresses these impulses in the human heart many times during his ministry. Always, Christ directs us to a new view of life that must become the “new norm” for a true Christian. It is a view of life in which our relationship to things and money is radically altered. Where the bare frame of our human outlook is coloured in with divine realities, eternal priorities, and with a preoccupation with God and his kingdom.

afronplousiosM

2. The view of life that Jesus teaches is neither comfortable (for it demands living by faith and not by sight), nor is it congenital to our inborn nature (because it makes eternal, invisible things the priority of life). Moreover, what Jesus teaches is starkly realistic and people have never liked stark realism in any generation. “Life is short and uncertain,” Jesus says, “and you could die tonight. So stop living in the fantasy world that everybody else lives in. Stop worrying about money and goods. Start labouring for the treasure that does not fade or spoil, a treasure in heaven that lasts forever“.  Jesus tells us that a man’s life – his true security and happiness – does not consist in the abundance of what he has.

This point is established by Christ in the Parable of the Rich Fool.

Of all his parables, this represents one of the Lord’s most stinging rebukes during his ministry. It deals directly with man’s natural covetous desires, although it is only part of a much longer discourse on money and worry. Nonetheless, even without the rest of the context, it still clearly reflects Christ’s low tolerance for greediness, and equally clearly sets out the new view of life that Christians are to have. Yet it has often been ignored within the church because its message is unwelcome and difficult, especially as times have become more prosperous and every individual has more to lose.

One theologian observes:

The world, Christian as well as pagan, in each succeeding age, with a remarkable agreement, utterly declines to recognise the great Teacher’s view of life here.

3. Jesus begins by warning his audience to: “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of covetousness” (Luke 12:14).

The fact the Lord urges his hearers to be energetically on guard suggests that covetousness is subtle and common. If a Christian is not on his guard, Jesus implies, and does not learn to think with kingdom mindedness, he will surely be overpowered by a view of life that is acid to Christianity. Like the seed that fell among the thorns, he will soon find the gospel choked in his life by the love of riches.

Note that the Lord refers to all kinds of covetousness. Covetousness is not simply the desire for more than we have. It is not even breaking the laws of God and man for the sake of gain like Judas Iscariot, although this is certainly the result of covetousness. Rather, covetousness also includes holding onto that which we already have and the attendant belief that life is not worth living if we lose our possessions, comforts, and little luxuries.

Jesus describes an industrious farmer who gets a bumper harvest. He is giddy with delight, for now he can pull down his barns – actually, enormous underground granaries – and build bigger ones, and retire. He can spend the rest of his life taking his ease, eating and drinking, and having parties.

Rembrandt_-_The_Parable_of_the_Rich_Fool

It is a significant example of covetousness for our Lord to have chosen.

Jesus often turns our concept of vices on its head, attacks our safe definitions, and drills down to the attitudes beneath them. Note how the rich man in this parable does not provide a typical illustration of what people generally think covetousness looks like.

The rich farmer does not seem like he is desperate for more. Quite the opposite. Here is a man who has finally reached a point where he judges that he “has enough”. Enough for what? Enough for a long retirement in which he can wallow in his wealth, living a life of ceaseless pleasure. It is a testament to the ever-current nature of the gospel that if we fast forward to the 21st century, we discover exactly the same widespread disposition among millions who make it a serious goal of their lives to reach easy retirement, so that they might hit a golf ball around a green or spending hours relaxing in local cafes.

God’s answer to such a disposition: “You fool!“. The fact that God speaks directly in this parable – which is uncommon in Christ’s parables – strongly suggests that this is not merely an illustrative story but a cautionary biography of a real person. A biography enhanced with Christ’s heavenly knowledge.

In any case, God refers to him sternly as a “fool”. A biblical fool is an insensible man who thinks himself clever when he is not. In his stubborn pride he refuses to hear or repent, and thus places himself beyond all correction or redemption. If this farmer was an actual historical person, then he had evidently not listened very obediently to the message of Ecclesiastes in which the preacher describes the very phenomenon Christ illustrates. Ecclesiastes observes that men who labour all their lives and store up wealth frequently do not enjoy their earnings, but die and leave it to others to enjoy.

Why is the man a fool? Because, having finally set everything up for a pleasure-filled existence, his life was going to end that very night. The earthly paradise he longed for would not materialise because the stopwatch of his life’s span had run down to zero. He had held on to things that he could only keep temporarily. And since everything that falls into our hands is ours only for a fraction of time, and since we are eternal souls, wealth and goods can never be the source of our happiness and joy. To live for them is madness.

The parable underscores the serious reality of life which ought to underpin our handling of finances. The reality is this: even if we gained the whole world, the day will soon arrive when our soul will be demanded of us and we must give an account before the Judge of all the earth.

gg

4. St. Augustine addressed the issue of covetousness in his sermon (Sermon 36) on the text of Matthew 19:21: “Go sell all that you have and give to the poor“. In this sermon, St. Augustine presents the two major motives behind covetousness or avarice. He also goes on to argue that for a Christian – when he is renewed by the Holy Spirit in both mind and soul – the same motives remain, but are now purified and changed in focus and orientation. Instead of drawing the soul downward, those motives are set free to draw him upward.

This concept of corruption is a central feature of St. Augustine’s theology, and it makes a vivid reappearance in the 20th century through C. S. Lewis’ writings, especially the extended application of this principle in his book The Screwtape Letters.

rubric_issue_54971-600x318

St. Augustine explains that all human desires are, at their root, desires for God. Whether it be food, sex, drugs, money or music, behind every human yearning is a keenly felt emptiness, as if the soul had fallen into twilight and were vainly seeking to ignite the lamps with sodden paper. Man is a fallen creature, writes St. Augustine, and therefore does not realise his soul’s true need and does not seek for God. His soul cries out for communion with his Holy Creator but wretched man that he is! He tries to slake his thirst for an eternal God by indulging his sensual appetites. He engages in a relentless search for more – more money and more pleasure – as if the sheer volume of an unsatisfactory delight will eventually fill his need. So it is that “man is always restless until he finds his rest in God.

It is a striking theology that C. S. Lewis expands upon. “It is not that our desires are too strong,” writes Lewis, “but that they are too weak.” If we really desired abundant happiness we would seek it in Christ, the “Joy that man has always secretly desired”. Instead, man’s mind is so numbed and blunted by his fallenness that he thinks a bit of money or a new car will satisfy him. Lewis uses the illustrations of children stubbornly making mud pies in a puddle in the backyard because they cannot imagine what it would be like to go for a holiday to the beach.

This twisting of man’s desires and motives is a recurrent feature in St. Augustine’s writings. As in many of his pastoral writings and sermons, St. Augustine personifies virtues and vices. Of covetousness he writes:

What says avarice? “Keep for yourself, keep for your children. If you should be in want, no one will give to you. Live not for the time present only; consult for the future…” Thus avarice did enjoin one thing: “Keep for yourself, consult for the future”. 

Covetousness (or avarice), says St. Augustine, is motivated by the two impulses of keeping for oneself and laying up for the future.

“Keep for yourself,” says avarice. Suppose you are willing to obey her, ask her where you shall keep your gains? Some well-defended place she will show you, a walled chamber, perhaps, or iron chest. Very well, now you apply every precaution. Even so, perhaps some thief in the house will burst open the secret places; and while you are taking precautions for your money, you will be in fear of your life.

Or, it may be while you are keeping your store, he whose mind is set to plunder has it even in his thoughts to kill you. Lastly, even though by various precautions you should defend your treasure and your clothes against thieves; defend them still against the rust and moth. What can you do then? Here is no enemy without to take away your goods, but one within consuming them.

St. Augustine echoes Christ’s teaching here that our goods and money are simply never secure, regardless of our best efforts. Certainly, we can keep try to keep our money and property safe, but there are numerous cases of burglaries that have gone terribly wrong and someone has been left dead. Or banking errors that have seen people’s money leeched away. Or inflation or volatile markets that sees the value of every dollar erode away until it is worthless. Or, our goods become worn and damaged by mould, rust, or other forms of decay.

When covetousness demands that we “keep for ourselves”, it is a fictional demand. For even with our best efforts nothing that we have, from books to furniture to money, can be kept. Everything will pass from our grasp in time, one way or another.

No good counsel then has avarice given. See she has enjoined you to keep, yet has not found any safe place where you may keep.

Let’s consider her next advice, “Consult for the future”. But for what future? Only for a few and uncertain days.

She says, “Consult for the future,” to a man who may not live even until tomorrow. But suppose him to live as long as avarice thinks he will… [suppose] that he grow old and come to his end: when he is bent double with old age and leaning on his stick for support, even then he still hears avarice saying still, “Consult for the future.”

(The number of elderly retirees who have been caught in investment scandals in recent years have skyrocketed. Much of this has come to light in the current banking commission exposing poor industry practices. In some cases, people well advanced in years have taken out loans for properties that they would not live long enough to pay back. Others made more and more exorbitant investments into the millions. It is a technicolored confirmation of St. Augustine’s observation that even old people can continue to live in the delusions of covetousness.)

For what future? When he is even at his last breath she still speaks. She says, “for your children’s sake”. If only we could find that old men who had no children were not avaricious! Yet to even to childless elders, who cannot even excuse their sinful greed by pretending to have family affections, she still ceases not to say, “Consult for the future.”

…so let us look to those who have children. Can they be certain that their children will possess what they shall leave? Let them observe the children of other men. Some lose what they had by the unjust violence of others. Other children lose what they had by their own wickedness, consuming everything they possessed. So it is that the children of rich men can remain poor.

…But a man will say, “My children will possess this.” It is uncertain. I am not saying that this is a false claim, but at best, it is uncertain.

But now suppose that their inheritance of your estate is certain. What do you wish to leave them? What you have gotten for yourself. But everything that you have gotten was not left to you. Yet you have it. If you have been able to get possessions that were not left to you, then they will also be able to get what you have not left to them.

St. Augustine then shows how these motives can be more properly directed in a heavenly direction:

Thus have the counsels of avarice been refuted… Now let righteousness speak. The words will be the same, but they will not have the same the meaning.

“Keep for yourself,” says the Lord, “consult for the future”.

Now ask Him, “Where shall I keep?”

You shall have treasure in heaven, where no thief approaches, nor moth corrupts. Against an enduring future you will be able to keep it! Come, blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

How many days this kingdom will last for is shown by the end of the passage. After He had said to those on his left hand, “these shall go away into everlasting burning”, to those on his right hand He says, “but the righteous into life eternal.”

This is consulting for the future. A future which has no future beyond it. Those days without an end…  neither preceded by a yesterday nor succeeded by a tomorrow. So then let us consult for this future. The words which avarice spoke to you are not different from this, yet by them is avarice overthrown.

But what am I to do about my children?”

Hear on this point also the counsel of your Lord… I would be bold to speak through His mercy; I would be bold to say something, not of my own imagining, but of His pity.

Keep then for your children, but hear me. Suppose any one should lose one of his children… This is man’s condition. It is not that I wish to see it, but sadly we see cases of it. Some Christian child has been lost. Perhaps you have lost a Christian child.

But you have not indeed lost him. Rather you have sent him before you. For he is not gone away, but only gone before. Ask your own faith: surely you too will go there too? The same place where your child has gone.

Does your son live? Ask your faith… Consider with Whom he is. If any son were serving at the Court and became the Emperor’s friend, and were to say to you, “Sell my portion, which is there, and send it to me; would you find what to answer him?”

Well, your son is now with the Emperor of all emperors, with the King of all kings, with the Lord of all lords…

Easter Sermons: Banal, Saccharine, and Boring

atina

When St. Paul preached on this hill in Athens nearly 2,000 years ago, his “Easter sermon” turned the city upside down and became one of the most influential in the history of the world. Not much danger of that happening with the trite, cliched efforts of modern pastors, clerics, and theologians.

At Easter it has become customary to hear straining-to-be-meaningful sermons that aim either to emotionally energise a congregation, or otherwise attempt to apply the resurrection of Christ to contemporary political and social issues. Some preachers are unwitting comedians, as they offer hilarious examples of what happens when orthodoxy is derailed and an ersatz Christianity is transposed over the top. The result veers between contemptible and ridiculous.

This year did not disappoint. Dutifully, newspapers reported the sermons of a motley cast of popes, bishops, princes, pastors and priests whose pronouncements from pulpits around the world, when taken together, constitute a powerful emetic.

A small sample is sufficient to give a flavour of Easter in 2018:

Pope Francis used his Easter sermon to talk about refugees, immigrants and Syrians. Last year, he used his Easter Sunday sermon to talk about tragedy, misery, and disaster in the world with very little mention of the themes that the Apostolic writers were wont to associate with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection: themes like sin, repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual regeneration.

PFr
Pope Francis offers to the crowd the glad tidings of Easter, with sermons featuring strong messages about geopolitics, including immigrants, Syrians and refugees.

To be fair to Prince Charles, he is not a preacher by vocation but if he is ever crowned king, he will receive the appellation “Defender of the Faith” and will become the head of the Church of England, which implies the need for a minimal theological awareness.

It is with great relief to all that Prince Charles demonstrated that he would not be out of place among the muddle-headed prelates of the Church of England as he delivered a patented woolly message on Good Friday reminding everyone about the great similarities between Islam and Christianity. So great are these similarities, that it is a matter of extreme befuddlement to the Prince as to why there is no peace between them.

The Prince reminded everyone that Mary is a shared figure in both Islam and Christianity, and having thus established this striking, cosy closeness between the faiths, appealed for everyone in the middle east to lay down their shoulder-held missile launchers, and to live at peace as friends. The Prince’s message is bound to make a big difference to the geopolitical situation, with many thousands of people heeding his words. For what militant in Syria does not hang, bat-like, from every word that proceeds from the His Highness’s mouth? Just like bishops of the Church of England, the Prince has acquired the habit of public hand-wringing, virtue-signalling, vacuous lamentation, and “calls” to masses of humanity to immediately cease their evil ways because their evil ways are simply not very nice.

This year, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby gave his sermon in the presence of an art installation made from hundreds of dangling articles of refugees’ clothing, transforming Canterbury Cathedral into something resembling a Mad Hatter’s laundry room. The Archbishop did make a heroic effort to sound like an Anglican clergyman who actually believes things in the New Testament, although his Easter sermon was richly interspersed with references to bombs and terrorism in Egypt, giving the impression that any mention of the resurrection was a somewhat irritating excursion from his real topic of interest, that being geopolitics in the Near East.

In Australia, the Anglican Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy was reported to have given a sermon imploring Anglicans “not to run away from challenges”. Following this sermon of dazzling substance, she was so swept up in the awe of the resurrection that she immediately addressed the major sporting scandal running the rounds in Australia, involving high profile cricket cheats. The Archbishop was most concerned that the cricketers should forgive themselves, which she opined was going to be one of their foremost challenges – the forgiveness of God not even rating a mention.

Perhaps one of the most preposterous articles was written by Robyn Whitaker, a theologian whose interests include “gender, sexuality and ethics”. One online profile states that she has expertise in feminism and gender equality.  Whitaker’s article asked readers to focus on the race of Jesus of Nazareth and to think about his skin colour.

Other clerics and would-be religious leaders decided that it was best to boil the texts of the scripture dry, and get down to the residue of a few basic principles. “Hope” is always a popular one, or sometimes “renewal“. Vague concepts like these are quite plastic. Even a borderline-competent public speaker can use a theme like that as a launching pad for a peppy talk to boost the morale of their listeners. The resultant sermon typically sounds like it could have been lifted from a life coaching manual.

Finally, there are those sermons that bear titles which imply that the meaning of Easter is opaque and dark. It is no longer clear in a world of modernity, colour and excitement. Titles like “Why Easter still matters” or “What should the resurrection mean to you?” arrogantly suggests that the resurrection of Christ is an impenetrable historical story, remote and alien to the listener.

This is just a small sample, mind you, of Easter sermons. The banality is endless, and it comes as a considerable relief to turn from these “clouds without water”, as St. Jude would describe them, to the fountains of living water from the scriptures. For in contrast to modern clerics, the New Testament begins from a very basic supposition.

The New Testament takes for granted that this supposition is clear to anyone.

It is quite simply this: something of tremendous consequence was accomplished when Jesus died on a crucifix outside of Jerusalem. This has shifted the invisible order of things, and this alteration of the spiritual reality in which humankind lives reached its apogee three days later when Christ rose from the dead, the true King of all the Earth.

Not one of the apostolic witnesses asks the question, “Why does the resurrection matter?“. Not one of them attempts to make the resurrection applicable to their hearer’s context. Not one tries to blend the resurrection story into a morality fable about slavery or the machinations of the Roman senate and their greedy imperial taxation schemes. Not one tries to boil it down to a string of saccharine, safe buzzwords – “it’s all about love, folks!”.

No, the inverse. The apostolic assumption is the resurrection, if truly believed by the reader, is significant in a way that will be obvious to anyone. It is quite clearly a testimony that requires no interpreter because the very fact that a man has risen from the dead is sufficient of itself to establish his primacy in the constellation of ideas and opinions. It justifies his claims; it underscores their merit; it overturns all competition; it empowers his gospel. A person who reads of the resurrection, who believes it, and who earnestly, deeply seeks for Christ in the silence and stillness, will find him.

The best kind of sermon in our times, therefore, is one that follows the apostolic example. It is the sort of sermon that invites people to believe and seek for Jesus himself. Not to seek for “hope” that Aunt Sally will get better, not to seek for “renewal” of our finances in 2018, neither to seek to mine the text for forgettable sentiments to spray upon contemporary political issues. But, rather to be made aware of the heaviness of our peril. Of our imminent approach to judgement and ruin. To be broken and contrite in our reflections upon ourselves.

And thus to seek for Jesus himself: the Lord of Life who welcomes properly penitent souls. The One who can transform a person’s inward life and give him a deep sense of the beauty of holiness; the ugliness of sin; a thirst for godliness; a hunger for God; and the unspeakable joy of tangible, deep communion with our Creator, Friend, and Redeemer.

How different Easter would be if clerics took their cues from St. Paul and preached the resurrection as the Apostle did. No mealy-mouthed sugary sweetness here. Rather St. Paul preaches the resurrection as a divine command to the human race; an urgent and non-negotiable summons to repent and believe. And he does so with the unstudied impetuosity of a man who knows of that which he speaks, is unswerving confident, and knows that he is conveying the authorised message of God to the world:

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you…

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.