Incel Culture and the Montreal Shooter

SarcasticallyCandour · 2026-06-27T04:26:45+00:00

feminists use these tragedies to get more funding and whip up more moral outrage and gain more power.

It's a disgraceful cycle of deception.

Edut: similar to Adolescence in UK. Endless demonization of 12yo boys needing "anti misogyny lessons" which are now being set up in schools.

Annual-Routine3760 · 2026-06-27T13:35:39+00:00

much ado about nothing the rate of violence amongst incels is lower than the general population if anything because many do not go outside much!

AigisxLabrys · 2026-06-27T04:45:50+00:00

“But instead hosted dozens of so called experts who framed Anti-Feminism as men wanting to put women back in the kitchen, etc.”

They hate dissent and criticism this much. Not surprising.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-06-27T06:21:05+00:00

Damn the first "incel" killing in YEARS and now all of sudden people are talking more about incel violence 🙄 Here is what the Gazette claims the manifesto listed as targets In his manifesto,

he lists dozens of “valid potential class A targets,” including international real-estate brokerages, private equity firms, elite bankers and politicians, influential Zionists, private health and oil CEOs, plastic surgeons, cryptocurrency leaders, the headquarters of all corporations with ties to Zionism (IBM, Microsoft, Boeing) and “pickup artists,” among others.

I would love for anyone to describe how that's incel. To me, this sounds like bog standard anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-social media.

So I'm not entirely sure if what I read is The Manifesto because it's only 37 pages (articles claim 104) and from known shit Rebel News, but here's my sort of stream of consciousness so you guys can get the cliffnotes.

The guy writes like a fucking tool and does not understand what "concise" means lol.

Goes on a large set up about sexual dimorphism and how men and women are different. He has a footnote whinging claiming sex and gender are not separate. But he also lays out "denial of biological sex" (a thing no one does) as bourgeois

This leads into evo psych stuff to argue that hypergamy is biologically real because of the conflicting incentives in reproduction. Essentially (paraphrasing) "women want the best mates, and men just want to mate who wants them, so women choose the best mates and only those men mate." IMO, way too biological fluffy.

He goes into some history of pre-monogamy society and how disposable men were. How only a tiny proportion of men reproduced, leaving out "the common man." Stationary monogamous societies included the common man and then prospered. Does he make a very compelling argument for the causal chain here? No lol.

Here is a sort of funny quote

The new arrangement however was not uniformly beneficial to every group of people. Indeed, under monogamy in early civilization, most women – while their lot had indeed been improved in many ways through factors such as easier access to food, greater general safety in daily life, and the presence of stronger and more unified communities – ultimately could no longer indulge in the excessive fulfillment of their biological imperative as they once did back in the pre-civilization times. Now, they found themselves legalistically bound to just one common man, while those rare few males whom the females most strongly desired to copulate with were either far away and rather inaccessible in their palaces, or themselves were engaging in monogamy.

He then shifts topics to capitalism. Classic Marx stuff of elite people enshrining power. This section is actually pretty damn good. Outlines key assumptions of liberalism and capitalism and provides nice rhetorical rebuttals to them.

FINALLY we get to a thesis statement: the system of monogamy benefited the common man the most and the powerful few the least. Given the extreme capitalist growth after WW2, the elite restructured society more to benefit themselves at the expense of the common man. So, women were now open to exploitation by the bourgeoisie, included in the workforce, and encouraged to step away from monogamy in pursuit of "high capitalist monoculture" (basically a caricature of wall street debauchery lol). It took him many many pages to make the thesis... statement (I guess it could be called that).

He does some ranting about immigration because birthrate falling harms the elites, but bringing back monogamy would undo their progress, so bring in the immigrants.

Shifts again, but now into how elites used "common man figureheads" to dupe the common man into consolidating more power to the elite, somewhat based on promises to return to more monogamous days.

Another shift, breaking down the life experiences and interactions between attractive men, women, and common men. It's mostly just an arduously long retelling of the classic hypergamy story tbh.

He unironically makes the Disco Elysium joke:

Rhetoric [Heroic: Failure] - Alright, here we go. We're devoting all your available brain cells to coming up with a question about communism. Scratch taht, to coming up with *the* question about communism, the alpha and omega of communism questions, and that questionsis:

- (Whisper.) "Are women bourgeois?"

2- "Oh god, that's bad. Surely I can think of something better.

His answer to number 1 is "yes for attractive women, sort of for the rest" which... he isn't entirely wrong.

I do like this quote

As for the ‘monogamous’ ‘relationships’ that they enter into with the common males, more will be discussed about this topic shortly, but for now it will suffice to say that most or all of these relationships are of a quality that would be considered as unconscionably low by any sane male of earlier eras in which monogamy was dominant; and additionally, a great deal of them simply end in utter disaster for the male, who ends up going through the terrible consequences of divorce, which are disproportionately and systemically allocated to him within western societies.

It's ofc laden in manifesto speak, but it does hit at a topic I think a LOT of "common men" are waking up to, which is that what monogamous relationships there are, generally realllllyyyy suck.

His section on "common men" is actually not that bad. It does go off the rails with pornography ranting, although I will admit it is one of the better handlings of pornography as a social bad given it casts pornography as a bourgeois institution to sedate the common man. I don't see that one often. He hits the cause for hyper self improvement and apathetic isolation communities dead on the money, though.

And this is where the 37 page version ends. I wish I knew where to see the rest, and if anyone has it, DM it to me.

My thoughts on this are that he would qualify as "incel" given the hyper focus on blackpill like narratives of hypergamy. The dude is clearly anti capitalist, but also does NOT like trans people (his language around them is genuinely vile), immigrants, and he likes evo psych a little too much, imo. A bit of an odd duck.

One thing he does shockingly well is he does keep "hypergamy" discussions as predominantly a system of incentives created by powerful/attractive men. He does not blame women or even feminism for the system. Hell, he uses evo psych "they are following their biological imperative" to excuse debaucherous behavior. That ofc does not change that the dude spent most of these 37 pages talking about hypergamy in these really aggressive and negative terms that definitely don't shy away from making women look bad (he has one line that basically says women would rather be beaten and abused than to settle for a mid man, which... can't say that's 100% wrong but also lol). But he does still separate the system from the people. That's more than could be said about a LOT of feminists lol.

Based on articles I've read and other circumstances around the event, I suspect the guy goes WAY more into anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist stuff because I genuinely don't know how he can go from those 37 pages to his A list of targets. Why crypto brokers and pickup artists?! Wat?

Is he misogynistic? A good bit. His evo psych framing doesn't help him at all on that front. Is he leftist? ish? in the tankie sense maybe? Obviously an-cap, but everything else is weird (which always happens with manifestos. Ted K was anarcho primitivist that whined a lot about liberal academics and environmentalist college students). Is he wrong? The evo psych stuff sounds correct, but the actual support for it is weak. His economic analyses are actually pretty spot on. His characterization of the "modern hypergamy state" is... non-conventional but I think there's some nuggets of truth and false throughout. He does argue with flat out realities like those of education, hiring, abuse, divorces, etc. But it's cast in this hypergamy framing that is a lot more gestural, and I don't necessarily think the pieces support the whole. His historical analysis was just bad xD. You couldn't pay me to read what his would've been, though. He is not good at writing and history would not play into what strengths he has. His best section was the section about common men in the hypergamy state. That was because he was FAR more direct and clear.

Obviously, going out and shooting people is horrendous. Don't do that, people. Come on. The merits of his arguments are... mixed. Some make sense. Some don't. Very few I think are representative of anyone, tbh. It read like a grab bag of ideas. Creative, I'll give that haha.

It is clear that his hatred is directed at The System, not at women. So articles overwhelmingly claiming the incel stuff give the game away that they don't want people looking at the criticisms of power. Ironically that does sort of validate his point that the Bourgeoisie launder bad experiences in the media to accrue power.

In short, what an odd duck that didn't really contribute much more than what could've been a reddit post. The discussion around it is what's really fucked up. I hate that it's the manifestos that make the rounds, though.

jkozuch · 2026-06-27T16:19:50+00:00

If Canada had a Minister for Men, leftists would have an absolute MELTDOWN.

By that very standard, there should be one.

Karmaze · 2026-06-27T15:17:28+00:00

I've always described political inceldom as a sort of "Dark Progressivism" rather than anything reactionary. To be clear, Im using the political qualification to separate those with this maladaptive masculinity who want to change society to fit it vs the people who don't and just blame themselves. What they're looking for isnt reactionary really. Doesn't make it right or good. But in a lot of ways it would be some sort of 'Progress'.

Ultimately, at the end of the day it's nothing more than radical feminist ideas and lessons crashing and burning. That's why so much of this stuff sounds like rad fem goals and ideology through a fun house mirror....or through male incentives.

The issue is that the effort to reform masculinity never took into account those of us who were already at the other end of the spectrum, and that pushed people to unhealthy places.

Acrobatic_Computer · 2026-06-28T09:27:17+00:00

From the descriptions I've heard online from a variety of sources, calling him an incel doesn't seem totally uncalled for.

That said, the issue is there is a lack of a good comparison to a base rate when it comes to violence, in that, for a given set of traits, does subscribing to incel ideology make you more or less likely to commit violent crime doesn't seem to be well-measured.

On the whole, picking on incels has always seemed, to me, to be more in the trend where a lot of this particular type of progressive finds ways to pick on specifically socially maladjusted and underprivileged men as if they are the big bad of society, rather than actually lacking social influence and power.

Dry_Fact_4584 · 2026-06-27T12:36:00+00:00

By reading title I thought this is about that old incel shooter in Montreal polytechnic… or did new one again…

Searching this up turns around a police shooter…

Also saw this post related to that… https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1udwcjv/a_25yearold_lethbridge_man_identified_as_gunman/

Nacholindo · 2026-06-28T06:23:58+00:00

I came across this essay on Twitter a few years ago and I think it presents the incel issue as the luxury belief that it is:

https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/boutique-bogeymen

AutoModerator · 2026-06-27T01:15:09+00:00

Thank you for posting to r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. All new posts are held for manual review and may take up to 48 hours to be approved. Please don’t message the moderators, we’ll make sure to review your submission as soon as possible. If this is your first post, be sure to review our rules to ensure it meets our criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AbysmalDescent · 2026-06-30T22:21:08+00:00

They are going to focus on that because they can use that to perpetuate androphobic and misandric rhetoric. It's kind of sad but they will absolutely cherry pick any cases they want to promote feminist platforms.

They could look into the inequalities that negatively impact men in such devastating ways, and leads to extremists like these, but they won't, because society does not care about protecting men, especially when gynocentric/feminist platforms have so much power to dictate the narrative.

Fluffy_Anything_3559 · 2026-06-30T12:26:55+00:00

Funny how for every one case of an incel killing people you can find hundreds of cases of married men killing their wives, yet the narrative is that incels are the biggest threat to society.

Illustrious_Wish_383 · 2026-07-03T23:37:58+00:00

Here in the US our war in Iran has resulted in infinitely more innocent deaths than rogue civilian incel shooters, yet our culture constantly fellates the military as the be all end all of masculine virtue

Comments