Radicalised Masculinity: Colonial Soldiers, Incels, and the Legacy of Displaced Rage
8 min read
Modern radicalised masculinity – particularly within incel communities – echoes the entitlement and displaced rage once channelled through colonial soldiers. In both cases, disenfranchised men blamed external forces for their lack of power, turning frustration into violence. Colonialism served as population management, exporting discontented men with promises of land, status, and access to women – much like today’s incels cling to fantasies of dominance and forced monogamy. Though not all colonists sought conquest, the colonial system demanded violence and complicity, institutionalising a toxic masculinity that still shapes male identity today. The colonial “Other” was both feared and fetishised, a pattern still evident in how radicalised men view women and marginalised groups. Confronting this history is essential if we hope to break the cycle of entitlement, violence, and repeated male rage.
Have Incels Always Existed?
A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine told me that incels have always existed. That pirates, Vikings, and the soldiers in colonial armies were likely the equivalent of modern-day incels. Furthermore, that the societies in which they lived wanted rid of them (much like we do now), so they sent them off elsewhere to give them something to do…
Now like you, when I heard this, I had an instant raised eyebrow response. It’s really hard to imagine Jack Sparrow, especially embodied by Johnny Depp, as anything close to an incel. Likewise, it’s a bit challenging to think of any of the Sons of Ragnar as one – yes, not even Ivar the Boneless, who was an actual involuntary celibate! But still, we know the Vikings had some serious anger issues, so perhaps it’s a bit more plausible to the mind. But colonial soldiers…
Colonial Soldiers: The Incels of Empire?
I think this is the one that affected me the most – because they really are not that hard to picture as equivalents to the modern-day incel. The level of rage, and violence. The rape, and the trauma they inflicted. The incel in the colonial army… The realness of this horror unleashed on foreign lands… I felt the ancestral earth move beneath my feet and the stomach of generations past heave and hurl inside my body… We know what these soldiers did when they reached those distant shores – and it’s not surprising that they might have been incels.
What Exactly is an Incel?
Now to be clear, ‘incel’– short for “involuntary celibates” – is a modern term referring to an online subculture of (mainly) men who believe they are denied sex and companionship due to societal shifts (feminism, changing gender roles), or their own perceived unattractiveness. Many incels blame women; "Chads" (attractive, sexually successful men); and progressive social structures – such as affirmative action, equality measures, and inclusive policies aimed at redressing historical injustices – for their struggles. The latter particularly being blamed without any understanding or care about their necessary role in creating a more equitable society. But the resentment incels feel tends to fester into misogyny, nihilism, and radicalisation, with some members endorsing or committing acts of violence.
The term ‘incel' did not exist in the 17th century. But economic disenfranchisement, rigid social hierarchies, and too many men with too few prospects did. The 17th century saw a surplus of young men with little hope of advancement due to primogeniture – a system where only the eldest son inherited land. Rigid class structures prevented social mobility – making it nearly impossible for men to gain land or status through legitimate means. And wars, economic downturns, and agricultural crises further destabilised their futures, leaving many disenfranchised, unemployed, or conscripted into military service.
Rather than questioning the inequalities of their own societies, many of these men externalised their frustration, blaming foreigners and indigenous populations for their lack of opportunity, and viewing them as obstacles to their potential wealth and power.
Colonialism as Population Management
Thus, colonialism wasn’t just about stealing land and resources; it was about population management. European powers often used colonies as a way to offload social unrest. This included criminals (think penal colonies like Australia), unemployed men, and those who might pose a challenge to domestic stability. Colonial governments might not have openly declared, ‘let’s export our violent men’, but they actively incentivised conquest-minded men – like conquistadors, mercenaries, and settlers with military backgrounds – by promising wealth, titles, status, and women in newly occupied lands. Through their actions colonial powers directed social unrest outward and (much like the modern incel) pushed the problems of their populations somewhere else; and the effects are still very clear.
The colonial project – where the conquest and subjugation of “weaker” peoples became a path to success; and which validated the belief that “if I can’t own land or women here, I’ll take them elsewhere” – left a legacy. And the legacy of these exported men still haunts former colonies today, with generational trauma, continued social stratification, and ongoing violence that stems from the ideologies that were then cemented.
Whether by accident or design, colonial expansion created an outlet for violent, disillusioned young men, faced with a perceived loss of status and entitlement, to project their frustrations outward. And moreover, in a particular direction that is not dissimilar to the externalising of rage from today’s radicalised men – onto women and marginalised groups.
The Promise of Power, Wealth, and Women
So, even if it wasn’t the case that colonial powers consciously or explicitly exported violent men as a formal policy, it does not change the fact that these disaffected and restless young men were lured (or pushed) into the ranks of conquest with promises of power, wealth, and access to women. And this promise would be fulfilled through the establishment of colonies, and via the violent subjugation of indigenous populations. And, as we know – they got what they came for. And so likewise, even if it is fair to assume that not every colonist was a violent man seeking conquest – that some were simply ordinary people looking for a better life, escaping economic hardship, or fleeing persecution etc. – the structure of colonial expansion demanded violence and subjugation, whether those individuals personally sought it or not.
The system made even ordinary people and settlers complicit – whether actively or passively – in its violence and oppression. And the same thing is happening today. In a collective failure to honestly interrogate why society is failing and then do something about it, we become instruments of radicalised masculinity and colonial violence, permitting the targeting of people who have nothing to do with our struggles. To ignore the legacy of colonialism embedded in our economic, political, and social systems; to ignore the effect radicalised masculinity is having on our economic, political, and social systems is not neutrality. It’s active complicity in ongoing systems of oppression. Our refusal to fully confront what happened then and what is happening now makes us as collectively complicit as each of our forbearers who looked the other way as violence, misogyny, sexism, racism, classism, and ableism was institutionalised.
The Institutionalisation of Toxic Masculinity
Colonial expansion created a situation where those inclined toward violence were given ample opportunity to thrive, while those who may have resisted the structures of violence were swept up in the machinery of empire anyway. The fact that colonial structures demanded violence, that it was a condition of colonial success, necessitated that, physically and psychologically, colonial narratives frame masculinity around conquest, dominance, and the right to claim land and women.
17th-century European states used colonial propaganda to radicalise young men into believing that conquest was not only their right but their duty. Many believed they were reasserting their rightful place in the world, using religion, monarchy, and racial superiority to justify their conquests. Like the colonialist, the modern radicalised male believes someone else “took what was rightfully theirs” – be it women choosing “Chads” or native men “hoarding” land and women. And just as incel forums encourage violent fantasies, colonial doctrine justified genocide, massacres, and sexual violence through ideas of racial superiority and economic necessity. In both cases it is reasonable to expect that some participate reluctantly, while others relish the opportunity for bloodshed and domination. But in both cases it is very clear that violence is framed as a legitimate response to the loss of status and power.
This toxic masculinity and patriarchal violence, while pre-dating colonialism, fuelled the brutal expansion of empire. Moreover, the colonial contribution to these existing structures meant that not only were they exacerbated – they were institutionalised, through colonial conquest and imperial rule. Through colonialism, toxic masculinity was cemented as a structure of power. And centuries later, that same entitlement to dominance still fuels men who believe the world owes them something.
The modern incels who advocate for “enforced monogamy” – forcing women into relationships with them – are not so far removed from the 17th century European men who used rape and forced marriages as a form of conquest. Sexual violence is still being justified as both a tool of domination and a means of assimilation. Women then and now are considered both “proof of power” and “spoils of war”.
What’s more, radicalised men believe in this past. They believe there was a time where men “naturally” had dominance and women were obedient. Even if they don’t know how far back this belief goes or where it even stems from. Each generation of radicalised men romanticises over an age when men were "real men" and women “knew their place” until some form of feminism and/or modernity ruined this picture-perfect past. And they justify their entitlement through narratives that frame their losses as injustices that needed to be rectified – through violence, if necessary. Consecutively, continually, and at every level we see the justification of extreme violence as a means to reclaim what a man perceives as a loss of status and the enforcing of his vision of “order”.
The Other as a Threat and a Prize
The problem for today’s radicalised men, particularly those without income, education, resources, and opportunities, is that they have yet to receive explicit public or political endorsement – though troubling trends suggest a move in that direction. But colonial armies and settlers were given unchecked power over indigenous populations, reinforcing these power dynamics and making violence an expected part of their role. The notion of the "Other" – the foreigner, the one who must be conquered, as both a threat to be subdued, or destroyed, and a prize to be possessed, or dominated – was central to colonial ideology. And its pattern can still be seen in modern incel radicalisation narratives today.
For just as colonisers feared indigenous men as violent threats but saw indigenous women as objects to be taken, modern incels describe women as both dangerous and desirable; they are paradoxically the enemy and the ultimate goal. This contradiction in portraying others as savage and in need of control while simultaneously picturing them as an exotic prize – this duality of fear and covetousness of the Other – helped rationalise the colonial project. European state-backed colonial propaganda played into this paradox, portraying non-European societies as both barbarically repellent and pleasingly attractive – places to be feared but also to be exploited.
This same dynamic appears among modern incels who hate women for rejecting them but still feel entitled to possess and control them. Women are depicted by radicalised men as deceptive, corrupting, treacherous, and deceitful; but also, as objects to be rightfully captured or conquered. Thus, the colonial contradiction remains intact: the Other must be feared, yet the Other is also something to rightfully possess.
The Legacy of Radicalised Masculinity
Many colonial powers framed their actions as "civilising missions", which (ironically) reinforced the violent masculinity that persists today. The belief that masculinity is proven through domination, violence, and conquest was embedded in colonial governance and has been passed down through generations. While today, lands and titles might not be able to be awarded to the most aggressive ideological recruits, disaffected young men have not stopped being radicalised. Because, instead of being promised dominion over foreign lands, they are still promised dominion over women, social hierarchies, and a mythologized version of a past where they were supposedly entitled to status and respect simply by virtue of existing. And, moreover, the reason still being presented as the obstacle to this, is some contrived external force or ‘other’, rather than the real and ever-present systemic issues we all need to confront.
Reckoning with the Past to Break the Cycle
Colonialism left us with an immense legacy, which 400 years later we’re still grappling with, because it’s more than just the visibly exploitative economic structures and falsely drawn national borders. It’s the insidious things – like these deeply ingrained narratives of masculinity that continue to fester. And while incels are an online phenomenon and 17th-century European colonialism was a state-backed project, the core mechanics are just too similar to ignore. If we really are serious about addressing radicalised masculinity today, we need to reckon with its historical roots – be it colonialism or even beyond. Because until we stop framing power and privilege as something men must take from others, we remain trapped in this historical loop. With each successive generation producing the same entitled male rage, we’ll just keep seeing the same story, but with different incels.
