In the book 1984, there is an alleged group called The Brotherhood that is trying to overthrow the state of Oceania. The Brotherhood is alleged because given the nature of propaganda and lack of information on Oceanian society, there is no way to know if it really exists. The main chracter even asks at one point if The Brotherhood is real and is told that even if lives decades he will never know. Effectively The Brotherhood does not exist because even if it did, the way the government of Oceania describes The Brotherhood is completely different than reality. What is called The Brotherhood does not exist. The government of Oceania constantly produces propaganda on how The Brotherhood is wrong yet according to them The Brotherhood never stops being a threat. That same propaganda says that anything bad that happens is caused by The Brotherhood. No matter what happens The Brotherhood is able to cause major damage and only seems to get more powerful.
Incels are treated the same way The Brotherhood in 1984 is because incels are blamed for bad things (or things that are considered bad by dominant political ideologies even if sad things aren’t actually bad) that they had nothing to do with. Incels are constantly connected to #GamerGate, the MRM, and to MGTOW, but the worst is blaming acts of criminal violence on incels. Lots of people believe that the most recent school shooting was caused by an incel because of this story about how the shooter was supposedly rejected by a girl. The response to that article has been things like, “Sounds like he was another incel”, “You’ll never get a date now, virgin”, “So, another incel takes his frustrations out on innocent people. Great.”, “there exist terrifying similarities between the way the most incels and serial killers think”, and “It might be at the point where we have to take out the incels before they do it to us.” It turns out that this story is completely wrong and anti-incel propaganda. The source of this story is the mother of the girl that allegedly rejected the shooter who had no way of knowing whether this happened. The mother of the girl that allegedly rejected the shooter was not involved in her daughter’s life so this is all made up.
This is not the only example of incels being falsely accused of violence/terrorism. Alek Minassian, the guy in Toronto who ran over those people in a van, is an incel right? Tim Pool, the only journalist to investigate whether Alek Minassian was an incel, discovered that there is no evidence that Alek Minassian is an incel. Minassian’s facebook profile is only linked to known trolls and the post itself was posted when Minassian was already in custody.
The Florida school shooting earlier this year was also blamed on the shooter allegedly being an incel. In this case the shooter had a girlfriend but this is used as evidence that he was an incel. Once comment at that link said, “Yeah but it still fits the m.o. of the average incel. Abusive towards women”. In 1984 terms, this is an example of double think where domestic violence is blamed on incel men even though incel men can’t be committing any domestic violence since they never have a wife or a girlfriend. This is a reoccuring theme I have noticed in discussions about incel men even though it is impossive for incel men to commit domestic violence by definition.
It’s not just school shootings and other violent acts that are falsely blamed on incel men. People are acting like incels are hiding under their beds. That can be seen with Ellen Pao’s recent tweet about how incels have embedded in tech companies as if incel men are a conspiracy invading and taking over tech companies. Incels are also often referred to as a “movement”. Incels are not a movement. They are group of men with a similar condition. Referring to incels as a “movement” is to attempt to imply there is some sort of coordination between incels and organization of incels. This is not the first time the idea of an “incel domestic terrorist organization” has been pushed. I have previously documented how there have been demands that boys suspected of being potential incels start being tracked in third grade, that incel men be tracked by the NSA, that incel men be castrated, and concetration camps be created for incel men.
There are some differences between how The Brotherhood is treated in Oceania in 1984 and how incels are treated. In 1984 the government of Oceania would never say that The Brotherhood had infiltrated and taken over ministries of the government. Incel men have been accused of infiltrating (or having sympathiers in) law enforcement and the national security establishment. According to people who believe this, this is why shootings by incels keep happening and “nothing is done” about them. One of them said:
The FBI has already had several chances to stop these guys, but Agent No Reply continues to be Agent No Show.
I know there are many fine officers of law enforcement, but how many MRAs are there in LEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security? How many white nationalists? Percentage higher than that of the general population? Any way to even know?
It’s not like these are particularly feminist agencies (Google the stats for female officers and agents. 80+% male is typical.).
Are women’s safety issues being downplayed or outright silently dismissed because the guys in charge of our safety are part of the problem?
Another important difference is the source of anti-incel propaganda. In 1984, all of the propaganda about The Brotherhood came from the Oceanian government, specifically the Ministry of Truth. When it comes to incels, there is no top down government ministry of truth producing anti-incel propaganda. Anti-incel propaganda is a grassroots bottom up phenomenon. This is one reason why government agencies are accused of being infiltrated by incels or sympathetic to incels. The government has no policy of purging incels or worrying about incels since it has no reason to do so. While there is no government ministry of truth producing anti-incel propaganda, the techniques and tactics used against incels by individuals volunteeting to produce anti-incel propagada are very similar to those used in 1984.
War has been declared on incel/forever alone/forever unwanted men. Ellen Pao, the woman who started a sexism lawsuit to hide her own incompetence and atrocious behavior, is demanding that tech companies fire all of their incel/FA/FU male employees.
This isn’t a joke. It is being taken very seriously as can be seen from this article at Newsweek. Since no incel/fa/fu man is stupid enough to bring up their status at work, the only way mass firings of incel/fa/fu men can be accomplished is by demanding men provide detailed reports of their sexual histories and current sexual encounters. Or maybe we will see mass firings of men who women don’t find attractive regardless of their status.
If you find yourself questioned about your sexual status at work, your answer should be that you won’t answer until you consult with legal counsel. It doesn’t matter if you have a lawyer or not. This should throw up a roadblock to them firing you.
This has to be the biggest single hypocrisy in the history of the world. Women have whined how they didn’t wanted to be judged on their sexual activity. Women have whined about sexual harassment and made false accusations of sexual harassment. Now, we have a woman proposing mass sexual harassment against men and judging men on their (lack of) sexual activity.
Don’t think that not being an incel means you can escape from this. If you’re not getting laid enough, you will be fired with all of the incel/fa/fu men. If you’re not attractive enough to women, you will be fired with all of the incel/fa/fu men. If some woman simply wants to be rid of you, she will falsely accuse you of being an incel to get you fired.
Donald Trump recently defended due process on Twitter.
Trump’s defense of due process is very weak. That’s because he says “some [allegations] are true”. While that tecnically could be true, the problem is that the women and manginas who have declared war on due process will not be swayed by attempts to meet in the middle. They will consider Trump’s charity and reasonableness to be weakness on which they can pounce. Trump is so used to the idea that he is a great negoitatior that he is (possibly without realizing it) negoitating away due process. Also, we should not forget that Trump called for the death penalty for the Central Park 5 even after their convictions were overturned due to DNA evidence.
The sad thing about this is that Trump is now the strongest defender of due process among public figures with this weak defense of due process. Other politicians are folding like a cheap suit in the face of nonsense accusations from women such as when Al Fraken resigned from the Senate. And it’s not just elected officals. The manginas at Reason, a Libertarian publication, decided to attack Trump for defending due process even though they had to shred every Libertarian principle they claim to believe in and cherish.
Trump’s defense of due process is weak, but he is better than anyone else in the public sphere because he actually defended due process.
With all the false rape and false sexual harassment accusations out there such as the #MeToo movement and it being Christmas soon, how long will it be until Santa is falsely accused of sexual harassment or rape? I am not joking. Facts like Santa not exististing will not stop women from saying that Santa groped them or that Santa raped them.
There are already women saying that girls sitting on Santa’s lap leads to women getting raped. (Boys also sit on Santa’s lap but that fact is conviently left out.) Rubbish like that is a small step to women making false accusations against Santa. Listen and believe is going to take on a new dimension.
I found the like above by coming with a totally insane idea, women falsely accusing Santa, a mythical person, of raping them. Then I did a google search. That was enough.
Next Easter, I’m sure women will be falsely accusing the Easter bunny of raping them. That will be followed by women making false accusations of rape against mythical gods like Zeus.
Andrea Ramsey, a Democrat who was going to run for Congress, was forced to drop out of the race because she was accused of sexually harassing a man. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) refused to support Ramsey’s campaign because of the sexual harassment accusation. This is not a joke. This has actually happened.
It gets even better when you read what Ramsey said about this.
“In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard. For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”
No one heard Ramsey talk about “careful analysis” when Al Franken was forced to resign.
No one heard Ramsey talk about “nuance” when Garrison Keillor was thrown into a 1984 style memory hole for an accident.
No one heard Ramsey talk about “due process” when Trump was (and still is) being falsely accused of sexual assault or when Emily Lindin said that it would be necessary for innocent men to lose their jobs due to false accusations of sexual assault and harassment to “fight the patriarchy”.
Instead of whining about it, Ramsey could try to take some action. She could support some Republican candidates for Congress or perhaps even run as one herself. Or she could try suing the DCCC. At a minimum the Democrats aren’t applying the same standard to all of their elected representatives. Chuck Schumer has been accused of sexual harassment. Of course, it’s an incredibly obvious false accusation. However, that does not matter. The Democrats should force him to resign since that is the policy of the Democratic party now. Ramsey could claim that she is being discriminated against.
I am certain Ramsey will not do any of that or anything else to actually fight back. Like with mangina Al Franken she will decide that its more important for women that she falls on her sword. I will shed no tears for her even if she’s innocent. Like Franken, she’s getting exactly what she deserves for her refusal to fight.
Al Franken said the following in his speech announcing his resignation.
“Over the last few weeks, a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was upset. But in responding to their claim, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation. Because all women deserve to be heard and their experiences taken seriously. I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that in fact I haven’t done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently.”
This can be shortened to “Listen and believe women except the women who are accusing me of groping them”. Obviously, this is inherently contradictory. Franken is trying to have it both ways, but he can’t. Either you don’t listen and believe women or Franken is guilty. Those are the only two options. This contradiction appears again later in his speech.
“I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party. But this decision is not about me. It’s about the people of Minnesota.”
If Franken is innocent then why should believe the women who accuse Trump and Moore? If we’re always supposed to believe women then Franken is guilty. Again, Franken can’t have it both ways. The reason why Trump is president and that Moore is likely to be in the Senate is not because they’re evil like Franken would have you believe. It’s because Trump and Moore both fought back, even if it was pretty minimal. Trump and Moore made a stand against the women accusing them instead of trying to promote two ideas that directly contradict each other.
Franken had two choices, commit mangina seppeku for women or fight back and defend himself (which would include fighting back against women in his own party who want him to resign). Franken chose mangina seppeku. I tend to think Franken is innocent (although we can’t discount the possiblity that Franken is Hugo Schwyzer lite) so this is really something that could be found in 1984 by George Orwell. It’s reminiscent of Winston Smith changing historical records when someone fell out of favor with the Party. Since Franken is not living in the world of 1984, he had a choice. Franken could have chosen facts over lies that benefitted his party, but he did not because he is a mangina feminist. If Franken is innocent, I still have no sympathy for him because he did not have to be a case study in gynocentric orwellianism. Franken could have chosen facts over gynocentric orwellianism, but he decided being a mangina was more important.
As we know women make a lot of false accusations whether it’s about rape, sexual harassment, or lots of other things. When they get caught making false accusations, they (and their mangina defenders) often will use the excuse that they were just trying to start a conversation (or dialogue or discussion). Obviously, it’s bullshit, but that doesn’t stop others from using the same excuse, namely conspiracy theorists. For example, Smultronstället said this.
I guess it is because of this that I still have kind of a soft spot in my heart for Alex Jones. Because these infowars-guys … say what you want about them, but at least they recognized that they were ruled by people who had different INTERESTS, who were not simply misinformed but malicious.
Let’s remember the context of this. Alex Jones has falsely accused a lot of men of raping and sexually abusing children. (This is something we see every conspiracy theorist do.) PizzaGate is one of the biggest examples, but far from the only one. The Chobani corporation is suing Alex Jones because Jones falsely accused Chobani and its owner facilitating the rape and sexual abuse of children. Raping or sexually abusing children is one of the most vile crimes in existence. Falsely accusing someone of that crime is equally as vile. Yet, conspiracy theorists like Smultronstället defend this by saying that at least Alex Jones started a conversation about how the “ruling class” having different interests than the rest of the population. Putting aside that the issue of whether the “ruling class” has different interests to the rest of the population is more complex than that, it is clear that the nearly all of “ruling class” has no interest in raping and sexually abusing children, just like everyone else.
Just as both women and conspiracy theorists expect us to “listen and believe”, both groups think it is perfectly acceptable to falsely accuse men of the most vile of crimes. In fact, the false accusations that women and conspiracy theorists make are practically the same. The only difference is whether men are falsely accused of raping women or of raping children. Since they’re so similar it’s not a surprise that when caught by their lies, they both use the excuse that they were just trying to “start a conversation”.
Alex Jones was one of the conspiracy theorist morons promoting PizzaGate. (PizzaGate was the false accusation that Comet Pizza in DC was child sex abuse ring for the Democrats.) A few days ago, Alex Jones “apologized” for promoting PizzaGate. Why did Alex Jones issue an “apology” for PizzaGate? It has to be the first time he has ever done so. It is because he was about to run into real legal trouble. The day he “apologized” was the last day he could “apologize” for PizzaGate and not be sued for libel under Texas law.
In other words, Alex Jones is a coward if he actually believes in conspiracy theory. Regardless Alex Jones proved that conspiracy theory is bullshit since this is just an example of how conspiracy theorists won’t stand up for their beliefs if they run into any real trouble. (What else can you expect from a man who was against government surveillance but then changed his mind as long as Trump was in charge?) It gets in the way of their scams selling “male enhancement” products and other garbage.
We have been talking a lot lately about the Cultural Marxism/Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. With this conspiracy theory, there is a lack of original references about cultural marxism from the Frankfurt School’s own texts. (This is common in a lot of conspiracy theories besides the cultural marxism conspiracy theory.) If you want to know what happens when you ask for an original source reference from cultural marxism conspiracy theorists, take a look at what happened when Boxer tried asked for a original source reference on the subject. (This was after another person who tried to pass off a youtube video as “proof” of the cultural marxism conspiracy theory which didn’t reference any original sources.)
Boxer, knock off the faux-scepticism. The Frankfurt School’s influence on Cultural Marxism is undeniable. They literally *invented the term*; they talk about it in their papers. The idea that it’s a conspiracy theory is Leftist whitewashing, and an attempt at covering their tracks to delude the masses.
Boxer then asks for the specific source where the Frankfurt School invented the term, “cultural marxism”. After that the conspiracy theorists do nothing but throw links at Boxer that have no references to any original source material and attack Boxer for asking for references to original source material. Boxer describes what is happening with an excellent analogy.
Citing sources that you’ve never read is a problem, no? It’d be like arguing that the author of Dalrock blog is a misogynist who has written articles on his blog encouraging men to play grab-ass with random chicks on the street. When (and it’d be when, not if) the claimant was asked for a source, he’d post links to Amanda Marcotte and Manboobz, who made that claim.
The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that the sources are mostly online, free for anyone to read. You’re going to run into people like me, who have read them all and written peer-reviewed journal articles on the original sources, who will have to say “he’s an internet kook” when people wonder where you’re pulling all this nonsense from. Sadly, it makes everything else you say suspect.
Whenever you ask a conspiracy theorist for a reference to original source material, they will almost never provide it. Instead they will give you youtube videos and other links that provide no references to original source material. They love youtube videos because they are trying to hide the fact that what they are saying has no connection to original source material. In the rare cases, you get a reference to a piece of original source material, one of two things will happen. Either the original source material never existed, or the original source material says something completely different.
Boxer makes an apt comparison to feminism. Feminists want you to “listen and believe” instead of investigating and evaluating evidence. Conspiracy theorists want you to “listen and believe” instead of investigating and evaluating evidence, too. This is another example of how feminism and conspiracy theory is similar. Never listen and believe. Always demand evidence and original source material. If someone whether a feminist or a conspiracy theorist refuses to produce references to original source material or produces false references to original source material, assume they are lying because most likely, they are.
The Men’s Rights subreddit found information from the EEOC about how many sexual harassment accusations are false. The EEOC is willing to admit that more than half of all sexual harassment accusations have “no reasonable cause”. In other words, they’re false accusations.
Unfortunately, there is no breakdown by gender how many of the sexual harassment accusations are false even though they list how many sexual harassment accusations were made by men. We can assume that sexual harassment accusations by men have reasonable cause because men know they would be laughed at if they made sexual harassment accusations like women do. Based on that and the numbers provided by the EEOC, that means that at least two thirds of sexual harassment accusations from women have “no reasonable cause” or are false.
The EEOC probably used every trick they could to keep a sexual harassment accusation from a woman from being classified as having “no reasonable cause”. We can reasonably conclude that nearly all sexual harassment accusations from women are completely false.