I’m a comic books fan. Been one for years now. I’m a big fan of Batman but I also like Aquaman and Wonder Woman. The latter of whom has been killing it with her solo series for most part on the last eight or so years. But there is some stuff that bothers me about the medium.
Namely how the distribution method damages the integrity of characters stories. You read any book or graphic novel, you’re guaranteed an ending. Doesn’t matter if it’s a thirteen-book anthology or a single pamphlet- you know from the get-go that the people you meet in this fictional world will eventually move on as soon as it’s over. Every story ends.
Except of course with comic books, which never end and for the most part never change. Batman can die or get his back snapped but he’ll always bounce back. He may quit or get married and have kids but eventually he’ll lose those permeable connections and get back to work. Batman will always be a sad, raging asshole because that is what the medium demands of him. His story never ends.
These characters have been around for about seventy-five years and considering any TV show goes to shit after season five it’s safe to say that in the world of these comic book characters everything under the sun has been done. Everything.
So, you need to spice things up now and again by introducing new characters and villains. Both of whom are difficult to work in because by god it’s a shitty medium to do anything in. Villains in particular are difficult because they need to be endearing and believable- which can be immensely difficult if you so happen to be a shit writer.
Sadly, there’s a lot of shit writers in this industry, who concoct trivial plots with paper thin characters. Best example of this I can think of came from this wonder woman comic I read once which opened with this misogynistic terrorist organisation trying to rob this lab to steal a formula that makes women subservient to them, or something. I can’t remember- but it was bad.
Jesus Christ, they even have the fucking XY genomes for their fucking logos.
Upon initially viewing this…story? [That doesn’t sound right] I was irked. These terrorists, believe to or not, are far from the worst thing in this book. You have Steve Trevor’s gang of merry men- a diverse yet poorly written cast of characters which include the stereotypes of Native Americans, the Scottish and the French. Portrayals so impossibly and offensively generic they could have only been written by an American.
But these terrorists irked me a lot. For one thing, these soldiers are jacked and obviously have discipline- how else would you have the skills required to break into a Government facility? I don’t know if the writer knew this, but these unfuckable losers are generally unfit for service and unfit in general. If you’re a successful serviceman, it’s not too difficult to get laid.
It’s like the writer wanted to convey their political truth but didn’t possess either the knowledge or nuance to do it effectively. I mean let’s be real for a second here, if you wanted Wonder Woman to face off against a misogynistic terrorist organisation- why don’t you have it be, I don’t know, ISIS?
I held this perspective for a long while after reading the book, to some degree I still do, but a few months after I read this garbage some Incel drove a van into a crowd in Toronto and killed a dozen people. So, my perspective changed a little.
For those of you lucky enough not to know what an Incel is, it stands for “Involuntarily Celibate” men, typically white men but there’s a few Asians and other ethnic minorities throughout the West who could be considered part of the community as well. These men are unappealing to the opposite sex and are therefore deemed unfuckable. They’re a bunch of sad sacks of shit, descendants of the Reddit Nice Guys and the Nazi sympathisers who dwell on 4Chan. Unlike the latter two groups, this new species of loser has been radicalised to concoct violence- while the others just stoop in self-pity.
The strange thing about this group of people is that, unlike the other two groups, they’re completely celibate. I mean don’t get me wrong- none of them are getting laid- but this one group is adamant about not masturbating. All that juice stocks up and blocks the pipes. It makes you very tense, very emotional and in those kinds of states you are susceptible to manipulation and can do some very foolish things.
Which brings me to George Orwell. In his most acclaimed novel, 1984, Orwell describes the horrors of living under an authoritarian police state in which the middle and upper classes are under constant surveillance while the working class live in such severe poverty and lack the resources to be aware of their own oppression.
A lot is talked about in this book. Surveillance, control, propaganda- all of which are worthy topics worth discussing. But one of the least discussed topics is how celibacy is used to instil political orthodoxy in a people. In 1984, the state has weaponized celibacy by prohibiting marriage outside of the means of procreation and all intimate or meaningful relationships are practically non-existent. Everyone is isolated, everyone is unhappy, everyone devotes these pent-up emotions to the devotion of the state.
This supposed fiction has some basis in real life. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the most popular religions in the world all prohibit sex before marriage, masturbation and sex outside of the means of procreation? It’s a means to instil orthodoxy into the followers. Not necessarily all of them, but enough to hold some semblance of power. A sexually frustrated crowd is an easily influenced mob.
It’s also no coincidence that domestic terrorist organisations such as the Proud Boys in North America demand that their members practice celibacy. It in turn rouses them to get into fights and get arrested for the cause, a badge of honour for these sick fucks. The cause of course is to defend the conservative, Christian, white culture against all sorts of people- but mainly the Anti-Fascist league. Their entire organisation raises a great rhetorical question; if you’re fighting Anti-Fa, what exactly does that make you?
Various other organisations weaponize celibacy, an example of course being ISIS. These groups attract men who have few friends, little to no intimate or rewarding relationships and are generally failures in life. Hitler was an art school dropout after all.
For those egalitarians out there, you’ll be bitterly pleased to hear that women aren’t immune to this kind of phenomenon. Lack of physical or emotional intimacy, lack of friends or social anxiety can cause severe isolation and can therefore produce people who are easily manipulated- particularly young people. Mostly you’ll see them fall into what is referred to as SJW Culture, a purist series of sects of radical feminism who in turn alienate outsiders from achieving their goals.
Now obviously these individuals don’t represent all feminists, just like how ISIS and other Jihadists or Islamists don’t represent all Muslims. What I find interesting in this group of people however is the constant requirement for conflict in these ever changing social hierarchies. Everyone is fighting for a semblance of authority, so if you slip up even once- even something minute- the group will pile on you. Sometimes this’ll cause the group to split into two different opposing sects with rival opinion leaders.
Honestly I find how individuals, particularly hyper-fixated individuals, interact with each other on the internet fascinating. Both in regards to members of the in-group and the out-group, I’d be curious to see a study done to observe this behaviour in groups.
There’s a lot of other kind of groups they may fall in with, like the pro-shoplifting crowd. A group of deranged assholes who go out of their way to steal things and justify it by they’re cheating the greedy corporations out of their profits. Other times they’ll just join PETA or join a very contentious social group.
But there’s one fundamental difference between these kinds of men and women, the former will go out and commit violence while the latter will not.
There’re several reasons why this is the case. The constant social pressure for men to be tough, stoic and uber macho can lead to an interpretation that violence makes men. Men typically don’t have good emotional support groups, meaning that friends won’t be supportive unless the situation is desperate- and a situation shouldn’t be desperate for support to be offered. Even a small hindrance should require support, that way it doesn’t pile up into a larger problem.
I’m not very sympathetic to these Incel cunts. Namely because I don’t think that not getting laid makes you entitled to take the lives of innocents. I give you the example of Raskolnikov, from Crime and Punishment. Probably one of the best examples of an incel in classical literature. Well, to some degree.
Raskolnikov’s problem isn’t that nobody wants to fuck him- it’s that he’s a lazy, misanthropic, self-pitying piece of shit. Due to unresolved trauma, refusal to engage socially with others and sheer damn laziness- Raskolnikov drops out of University, lives in squalor in a one bedroom flat and spends his days lying on his sofa and roaming the streets of St. Petersberg aimlessly.
He doesn’t work and barely eats. He gets by on pawning what he can to a pawnbroker, an old woman whom he despises. He wants to kill her. In the book he justifies this action by saying that she is objectively a bad person and that her death would be a good thing for the world. The act of murder entices him due to his belief that the law is only applicable to the normal, lower beings. But a special, cunning and decisive man is immune to such laws- therefore murder is ok, for him.
Of course, this is bullshit. It’s a bad case of severe arrogance that remains unchecked because he’s so goddamn isolated. He wants to kill this woman not because she’s a bad person, there’s far worse. He want’s to kill her because he resents her. He resents owing his livelihood to someone, a pawnbroker no less and let’s be a real- her being a woman probably has a big thing to do with it as well. It’s entitlement that’s unearned.
Dostoevsky is like the Jordan B. Peterson of classical literature. He’s the King of Incels.
Raskolnikov of course ends the book by finding out he’s not so special. In fact, he’s quite the opposite. He’s a common, middle class, sack of shit who refuses to deal with his problems in a healthy manner. Letting them pile up until he’s immobilised, both emotionally and mentally. It festers into resentment, rage, it causes him to lash out at the world. He wants to share his suffering tenfold.
He’s wrong. The people like him are wrong. It’s not difficult to get laid or make friends. You just got to take a hard look in the mirror and see what you’re dealing with. Maybe you have a shit pair of genes. You know what you do? You own it. You’re not a looker, that’s fine- you can develop a personality instead.
You can build a better emotional support system, get better friends, set out and achieve a series of discernible goals, have more intimate and rewarding relationships and encounters- all of this is the journey to becoming a good, well rounded person. Leaving a good impact upon the world. That’s the meaning of life.
Life is less like a comic book and more like a very very long book. It ends, all of it, ends. You’re not Batman, you don’t get a retcon or a reboot. You have one shot at this- don’t waste it on self-pity. Go take a wank, go to therapy and do something with your life.