new

[Serious] Secular humanism is one of the main reasons why this society hates incels

I will continue with the analysis of the modern West and why it is so hateful towards the incels.

The secular humanist mentality that is prevalent in the West is that humans are masters of their own destiny and if you do something wrong, you need to find a solution and fix it. This is the mentality of the modern Western society and it is from this position that incels are judged in the sense that you need to stop complaining and find solutions, usually followed by either a some generic useless advice (just do this, just do that) or straight ridicule.

Once you examine secular humanism a bit more, you realize that it comes from arrogance. In reality, human beings are not in control of everything and never will be.

To illustrate the difference between the Western secular humanist mentality and non-Western non-secularist religious mentality: I remember an interview with some European jihadi fighter who said that American soldiers get PTSD from wars while the true religious Muslim soldiers don't suffer from it because from a religious viewpoint, if you tried to do something with good intentions then you shouldn't feel guilty about yourself even if you came up short. On the other hand, the Western man, under the influence of the secular humanist mentality, will start blaming himself for his mistakes and his position in life. A Western secularistic atheist soldier who came out of cruel war will inevitably start blaming himself that he went through bloodshed and traumatic events, while a religious soldiers like medieval crusaders would see it as God's divine providence (a doctrine which asserts that God is in complete control of all things) and God's will. This is also the reason while medieval Christian soldiers were so much mentally tougher than the modern Western soldiers, the Christian warriors of the past went through gruesome medieval battles yet remained sane and found strength in religion, but these modern NATO soldiers seem broken. On the other hand, when you look at the religious jihadis today, like the Taliban for example, they have amazing will power and faith in what they're doing.

Now, I don't want to turn this into an argument about religion as such. You might say that religion is a cope, but you even from this perspective you can probably see it as a good cope for those who believe in it.

Either way, the more important thing is to understand how this reflects on social level, because this is what is the most relevant for us.

For the Western secularist society and in the eyes of secular humanism, you (as individuals) are the root of your own problems. The West doesn't believe in things like God's providence and at the same time it believes that the modern West is a wonderful progressive society. So in their eyes, who could be blamed for your problems but you yourselves as individuals?

Western secularism is a very peculiar ideology because while it technically stands only for separation of state and religion, it does this from the position that the state is superior to religion, thus making the State the new religion. You can observe this easily, whenever people point out that state and religion should be separated, the latter is seen as negative, while the state is never questioned. They basically mean that the state should be protected from religion and not the other way around (Western secularists, for example, don't have a problem when state institutions start meddling into "backward" religions and punish religious people for "hate speech" and things like that - where is the separation here?).

Western secularism worships the state, its institutions, its ideological norms (muh freedom, muh equality), its laws. It also worships progress and science and this material world the West created. Secular humanism is basically the key mindset behind it, as it believes that through these instruments, an ideal rationalistic society will eventually be implemented, or at least, we will get as close to is as possible. They believe that we're on our way there.

So whenever you, as a man, complain in the West that something is wrong not because of you and your individual failures but because of some factors out of your control - yet alone if you directly blame the state and society for it, like many incels do - the Western society doesn't want to hear it. The position of Western secularist ideology is: "We (as in, our state with its institutions) gave you this wonderful progressive society with freedom and equality, if you can't make it, then YOU are the problem because YOU didn't work hard enough for it." That's why this society is so aggressive towards incels because the incels question the fundamentals of this secularist state-worship and institution-worship.

The only people who can complain in the West are groups that do it in the context of the ruling ideology of "freedom" and "progress" like the feminist women, LGBT, "minorities" etc. because they argue that their problems will eventually be solved as we become more "progressive". They don't blame the modern society as such, but rather say that this society isn't modern enough. So they fit in the narrative and strengthen the secularist state.

But when incels blame the society for the problems, this is where the secularist West doesn't want to hear it. The West doesn't want to give legitimacy to a group of men that blame things that are out of their control for their problems because then it would give up on its own legitimacy. So this is why, at first, the Western society tried to respond to incel problem by trying to help (this is how the inceldom first started to be discussed in the 90s) and when they saw that they couldn't do anything to solve it, they started ridiculing it and mocking it and at the same time trying to repress it (we're in this stage now in the 2010s).

A response of a non-Western, non-secularist traditional religious society to the incel situation would be very different. In a traditional religious society, people in incel position (those who can't find wives) would be seen as the less fortunate. They wouldn't be blamed for their problems, or at least no exclusively. For example Catholic Church always gave advice to people who couldn't marry (who were basically 'incels') to accept celibacy as a blessing (basically they should become 'volcels'). Again, I'm aware that many of you wouldn't like such advice either, but the key difference is that in a religious society, you wouldn't be personally blamed for your inceldom and you wouldn't be ridiculed or attacked for it. It would be seen as God's divine providence and something outside of your control. IMO this would be a much better position than being seen as an evil outcast.

I think the main reason why many of us are so resentful of this modern society is because of this BS secular-humanist-like advice of "find solutions and fix it" and "it is your own fault" type of mentality which inevitable leads to mockery and attack on basic human dignity ("no woman likes incels because they're evil/losers/lazy/have bad personality"). In reality, love and relationships in this modern dating world are a perfect example of something that is not in your own control. You can't force people to like you, it's as simple like that. If there is one thing you can't possibly have any control over, it's this. It's basically in God's hands - if you're religious. And if you're not religious then you can explain it by losing the genetic lottery. It all comes down to similar things, basically - it was something out of your control.

Like I said, whether you're religious or atheistic is not really relevant here. The modern West is not atheist but rather "pagan" because it worships this idols like the secularist state and its ideology. So even if you're an atheist, you should have a problem with this. The Westerners are really fanatical in their modern 'paganism', and that's why they don't want to accept that a group of men (the incels) has it so bad in their wonderful modern society that they worship like some pagan idol-worshipers.

[Historypill] Why the Western white men have become such cucks

It's a bit long text but I can't put it any shorter.

The men that I have in mind: White heterosexual middle class and working class men from Western Europe and Northern America. Why have they become such cucks?

These men have had a very specific cultural and social history. They have been conditioned through centuries to obey their elite and to respect the hierarchy. First during the medieval and post-medieval feudal system. Then in the 19th century, these feudal states transformed into secular nations. The non-aristocratic men of all classes were technically given liberty but at the same time, they now had to follow a new religion of being loyal to the nation and its institutions, its symbols, its cultural and industrial elite. This was furthered by secularism which removed the power religion to a large extent and separated it from the state, so the state became THE religion.

These regular white men had to work hard in factory, support their families, go to wars for their nations and were expected to be blindly loyal to the Institutions of the State and its Law. A modern ideal of manliness was born out of this that among other things included the idea that you should accept all the hardships ("men don't cry", men aren't supposed to show emotions etc.) and that you should always blame yourself for your failures, because you live in this wonderful nation that provides you with everything. This is the mentality from which the incels are judged today (basically as a man, you should never complain, and if you have a problem, it's your own fault).

During the 19th century, these Western European nation-states became the dominant superpowers and controlled almost the entire world. The white Western men suddenly became an aristocracy of their own in the global perspective, fueled by the ideas of the white racial superiority, and they started to see themselves as such. The white race as a whole adopted the aristocratic mentality that they are the noble men who have to spread civilization all over the planet (the idea of the white man's burden). The white men now became the gentlemen, the white knights, the nobility of the world.

Meanwhile, the Western society started "liberating" all kinds of "vulnerable" groups from the supposed "oppression". After the WW2, this process was intensified and was systematically directed by the institutions of the Western states. The Western white men were expected not only to continue to respect their regime and its institutions and its new ideology, but also to stoically accept all the insults and provocations from all the feminists, gays, degenerate "artists" and other groups dedicated to shame the white men and their past. The white men were expected to bear all this and they did because they still saw themselves as some sort of gentlemen and aristocracy that is "above this". It's basically like the concept of noblesse oblige where the nobility is expected to be held to a different code of conduct than the rest of society and to be generous and benevolent, not lowering itself to the conduct of the plebeian lower classes. This is basically what you have in the society today, one code of conduct for the white men (you have to be liberal, respectful, humble, work hard, don't complain) and another for everyone else (you can complain, be loud, insult). White men were raised with this code of chivalry for a long time and have integrated these ideas about protecting the weak. They repressed their manly impulses which would mandate them to lash out and respond aggressively.

This is why the middle class and working class white men allowed all of this post-WWII feminism, LGBT, sexual liberation and other degeneracy to flourish. They believed that they still held a position of power and that they have a responsibility to serve the Western civilization (which became synonymous with liberalism, capitalism, feminism and 'freedom'). So they not only accepted all the degeneracy and all the insults, but even became proud of it and bragged to the entire world about what kind of freedom they have. They were doing it from a position of power, feeling as if it's their duty to protect the weak. This why you have all these manly men in Western armies bragging about fighting against the Muslims or other non-Westerners for "muh Western freedom" while their Western women are whoring themselves out at home. They're actually proud of this degeneracy. They see it as a sign of power and progress. Ever wondered why the American army doesn't have any equivalent to Muslim nasheeds? Because for the Western men, listening to some degenerate rap is their nasheed as it symbolizes the alleged power of Western liberation and global supremacy.

The thing is, all these vulnerable groups that the regular white men are supposed to protect and bow down to in fact aren't weak at all. They have been systematically protected by the increasingly more powerful State and its Institutions (that the white men are blindly loyal to) for decades. The West gives this groups like women, LGBT, immigrants etc. special privileges like the old feudal kings used to do in the past, so that in turn, they can expect their support and loyalty. This is basically what we have in the West right now, these "weak" "vulnerable" groups serve the system, they endorse it, they want stronger state, stronger institutions, stronger police repression (at the excuse of protect this vulnerable groups) etc. And the system gladly accepts their demands.

It's very interesting to note that the feminists never really opposed the white-knightism and chivalry of the patriarchical Western culture. They're perfectly fine with the middle class and working class white men thinking that they hold this alleged position of power where they have to help women. They don't want to convince them into true equality because if there was true equality, they wouldn't need these white knights, and the white knights would no longer help them. The feminists are just promoting a specific type of ideology that tries to strengthen the system and its ideological norms and which tries to humiliate the white men while at the same time giving them a false impression to these men that they're actually being noble and strong.

The white Western men are still too blind to see all of this. They still believe in the old conduct of chivalry, either in the form of being a left wing cuck, or a right wing cuck. They both very similar in mentality when it comes to protecting "muh freedom" (which in reality just means giving more power to the state which gives you this "freedom" and protects it). Both left and right wing cucks are blindly loyal to the West and see it as the peak of all human civilization and progress.

The attitude towards racism is very similar in the West too in terms of white-knightism. As a white male you're supposed to formally criticize every form of white racism, but this comes from a specific position of power as well. As a white male, you're also expected to be much more liberal than a non-white male. Non-whites can get away with certain anti-liberal ideas but the whites can't (eg. Muslims can be much more radical than the white Christians who get persecuted for the slightest offense). This is because as a white man, you're supposed to be a gentleman and protect the "weaker" races. This is literally what this so-called liberal "anti-racism" is all about. It's not about equality of the races, it's about white men being expected to be cucks and white knights for other races. So it's essentially racist in itself, although it doesn't really benefit the majority of the white race (and arguably it doesn't help the non-white races either).

Note, I'm talking about middle class and lower class white men here. There are whites who do perfectly fine in the West now, the rich oligarchic elite which holds the power, the politicians, judges etc. They hold a similar position to the aristocracy and clergy in the feudal systems, they're the ones who are actually above all of those things and laugh at the pathetic white peasants who work like idiots for this system while being humiliated and insulted by all the privileged "weak and vulnerable" groups at the same time.

What keeps the regular white men going? Four things: 1) century-long blind loyalty to the state, the church (the churches have unfortunately become too westernized and weakened to stand up to the anti-Christian secular states), the institutions, the legal system, the hierarchy etc. 2) an utopian belief that they can ascend to being the elite themselves. No matter how bad the situation is for them, they still have some weird hope that they can get a normal family, earn big money etc. This comes from the American capitalist mentality of pursuit of happiness, American dream (this mentality is now prevalent all over the West). 3) Relative economic prosperity which still enables all kinds of copes. The illusion of the mighty West that will continue to dominate the world through science and technology and solve everything. Addiction to the materialistic world and hedonism. 4) Fear of going against the Western idea of manliness where as a man, you're not supposed to cry and complain. This is further fueled by the secular humanism which promotes the idea that you are the master of your own destiny and if you have a personal problem, you have to find a solution yourself and solve it.

Incels are a problem for the regime because they have opted out of all this and don't share this mentality (other than maybe what I described under the number 3). This is also where this obsession with painting incels as "frustrated white men" (when there are in fact plenty of non-white incels) comes from. The regime fears that the white men will abandon it and stopped being the obeying little peasants. They want the white men to continue thinking that they're the gentlemen and noble white knights of this system because once the local Western white men stop being productive, it's pretty much the end for the West as we know it. That's why they want to shame the white men who turn incel.

The end of the West will come either way. This society has nothing more to offer (culturally, philosophically), it has clearly degenerated way beyond the point of no return. While not necessarily blackpilled, people are more and more cynical, they don't want to serve their nations as much as they used to (harder and harder to find people who want to serve in the army), this whole nihilism that the West promoted in regards to religion and traditionalism is now backfiring and is starting to question their own liberal ideology as well. Incels are simply a sign of things that are about to come as the men abandon the Western ideals of manliness.