Quote# 139962

My general theory of politics and culture in the 21st century

Every day, the world is becoming more divided into two factions. I would go as far as to say that the world is becoming ever more divided into two [i]worlds{/i]. The two worlds are already clashing. This clash is extremely painful to human psychology and is responsible for a lot of cases of depression or suicide; the incel predicament is one symptom among many. The conflict will continually increase until at some point in the 21st century, no sooner than 2040 but no later than 2080, a great clash ("the big event") will bring absolute, total victory to one world. The victory will either be perfectly bloodless, or a devastating carnage that will tear open the bowels of this planet: there will be no intermediate solution.

I will name them world A and world B. Below, I will list attributes and characteristics of each world. They are not necessarily interlinked; some can even be contradictory. If you think I have gone crazy, bear with me and be patient. Everything will become clear in the end.

World A: State, Nation, Law, war, family, religion, conservatism, traditionalism, nationalism, patriotism, anti-semitism, marriage, Russia, René Guénon, Codreanu, Julius Evola, Adolf Hitler, Aleksandr Dugin, Christian Orthodoxy, white nationalism, Iran, Islam, cautiouness, reluctance to change, anti-feminism, anti-capitalism, racism, racialism, hierarchy, alt-right, Richard Spencer, death, heredity, eugenics, art, soul, cemetery, military chaplain, apple pie, roast beef, chimney, wood fire, Luddism, tribunal, gallows, military service, rifle, sword.

World B: Internationalism, capitalism, technology, progressivism, pacifism, feminism, liberalism, nihilism, atheism, transhumanism, divorce, Jews, Protestants, Silicon Valley, crypto currency, stock market, the internet, cyborg, China, anti-racism, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Justin Trudeau, genetic engineering, ramen, avocado salad, electricity, self-learning, peer-to-peer networks, longevity research, cryonics, computer, drone, robot, democracy, Barack Obama, plastic surgery, emigration, atom bomb.

Well, what do you make of everything I've just brainstormed? Here are possible answers, depending on your personality:

- World A is basically conservatism, world B liberalism.
- World A is reassuring, world B scares me.
- World A is what I want, world B is what I hate.
- In both worlds there are things I want, and things I hate. Why can't we do a synthesis?

My personal opinion is that world A corresponds to applied terror management theory, while world B is basically an attempt to remove ourselves from the shackles of nature so as to end heredity, aging and death.

I am also utterly convinced that {b]no synthesis is possible[b], even if it appears wishable. Psychological suffering will thus continue. We are stuck in an antebellum period where world A and world B will continually face each other without coming to a permanent resolution, before at least two decades more.

If you have any question, I'd be glad to answer them.

Fontaine, incels.me 20 Comments [8/21/2018 12:33:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Wow, I mean I have criticized humanities need to divide everything in very superficial categories before, but this! This is really, REALLY stupid and nearly entirely built on the concept of american tribalism (conservatives and liberals of course) which is not at all universal, not even in the US itself. But it's coming from the very warped mind of an incel, so that's to be expected.
So let's see here:

- Conservatism is anti-capitalistic? Since when? Also why does it have "art" as an attribute? Most people Fontaine would call "conservatives" I know are not at all art-interested. Or perhabs he just means certain art forms? I'm also pretty sure that apple pie is not only baked by conservatives. Or that only they have families. So from what I can tell, conservatism in Fontains eyes is mostly based on the military action and extremely reactionary thought. He didn't have to cobble these strangely disconnected "traits" together to say that.

- So eugenics in conservatism is a ok for this guy, but oohh, genetic engineering scares him? Or is this one of these things he "likes" about liberalism? Why is "Protestant" a liberal trait? Me thinks Fontaine is a catholic. Oh and of course "Jews" are a liberal trait. Can't have this without anti-semitism, right? Also the highest divorce rates in the US are in extremely conservative states. Strange, huh?

So all in all, every progressive, technological "thing" Fontaine could think of is "liberal". And he is scared by it (no doubt because of his incel delusions of just having to regress the world to the stone age so they would finally be assigned a woman... sounds even stupider now that I put it into one sentence.) and wants a "synthesis" of (going to guess here since he isn't very exact here) a "social regression" (so that hot 10/10 women will have to have sex with incels finally *barf*) and the technological conveniences he likes so much. What a superficial way of looking at the world. As I said, to be expected from some of the most incredibly superficial people in the world.

8/21/2018 1:16:03 PM


Sorry, what are we supposed to dislike about B? Especially when compared to A? I am not sure I am crazy or monstrous enough to understand the appeal of A.

8/21/2018 1:57:14 PM



Pre-Mercantillistic conservatism was apparantly very strongly anti-capitalistic. Conservatism and socialism itself grew out of the ideas of landlords who saw their privileges getting eroded by the furthering of mercantile money relations, which allowed merchants to gain more power. Perhaps we shouldn't call the pro-capitalist conservative parties "conservative", but "liberal-conservative".

I however, wouldn't get on board with this type of conservative people. They don't advance the interests of the working class, but advance their own interests as nobility and clergymen.


I don't even understand the appeal of world B. Sure it's got some social freedoms, but at the end of the day you still got an oppressed working class.

8/21/2018 2:02:42 PM


You want world A ....or do you really just want to be thought of as a tough guy? Sorry, it isn't working. You are just a poseur, and the world will continue to ignore you just as before.

8/21/2018 2:43:22 PM


I am also utterly convinced that no synthesis is possible, even if it appears wishable

1948: A Welfare State & a National Health Service: approved of by Winston Churchill. Whose bust was brought back into the Oval Office from 20th January 2017.

A NHS which a certain some... thing daren't touch between 1979-90: it still survives, Prof. Stephen Hawking did because of the NHS, she (*spit*) didn't.

A certain Home Secretary apologised - nay, agreed to financially compensate - today to people who had been penalised legally, nay, deported; they now legally entitled to live in Britain. They being the descendants of the 'Windrush Generation': Afro-Caribbeans who migrated to this country in the 1950s in a vessel captured from the Nazis in the previous decade.

A certain government yesterday renationalised prisons that had been privatised in the 1990s. Several months ago, a part of the private rail network was effectively taken back under state control. Early this year, even voters of said certain party/government stated in a poll that they would have no problem with the entire rail network being renationalised & brought back to what it was originally: British Rail.

This is World A: Conservative.

Enjoy your stay.

8/21/2018 3:03:41 PM


You heard it here capitalism is liberalism. That makes most US republicans including Trump liberals.

8/21/2018 3:26:11 PM


"World A" seems to correspond more towards Fascism, and "World B" more towards Libertarianism, but they're not perfect matches to those either.

So long as we're doing gross oversimplifications of binary socio-political divisions as if they were cosmic forces, here's my (probably inaccurate) take on it:

The eternal "war" for ideological supremacy is based on two extremely loose factions, made of countless sub-factions which disagree with each other and often don't get along well.

The "conservative" faction is, fundamentally, about protecting the "tribe" from threats. Towards that end, they're willing to sacrifice individuals, particularly "unimportant" ones. They're loathe to sacrifice "important" ones, even when they become a liability, treating them as "attractor points" which help keep the "tribe" together. And they do try to produce significant numbers of "unimportant" individuals - partly because strength in numbers, and partially because there always needs to be someone to sacrifice.

The "liberal" faction is, fundamentally, about protecting the individual from threats. Towards that end, they seek to prevent threats from ever materializing. This includes neutralizing the power of the "tribes" to sacrifice individuals, since the ability to do so constitutes a threat to individuals. It also includes threats tribes represent to each other, and threats from the material world, both of which the "conservative" faction insist are immutable or need to be left alone for "natural" and/or "objective morality" reasons.

There's also a secondary (but still extremely significant) conflict in the area of reducing threats via enforced stability, which both sides attempt to do. There's "stability in stasis", which is more of a conservative thing, but a subset of liberals have their own versions of it. The various sub-factions have very different ideas of what the "stasis" *should* look like, though within a specific culture the majority might be able to agree on a broad outline. Then there's "stability in continuous adaptation", which is more of a liberal thing, but a subset of conservatives do have their own version of it as well - the difference between the two is mostly one of careful considerations of the likely long term consequences (liberal) versus ignoring non-obvious consequences and reacting to them as they occur (conservative).

It's also messy in that a lot of people belong partially in both factions, or occasionally in neither one.

...TL;DR, I know. I'm aware that this might turn out to be rubbish, but I'd hope that it's at least less rubbish than the views of the OP.

8/21/2018 4:15:08 PM


It's funny you pretend that conservatives are the religious side. We can all see that that was just a pose, an affectation. Trump made the right choose between religious principles and racism. They picked the racism.

Which just makes their [y'all's) hypocrisy a tiny bit moreobvious...

8/21/2018 4:19:49 PM


These new lyrics for 'We Didn't Start the Fire' are a bit crap.

8/22/2018 2:36:02 AM

TB Tabby

Why does World B have the atom bomb when World A is the one with war? And why the Amy Heckerling are you presenting war as a good thing?!

8/22/2018 3:02:54 AM



These new lyrics for 'We Didn't Start the Fire' are a bit crap

I'd like to see an updated version of that by Billy Joel.

As his original mentions Watergate, his song including events since then would be very interesting: especially in light of certain events nary 24 hours ago.

Even 'World A' - not taking into account a Conservative-led Britain - is looking like something the OP definitely doesn't want. >:D

8/22/2018 3:27:47 AM

@TB Tabby

I would guess that actual war is a good thing because they get to stomp the bad guys. Especially if they're brown. Invade, bomb the shit out of their cities, steal their oil, sell them baby coffins, profits all around. Yah, and shit.

The A-Bomb finished a war, but started a period of hesitation. We didn't nuke the other side and instantly win Korea, Viet Nam, out of a concern that someone else might nuke us back.
Or, out of some limp-wristed idea that nuking the enemy was bad all by itself.
We should have just napalmed them, in the manner of our forefathers.

8/22/2018 4:58:14 AM

Doubting Thomas

So world A, with Christian orthodoxy, racism, white nationalism, Hitler, alt-right, eugenics, tribunals, gallows, rifles & swords doesn't scare him? He finds these things reassuring? And he finds things like the internet, electricity, and democracy scary?

And frankly, how the heck does he even group these seemingly random things into these two worlds?

8/22/2018 5:48:23 AM



[...] choose between religious principles and racism [...]

Since when are they mutually exclusive concepts? You have to engage in a lot of cherry-picking, and a bit of the No True Scotsman fallacy, to portray them as incompatible.

Evangelicals' support of Trump didn't *contradict* their religious views. It *exposed* them for what they always were all along. They always had the notion that tribal membership and loyalty is more important than any transgressions you may be committing. Sin all you like, God will forgive if you're a loyal supporter who's allied to the "right side" and makes public proclamations in agreement with the official dogma. (Regardless of what you do - that doesn't matter - what matters is what you SAY - because a movement that's all about controlling people cares more about the propaganda effect on the masses than it does about the single person's actual actions.)

You can't be saved by "works" - all that matters is what you "say" and where your allegiances lay - this has been a cornerstone of their religious views for quite some time, long before Trump. It is very much an in-group vs out-group mentality - one that dovetails with racism quite easily.

8/22/2018 11:23:42 AM


Doubting Thomas

And he finds things like the internet, electricity, and democracy scary?

And of course, the place he's saying all this, a place where like-minded people like him can group together and wallow in their twisted little worldview together, is a website forum. You know- a thing on the internet using electricity.

8/22/2018 11:27:27 AM

This might be one of the dumbest things I have ever read

9/14/2018 2:00:10 PM



9/14/2018 9:21:47 PM


Two factions? I see many, many factions. Socialism vs liberalism, environmentalism vs destruction, humanism vs fascism, progression vs stagnation, progression vs war, feminism vs fascism,

So, world A has most of the bad things that have tormented humankind, and a few good things. World B has progress, invention, the future, and some bad things.

If you're scared of computers, why are you on the Net?

9/15/2018 4:42:06 AM

This might be one of the dumbest things I have ever read

9/15/2018 10:02:11 AM

“Ramen, avocado salad” WTF?

9/16/2018 12:34:17 AM

1 | top: comments page