Comments on “Incels with Andy Nowicki and RedHawk.”

I did not listen to all of it because I found it rather distasteful (though “99IronDuke” and “RedHawk” did see that our society is in shambles to some extent, but defended the decadence that led to it.)

For example, both claimed that the (online) “Right” ought to stop calling men who had several girlfriends in younger years or are “good at flirting” (or whatever) degenerate. They also said one cannot expect men today to live chaste for ten to fifteen years—until they are able to marry and support a family—, so dating has to be accepted.

I disagree. “Joel Davis”, too, said in ImperiumCast XVII (feat. Ed Dutton) (around the 56 minute mark) that it is “very bad” for a society to allow women to be used by men as “vehicles for masturbation” until they eventually marry and have children.

Further, they lamented that many children nowadays grow up without their father. However, by accepting sexual promiscuity—essentially what dating means—they are at fault themselves, since this lifestyle leads to such outcomes. The data shows that a divorce is more likely if one already had several “partners” in the past, thus it only makes the situation worse and creates more broken families.

Regarding “PUAs” and “tactics” like “peacocking”, RedHawk said “don’t care, got laid.” He later added that men lead, women follow.

I agree with the latter statement. Not only for this reason, but to be a good example on the whole, one ought to care about one’s behaviour, since it will ultimately influence society. Civilized societies are the result of civilized individuals. And as a Christian, you need to point out wicked and sinful behaviour at least sometimes.

And why would anyone pay taxes for a society which allows abortion, sexual promiscuity, the destruction of marriage not to speak of the ever-growing list of obscenities one has to endure nowadays?

See also “The Grand Old Name of Gentleman (J. R. Vernon, 1869).” Included in: Reform and Intellectual Debate in Victorian England (Barbara Dennis, David Skilton):

The grand old name of Gentleman, Defamed by every, and soiled with all ignoble use. In Memoriam many hues make up light, many qualities the Gentleman. There is need that it to be defined, for the words are true that the name, the grand old name, is nowadays more than ever defamed by every charlatan, and soiled with all ignoble use. It may be laid down as a first condition that the Gentleman has that just appreciation of self which constitutes self-respect. He is company for himself; he has sympathy with himself; he understands himself, and retires on this inner consciousness when misunderstood by others; he is, in a sense, independent of them. The gentleman has, therefore, to be on his guard, and to keep a vigilant watch against the creeping over his behaviour of the least slovenliness or tarnish.

Then there are remarks that are to be expected from such people, like “RedHawk’s” “you only live once”, which I don’t believe in, or rather, I believe in eternity and would commit suicide if I knew life ended with death. Dixit Hamlet: “[…] or that the Everlasting had not fix’d His canon ’gainst self-slaughter. […]”

With their defence of dating and putting such men on a pedestal, they automatically christen my father’s wicked behaviour, which I cannot tolerate. If life itself is such a gift so that one’s upbringing does not matter, we’d need to legalize rape and have as many children as possible, no matter the circumstances they will grow up in. This is certainly evil nonsense.

Eric Orwoll (“aarvoll”), too, said in a stream with Joel Davis that in the past, you would have had to announce it if you wanted to court a woman, which was preferable to what we have now.

That one rather ought to “date” a leftist instead of a traditional woman, as 99IronDuke claimed, sounds like a very bad idea (questioned by Nowicki as well.) Why would anyone take life advice from people online whose identity is unknown (strangers, essentially), and whose motives are anything else but noble? Who are only interested in making a “quick buck” or who want to satisfy their narcissistic desire to be heard and revered by others? This is indecent and obscene. At least Andy Nowicki was honest, saying that he has no easy answers to such problems.

Several times now did I read that PUAs are father figures for many men who grew up without one. To which I’d reply that the damage has already been done in this case and a father can hardly be replaced, let alone by a synthetic one. And knowing what kind of character such people usually are composed of, one can only hope that as few men as possible take anything they say seriously.

Another remark: “women” is what gets young men out of bed each morning. I find that overblown, certainly it is not the case for all of them, and it wasn’t for me in the past. My interests are mostly of an intellectual nature. It is of no use, and even harmful, to have relations with people who hardly have anything in common with you, let alone having intimate relations with them.

Why would that be a good thing? Would it have alleviated my suffering from depression if I had had a “girlfriend” back at age nineteen/twenty when I was on the verge of committing suicide (hanged myself at age twenty-three)?

Well, certainly not. My problems are way more complicated. Just like Andy Nowicki, I feel “out of place”—as he wrote in Ravages of the “Rough Beast”—, and would neither be able to become a parent nor risk being responsible for passing on mental illnesses.

I wouldn’t want to have me as a father. Not only do I not like myself, I also feel rather worthless and experience myself as a laughable, ridiculous person I couldn’t take seriously. And in fact, I am usually not taken serious by most people.

I know Nowicki rejects eugenics, but what’s the point of my existence? I don’t like life, my biological father had hardly anything to do with me and was gone when I was around five to six years old. I now suffer through life being plagued by mental illness—maybe some form of Asperger, certainly chronically depressed and feel often times rather suicidal—, and am a hunchback.

Quoting Don Colacho again and again never becomes tiring:

Vulgarity is not a product of the people but a subproduct of bourgeois prosperity.

Civilized individuals are not products of a civilization, but its cause.

Puritanism is the attitude that befits the decent man in the world today.

Vulgarity colonized the earth.
Its weapons have been the television, the radio, the press.

Revolutions swing back and forth between puritanism and debauchery, without touching civilized ground.

Vulgarity consists as much in disrespecting what deserves respect as in respecting what does not deserve it.