It's because society determines a man's worth on his ability to attract a mate. It's one of the key aspects of social status that is found attractive in men and makes up the concept of pre-selection.
Incels can not do that because every woman he has met he could date finds him repulsive. They are written off, outcast from society and told they are beyond help (in some regards, this is actually correct, but not in the ways that most people think). Only a very small percentage commit violence to others, more commit violence to themselves and for the rest, you've probably heard of MGTOW - men going their own way. In black pill circles there is the concept of MSTOW - men sent their own way. Instead of it being a voluntary decision, a man is rejected universally and so is involuntarily sent his own way.
Archive: https://archive.ph/uzmpz
Some lobbyists and accusers have even suggested the idea of 21 being the age of consent. One person in the Dispatches programme suggested that any woman under the age of 22 was being "groomed" by a man. There is also the concept of outlawing significant age gap relationships so Rollo Tomassi's advice to tell 35+ men at the peak of their SMV to date 18+ women would become a crime as the age gap would be illegal if this lobbying succeeds.
Can't see how this would work in reality without turning the majority of people into criminals at a time when the Police can't keep on top of shoplifters.
While I still have the ability to within the law, I bought another Roku device to join the one I won in a competition a couple of years ago, downloaded the Rumble app onto it (they don't support Google TV/casting) and can now view content on TV. Consider this my middle finger to the cancel culture brigade.
It is good he has acknowledged the link between his cancelling and the Online Safety Bill, as I have mentioned in various posts in the last couple of days. And we all need to look into the Trusted News Initiative. You know what's interesting, I was searching about the TNI when I saw a result from three days ago - Google is to launch its own Google News Initiative - the key part of this is three days ago - right in the midst of both the Online Safety Bill and the Brand expose.
One thing I note is that a new shift has developed in the media narrative in the past 24 hours - they're now trying to portray him as having the behaviour of an "incel" if there was any time a woman rejected his advances towards her. Those with an agenda at play are now aiming at having to reject as a woman and being rejected as a man as dangerous to women's safety. Another agenda is afoot.
The one key thing missing from Rumble that its competitors have is the ability to cast video to a device such as a TV from the desktop.
And it appears the official Rumble phone and TV app is banned in the United Kingdom. We all know it won't be long before the website is too.
It appears the media is readying an full on attack against Rumble, not necessarily because of Brand. But it seems an eerie coincidence.
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/chrispavlovski/status/1704920258740445621
It is amazing for a Government that has a reputation for being slow is suddenly working fast to take full advantage of the passing of the bill in order to bring dramatic and tyrannical change. I do wonder if they are starting to overplay their hand?
TL;DR - Meta already implements encryption and is planning to fully implement end-to-end encryption. The Government via the Home Secretary has told Meta to abolish encryption and allow everything to be available to them or either leave the UK (for a private UK social media firm to take its place) or face being banned by Ofcom. Braverman's rationale? Encryption allows child abuse to happen and that everything should be done to protect children's safety - at any cost. Which is like saying locks on doors allow crimes to happen in private homes so remove locks from all doors because "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Just when you think this Government couldn't get more tyrannical and drunk with power.
Men do. It is a measure of character judgement and paternal assurance which is a key factor in men's preferences. The biggest dealbreakers for men according to a recent survey all had the same theme - large numbers of male attention and activity.
One the reverse side, women also care about body count too - mostly if your count is below one for a period of time or longer. Because for women, their biggest dealbreaker in the same survey is the unknown quantity and anti-social individual because women value safety as a key factor and a lack of pre-selection/experience because it means you haven't got attention from other women and haven't been picked for providing, protecting, looks and social status.
They're literally saying they want "impartiality" yet when GB News puts on a fierce critic of Brand and a supporter of Brand in the same studio, any pretence of wanting "impartiality" disappear. As if the Government's intentions is to have everyone thinking the same, speaking the same and sticking to the same hymn sheet. This experiment has been done in history. It does not end well.
It is literally 1984 speak - "Partisanship is impartiality".
Now we face the potential of Bev Turner being cancelled and stripped of the ability to earn a living because she refused to tow the line of condemning Brand.
Also, the danger here is that Ofcom could right now, revoke the broadcasters licence without the need of a new law and send a message to everyone other broadcaster to tow the line or else.
Non-Twitter link: https://nitter.eu.projectsegfau.lt/calvinrobinson/status/1704839415942521187
Archive: https://archive.ph/Iuoic
It is worth viewing the thread the Deacon Calvin Robinson has on this. Worth noting is that Dinenage lists YouTube, a direct competitor to Rumble, as a donor.
The response from GB News: https://nitter.eu.projectsegfau.lt/alexandrosM/status/1704763345428172904#m
I am concerned that she is speaking on behalf of a Government that wants censorship done by proxy of private companies in addition to overreaching and greater powers bestowed upon their newly created but not yet renamed "Ministry of Truth" - Ofcom.
Thankfully there is still some common sense and principled (former) politicians around. One of the men libelled in the case of Carl Beech who falsely accused several MPs and prominent figures of child abuse has written to the Prime Minister sharing his concern over the desire for retribution enacted by social media companies via Government pressure.
A rare white pill in all of this.
https://nitter.privacydev.net/KHarveyProctor/status/1704767500158701911
Her husband was the former Deputy Commander of the 77th Brigade, the psychological warfare arm of the British Army which would go on to target British citizens who were critical of the Government, mRNA vaccines and lockdown.
Her father is a well known news and children's television presenter for ITV.
Naturally her stance and actions against Rumble in the last day will get her a prime spot for a future cabinet position.
They also get the wrong impression of how successful it can be because of the apex fallacy. They always focus on the winners in the media but we never really hear of the failures unless its a tragic story the media can print to pull the heart strings of the public.
The timing of this expose just days before the Online Safety Bill was due to pass is very suspect. They knew that Rumble is the primary host of his content. They knew that Rumble was always going to refuse to demonetise and cancel him. And they knew that the power to compel all ISPs and VPNs to block Rumble, if Rumble does not do it themselves (though that wouldn't stop VPNs accessing it), was potentially days away from being available.
She'll probably get a promotion to the cabinet or become the next Minister of Truth, sorry, I mean "Culture, Media and Sport". The media will laud and applaud her while demanding Rishi Sunak give her what she "rightly" deserves - the said promotion.
Fun fact - the MP who wrote this letter is the daughter of a well known news and children's television presenter.
A significant amount of the lobbying for the bill, beside the usual "won't somebody please think of the children" was to protect women online. Many of the headline protections from "harms" happen to be actions and behaviours toward women. From cyber-stalking and cyber-flashing to unwanted behaviour and communication.
Going to be fun for Tinder and the other dating apps when they have to vet and verify the identities of every male as a result of "lessons learnt after Brand".
The one thing I would say is that the timing of these allegations, days before the bill was due to pass, looks very suspect. They knew Rumble is the primary host of Brand's content, they knew Rumble would refuse any demand to demonetise/cancel him and this appears to be a trap where Rumble will be the first to be made an example of, a video content site that the Government will brand as "harmful" to send a message to every other website and service.
One thing the Government is very good at is psychological operations. I'd recommend reading up on Laura Dodsworth's A State of Fear and the follow up, Free Your Mind while you can.
MPs believe that everyone watches the BBC, Netflix and YouTube. Organisations and companies who will bend over backwards for whatever the Government demands of them. As far as MPs are concerned, Rumble is an alternative platform that they won't shed a tear banning. If anything, they probably consider it one of the primary avenues for "harmful" content they seem intent on getting rid of. We know different but does society as whole?
I saw this from Rolf Degen and I knew the second I saw it, that jimmies were going to be rustled. You have someone who only gets a few replies and a number of retweets go viral because feelings were going to get hurt.
And it isn't surprising that if you have very successful men with the dark triad personality traits, they are not going to treat women with the upmost of respect but rather see them as bed notches and conquests or at best, the current option before a younger, lesser aged option comes along.
But that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of Chad good, Virgin bad. Society places a value judgement on men based on their ability to attract a mate and we look at men who succeed in finding a partner in a better light than the man who consistently fails. We deem the former to be successful and the latter to be misogynistic. Which is why we are starting to see a push to outlaw many acts and behaviours aimed and performed by single men that are seen as misogynistic, devoid of a woman in presence or exploitative of women and a redefining of a consensual and legal act to be between (a minimum of) two consenting adults in private without payment post MeToo, Brand and the Incel moral panic.
And the real kicker, the study used to measure what was deemed misogynistic? Elliot Rodger's own definition!