Yet MORE Evidence That Kimberly Nicole Foster's Claim That The Black Manosphere Is A "Public Health Crisis" Is UTTERLY DEBUNKED - LMAO!

Good morning Charde,

Following up on your truly excellent take on my ongoing dispute with Kimberly Nicole Foster, you will kindly recall in my last letter that I addressed and utterly debunked Foster's claims about the Black Manosphere being a "public health crisis" - just for the record, I will recount my rebuttals, both live on the air and in print, below for your consideration and review:

MODERN FEMINIST SAYS "MANOSPHERE A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS": A FOUNDING FATHER OF THE BLACK MANOSPHERE RESPONDS
https://black-manosphere.org/blogs/news/modern-feminist-says-manosphere-a-public-health-crisis-a-founding-father-of-the-black-manosphere-responds

Debunking the Myth: Is the Black Manosphere Really a Public Health Crisis?
https://rumble.com/v495fvf-debunking-the-myth-is-the-black-manosphere-really-a-public-health-crisis.html

In your own video, "Should The Black Manosphere FEAR Black Feminism?"(1), you mention the Incel issue and how, in my studied and considered view, it has been weaponized on the part of feminists like Foster. This has been the case for the better part of a decade now, all owing back to Elliot Rodger, who as it turned out actually harmed more men than women in his rampage out in the Golden State. Though there have been incidents of supposed incels "going postal", there hasn't been anywhere near enough evidence to constitute a trend - and certainly not enough to form the basis of a "public health crisis". Nevertheless, demagogues like Foster are allowed to get away with their sky is falling talk, largely because they're women, and our society simply doesn't see female fuckery as a problem, even when it clearly is.

Nevertheless, the matter - that is to say, incels - is now being seriously studied at the highest levels of academia. Aside from my own extensive contacts in that world by way of Naama Kates, who's "Incel Podcast"(2) has been critically acclaimed and who I have interviewed on numerous occasions, there are increasingly more rigorous investigation into the incel phenomenon. One of the more prominent in recent years is one William Costello, originally of Ireland, now living in the USA, and studying under world renowned evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss, at the University of Texas at Austin. It should also be noted for the record that I have interviewed Prof. Buss on my show and have frequently cited his work in my own books.

In a Jul 2023 paper written by Costello under the watchful eye of Buss called, "Why isn’t There More Incel Violence?"(3), Costello directly confronts the claim that incels are dangerous people hellbent on killing as many women as possible. I'll include the link so you can read it in full for yourself, but to whet your appetite I'll include a few highlights here:

"Abstract

Incels (involuntary celibates) are an online subculture community of men who form an identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships. They attribute their lack of success to genetic factors, evolved mate preferences, and social inequities. While we have a deep ancestral history of incels, the modern incel community is an evolutionarily novel group that fosters a shared victimhood identity. We applaud Lindner for an important contribution to the scant literature on incels and highlight the importance of her evolutionary psychological lens in understanding their grievances. Our critique of Lindner’s work addresses two key issues. Firstly, we challenge the hypothesis that incels engage in simulated coali-tional bargaining for sexual access. While coalitional bargaining for sexual access may have played a role in ancestral populations of involuntarily celibate men, this is not a suitable analysis of modern incels. Instead, the incel community operates as a fatalistic echo-chamber, where failure is celebrated, and individuals discour-age each other from pursuing romantic success. Secondly, we critique the associa-tion between incels and violence. Contrary to common beliefs, empirical evidence suggests that incels are not particularly prone to violence. Incels’ propensity for violence appears relatively low compared to that of the general population. We conclude by offering one hypothesis as to why modern day incels are not as violent as we might expect. The Male Sedation Hypothesis, that online virtual worlds, such as pornography, may pacify the potential for violence among sexless young men, providing a counterfeit sense of sexual fulfillment and reducing motivation for real-life mate competition."

Here, Costello is responding to one Ms. Miriam Lindner, a researcher at Harvard University, who just happens not only to be Foster's alma mater, but also just happens to be under the gun in a big way these days for betraying their own mandate for ferreting out the "veritas" or truth. Oh, the irony.

At any rate, in a Mar 2023 paper Lindner wrote, "The Sense in Senseless Violence: Male Reproductive Strategy and the Modern Sexual Marketplace as Contributors to Violent Extremism"(4), Lindner makes the same claims that Foster makes - you know, the whole "public health crisis" thing. This is what Costello clapped back on, hard, only four months later - bravo, Will!

Back to Costello:

"We could go on with our praise of Lindner’s excellent article, but in the interest of an engaging collegial dialogue we focus on two issues:

1. We challenge the hypothesis of conceptualizing incels as (simulated) coalitional bargaining for sexual access.

2. We discuss an unresolved puzzle: Given what we know about the Young Male Syndrome, why isn’t there more incel violence?"

Costello goes on to methodically rend Lindner's argument to shreds, using the tools of evolutionary psychology, reason and evidence - something that is utterly lacking in Foster's outrageous claims, and to which I have and will continue to rip apart.

Speaking or ripping things apart, Costello gets right at the heart of the matter and Lindner's and Foster's argument:

"Do incels have a propensity for violence?

The author draws allusions to incel ideology and violent extremism. The empirical evidence for such a link is less clear. Firstly, we must put the extent of incel violence into context and compare it to other terrorist groups, as it has been suggested that incels should be categorized as a terrorist threat (Hoffman et al., 2020). Reports now number incel membership in the United States from around 40,000 (Beauchamp, 2019) to hundreds of thousands (Kutchinsky, 2019), and at the time of writing there are ~20,000 active users of the main forum Incels.is. It is estimated that incels have killed ~59 people worldwide (Hoffman et al., 2020). In contrast, the similarly sized (~15,000 members) Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram, has killed an estimated 350,000 people since 2002 (Amnesty International, 2015; Reuters, 2023). The incel study with the current largest sample size (n = 274) found that incel ideology was only weakly correlated with radicalization. Most incels in the study (n = 219, 80%) actu-ally completely rejected violence (Moskalenko et al., 2022). Another report from the International Centre for Counterterrorism used LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) software (Pennebaker, 2001) to analyze language in incel, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), pick up artist, and right–wing forums. Just 1.39% of incel posts could be categorized as legitimizing violence, the second lowest of the four groups (Perlinger et al., 2023). Lindner appears to suggest that support for violence is ubiquitous in the incelosphere, calling for “future research to explore whether incels genuinely support these attacks or whether they feel strong saying they support it – i.e., outside these forums, would they actually advocate or take steps to enable this kind of violence?” (Lindner, in press, p.39). Moskalenko et al. (2022) asked incels (scored on a fivepoint scale, with 1 = “not at all”, and 5 = “very much”) about attitudes relevant to Incel violence. The average incel score for the specic item “I admire Elliot Rodger for his Santa Barbara attack,” was (M = 1.83; SD = 1.25). We concur with Lindner that the evidence suggests that extreme inceldom looks more like sui-cidality than violence toward others. The two strongest correlates of male suicidal ideation are, failure in heterosexual mating and burdensomeness to kin (de Catan-zaro, 1995). Both factors are extremely salient for incels, many of whom report to be NEET (not in education, employment, or training) and still living with their parents into adulthood (Costello et al., 2022). The key point is that there does not seem to be compelling evidence, despite a small number of highly florid cases that received tremendous news attention, that incels are particularly prone to violence."

The bloodletting continues:

"What about sexual violence?Sparks and colleagues. (2022; 2023) suggest that the term incel has resulted in an overemphasis on the sexual frustration aspects of incel identity. This overemphasis has led many, including the author, to speculate about the sexual violence threat pre-sented by incels. The author writes……incels justify sexual violence against women by arguing that women are to be used for sexual intercourse: if they will not provide sex to men, it is a man’s right to take it from them…Many incels believe that they must act to take con-1 3
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiologytrol of their lives and exact revenge for the dismissive way they were treated by women (Lindner, in press, p. 35).Even in the high-prole cases of incel violence, however, there has been a conspicu-ous absence of sexual violence. This is in line with the lack of support in the lit-erature for the mate deprivation hypothesis of rape. Most men who commit acts of sexual violence are not men considered to be low in mate value, but rather men who are higher in status and power, already sexually successful, and can get away with a sexually coercive strategy with fewer negative repercussions (Buss, 2021). High profile examples include Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Jeffrey Epstein. A com-mon measure used to ascertain men’s propensity for sexual violence is to ask about their willingness to rape if you could get away with it. Contrary to the mate depri-vation hypothesis of sexual violence, incels score signicantly lower than the gen-eral population in this measure. Speckhard et al. (2021) found that 13.6% of incels reported some willingness to rape if they could get away with it. Conversely, ~35%, ~20–25%, ~19% and ~30% of men in the general population, respectively, reported some willingness to rape if they could get away with it (Malamuth, 1981; Palmer et al., 2021; Hahnel-Peeters et al., 2022; Young & Thiessen, 1992). In sum, even when it comes to sexual violence specifically, incels do not appear to be more likely, and in fact may be less likely, to commit it."

Now, Charde be honest: Doesn't what Costello say about come dangerously close to the many and long-held views and arguments of the Black Manosphere - of the "80/20 Rule"? Of "Tyrones, Pookies and Ray-Rays"? DOESN'T IT SOUND A LOT LIKE DERRICK JAXN? No, I am NOT saying that Jaxn has committed any crime against women here; what I AM saying, is that if Lindner and Foster were really serious about a "public health crisis", they'd be looking at guys with outsized sexual access to and success with women - and we all know Jaxn most definitely fits that description, to a tee. In fact, Buss makes exactly this same argument in his excellent work, "When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault"(5), which I cite quite extensively in my own work, "The Book of Obsidian: The Ladies Edition"(6). Please let the record also show, that while you have actually read the latter, that is to say my book, Foster has not, and you both have received complimentary copies. Go Crimson!

At any rate, Costello wraps up with the following:

"We commend Lindner’s important contribution to understanding incels through an evolutionary psychological lens. We differ from her analysis in two ways: the con-ceptualization of incels as (simulated) coalitional bargaining for sexual access, and the link between incels and violence.We argue that modern incels engage in a fatalistic echo-chamber that celebrates failure and discourages the pursuit of mating opportunities. Incels prioritize the vali-dation of their negative self-view, perhaps obtaining psychological but not real-life benefits of coalitional membership, over actual coalitional bargaining for sexual access.We also question the extent of incel violence, which seems to be relatively rare compared to other terrorist groups. There is only weak evidence of a correlation between incel ideology and radicalization, and based on current evidence, the major-ity of incels seem to reject violence, including sexual violence. We concur with Lind-ner that extreme inceldom resembles suicidality rather than violence towards others. We emphasize that incels typify the two largest correlates of male suicidal ideation, failure in heterosexual mating, and burdensomeness to kin.Finally, we pose a thought-provoking question: Why is there not more incel vio-lence given what is known historically and cross-culturally about the Young Male Syndrome? We speculate that online virtual worlds, such as pornography, may pacify the potential for violence among sexless young men. The Male Sedation Hypoth-esis suggests that these virtual experiences provide counterfeit fitness cues of sexual needs being met, and thus reduce the motivation for engaging in real-life mating effort as well as engaging in risky behaviors."

TL;DR: The claim that "incels", who are being joined at the hip to the (Black) Manosphere by the likes of Lindner and Foster - both of whom are associated with an institution that has proven to be broken seven ways to Sunday, and who claim that said "incels" and (Black) Manosphere are somehow at the root of a "public health crisis" - isn't even tenuous. It's downright false, based on the evidence, or woeful lack thereof. Incels, whatever anyone may think of them, aren't a "public health crisis" - demagogues like Foster and Lindner, are.

Q.E.D.

You ask in your video, why won't Modern Black Feminists like Foster debate - and you put out such Black Manosphere luminaries as Dr. T. Hasan Johnson, or the highly regarded Dr. Tommy Curry, to name just a few of the Black male academics within the space. By now, I would like to think that this letter proves why you haven't and aren't likely, to ever see a Modern Black Feminist debate anyone they disagree with: Because the whole lot of them are empty skirts, who use the very "respectability" they decry as a shield to hide behind. They betray the academic canons they preen about. In a word, they are frauds - grifters by any other name, for real.

And that is why you will never, ever, see Foster even try to address, much less debunk, anything I've said in writing to date. Including this letter.

Wanna try holding your breath?

LOL

MOA

ENDNOTES:
1. "Should The Black Manosphere FEAR Black Feminism?", Chez Charde, YouTube, Feb 13, 2024

2. Naama Kates' "Incel" Podcast

3. "Why isn’t There More Incel Violence?", William Costello & David M. Buss, Adaptive Behavior & Human Psychology, Jul 2023

4. "The Sense in Senseless Violence: Male Reproductive Strategy and the Modern Sexual Marketplace as Contributors to Violent Extremism", Miriam Lindner, Mar 2023, Adaptive Behavior & Human Psychology

5. "When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault", David M. Buss

6. "The Book of Obsidian: The Ladies Edition", Mumia Obsidian Ali