I'm starting to believe there's more importance to the incel/"sexless idpol" than I thought

I'm not only referring to the incel/r9k community, for that's just an expression of this phenomenon in a young, extremely online register. Its the culture that exists when young guys are able to get into forums to express this overtly and reinforce each other's descent into the pathology. This specific subculture is marginal and unimportant. The media likes to puff them up because they're a human interest piece and alarmism is what they do. What I'm talking about is a much more pervasive undercurrent of sexual frustration in American society. Mark Ames first wrote about this in 2004 with "Spite the Vote", which offered an alternative explanation for why so many vote against their self-interestThis giant flaw in the left-progressive construct, and their refusal to even begin grappling with it, is what keeps the left chasing its tail over the great Kansas mystery, and never getting any closer to answering their question: Why do so many working- and middle-class white males vote against what is obviously their own best interests?I can tell you why. They do so out of spite. Put your ear to the ground in this country, and you’ll hear the toxic spite churning. It’s partly the result of commercial propaganda and sexual desperation–a desperation far more common than is admitted. If you didn’t know anything about how America’s propaganda worked, you’d think that every citizen here experienced four-dimensional multiple orgasms with beautiful, creative, equally satisfied partners, morning, noon and night. So-called “Reality TV” makes life seem so much more interesting and epic and dramatic than it really is for the overwhelming majority—whose misery and malice only grow worse when they compare their own lonely, boner-killing reality to the “reality” on their TVs. “No wonder my reality has never been filmed—I’m not even real in this culture.” From that follows a nagging fear that others might discover just how unfilmable their reality worlds are–and spite towards anyone whose reality is filmable.The flat truth however is that despite all of our desperate attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, America is an erogenous no man’s land. Most white males here (at least the straight ones) have either dismal sex lives or no sex lives at all. No sex, no dates worth remembering, no romance worth reliving—even though a majority of Americans experience this barrenness on a daily basis, officially, consciously, it doesn’t exist. As bad as this hurts, the pain is compounded every time you expose yourself to the cultural lies that await you at every turn–that is, every waking hour and during deep REM sleep, when the subliminal messages kick in. This wretchedness leads to a desire for vengeance, to externalize the inner famine–it leads directly to the Republican camp.His perspective appeals to me because it lines up with the antagonisms the mainstream "conservative movement" has. As he writes later on, it explains why they have an "anti-elitist" posture that targets the woke college students, celebrities, etc while never lashing out against the billionaire classRepublican elites don’t set off the spite glands in the same way, and it’s not only because of a sinister right-wing propaganda machine. Take a look at a photo of the late billionaire Sam Walton, a dessicated Calvinist in a baseball cap and business suit, and you’ll see why. If Republican billionaires enjoy their wealth, they sure as hell hide it well. As far as one can tell, Republican billionaires genuinely like working 18-hour days in offices, and attending dreary charity dinners. More importantly, it’s hard for us to imagine that these stuffy gray-haired plutocrats have interesting sex lives—nothing inspires murderous envy more than someone else’s great sex life, which is why a celebrity is so much more viscerally hateful than the richest, meanest plutocrat. These right-wing billionaires’ idea of having fun is a day on the golf green (a game as slow and frustrating as a day in the office) or attending conferences with other sleazy, cheerless Calvinist billionaires. If that’s what all their wealth got them, let ’em have it–so says the spite bloc. This explains why the Republican elite–the only true and all-powerful elite in America today–is not considered an “elitist” class in the spleens of the white male have-nots. Elitism as defined today is a synonym for “happy,” not “rich” or “powerful.” Happiness is the scarcest resource of all, not money. And the happy supply has been cornered by the beautiful, famous and wealthy coastal elite, the ones who never age, and who are just so damned concerned for the have-nots’ well-being.Now it all makes sense. Blacks, gays, hoodrats, uppity college activists, etc, even if the vast majority of them are doing worse than the median Trump voter by most metrics, are far more represented in the culture. I’d also say that they have better sex lives than the suburban dads that constitute the spine of the mainstream conservative movement. For the longest time I thought that it strange that the GOP elected a celebrity before the democrats who are closer to the broader pop culture, but now it makes sense. Trump is one of their few representatives in that world. He is what they would be if they were a billionaire, and his election triggered the coastal beautiful people to no end. When the pussygrabbing tape came out, I thought they finally got him, but it sealed his victory if anything.This isn't to say that all or even most democrats have fulfilled sex lives or that everyone right of center is a seething incel, far from it. You can even interpret the politics concerning the unfuckable progressive guys, the stereotypical "numale betas", through this lens. Card carrying incels hate guys like this for more than the reasons that we do. Bird brained politics and insufferable personalities across the board, but they are also cut from the same cloth as incels (they're not wrong about that). Their deep hatred comes from soyboys being akin to class traitors. Likewise I don't think the contention around women's sexualities just comes from an inability to get any. I think most incels are just incel at heart, not permavirgins. They may get laid on occasion, but its sporadic and doesn't result in any connection. Rather than seeing this as a result of atomization, downward mobility of millennials and zoomers, etc. they interpret it as women being evil succubi who need to be put back in line.This is just my reaction to the article. Here’s the link so you can read it yourself:http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/I’m curious what you guys think https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/eg38pz/im_starting_to_believe_theres_more_importance_to/?utm_source=ifttt