How you go from ‘jerk’ to ‘literally Hitler’

Allow me to describe one of my best friends.

He can be:

  • Mean
  • Rude
  • Self-centered
  • Greedy
  • Jealous
  • Discouraging
  • Insulting

I could just leave the description there, but, let’s continue:

BUT he can also be:

  • Kind
  • Generous
  • Complimentary
  • Loyal
  • Smart
  • Funny
  • Helpful
  • Good company

When I’m annoyed with the guy, the first set of traits is all I think about and see. When I’m less annoyed with him, I see the second set of traits as well. That holds true for everyone in my life, who are as much an asshole as they are good, including me. I don’t know anyone who isn’t like that. Everyone is as evil as they are good. Being 100% virtuous is a facade that stems from some kind of disorder (either narcissism, perfectionism, or external validation addiction), and that facade can’t be maintained for very long. It’s like ‘nice’ guys: they come across as nice, but try rejecting them and see how nice they are.

Because normal people are as evil as they are good, if you observe them long enough, you can find evidence proving that they are a saint or a devil.

For example, imagine someone promised to call you at 6pm. You waited and waited and waited but, still, they didn’t call. You might get up and start thinking things like ‘this person is an asshole’; ‘they’re trying to fuck with me’; ‘they don’t care about me’; they don’t want to talk to me’; and so on and so on. You might think such things for the rest of the night, getting increasingly angry with them to the point you start fuming, until you get a text message from them saying that their car broke down and they didn’t have the reception required to call you. Then you feel like an idiot (or you tell yourself that that was just an excuse, which is also a possibility). I’m sure we’ve all done this from time to time. The point is that, for any given human behavior, there is a logical interpretation of it that paints them in a good light and a bad one.

This isn’t a particularly bad thing on its own, but the problem is when you’re not aware that your thinking can be extremely one-sided, depending on factors like your mood, your stress levels, your history with that person or people like them, etc. What this leads to is people who see only good or bad in a person or a group of people. This, in turn, leads to people who idealize people/groups, or who demonize people/groups.

When you want to see bad in people or are constantly fed information about people that paints them in a bad light, eventually, they will become the Devil in your mind. Here’s the progression of unchecked, one-sided thinking like this:

Stage 1: This person is kind of a jerk.
Stage 2: This person is a jerk.
Stage 3: This person is the scum of the Earth.
Stage 4: This person is like Hitler.
Stage 5: This person is literally Hitler.
Stage 6: This person is the Devil Incarnate and is responsible for all the evils in society/my life/the world, so let’s go get the pitchforks.

I’ve been through those stages with people, and I’ve seen other people go through them as well. Often, the person or people in question aren’t even in proximity to the person thinking about them, and have absolutely no idea that they’re actively being demonized in someone else’s mind.

The stages outlined above is the progression of liberalism and feminism regarding white men. Their unchecked, one-sided thinking has led them to seeing only the bad in that group, to the point where they (especially right-leaning ones) have become violent rapists who are responsible for all the world’s ills in their minds, and they can logically prove it too, because you can find bad in anyone and their actions. This unchecked thinking has also lead them to idealize pretty much anyone who isn’t a white man, leading them to a Devil/Saint dichotomy, where white men are devils and everyone else is a saint. This style of thinking has led to terrible things in history (e.g. with groups like the Jews becoming viewed as boogeymen in Nazi Germany who needed to be cleansed from the Earth), and it most certainly will again. There are only a few stages of thought separating ‘men are jerks’ and ‘men are so evil they need to be euthanized,’ and, if you look at history, that’s nowhere near as hyperbolic as it sounds.

Bottom line, when a liberal accuses you of being a Nazi or ‘literally Hitler,’ this is why. The only way stuff like this will stop is if people start actively trying to see good in each other instead of bad. In times when I’ve begun to think that people are the devil, and they’ve started doing the same to me, all it’s taken to re-establish healthy relations was just to put down my sword for a second, grit my teeth, and shake their hand. That’s probably all it would take for liberals and conservatives, and feminists and men, to stop the insane cultural battle we’re seeing today, but there’s no way in hell that’s going to happen, so eh.

We must end habitat inequality! [Feminism/liberalism parody]

Why, might I ask, is equality – one of the main and most beneficial tenants of modern Western society – restricted only to human beings? Surely, in our quest to create the most fair and equitable society possible, the benefits of our enlightened new ways of thinking should be accessible not just to people of all colors, shapes, and sizes, but to ALL forms of life on this planet. Both animals and plants – all living beings just like us humans – suffer tremendously at the hands of brutal inequalities that need not exist. Perhaps one of the most important inequalities that I feel needs to be addressed in the coming years is something that I have coined ‘habitat inequality’.

Why is it that aquatic animals are able to access and utilize only 71% of the available space on this planet, especially when the 29% that has traditionally been denied to them is such prime real estate? Sure, 71% of aquatic habitat *sounds* as though it is more than the 29% available to land-dwellers, but is it? The ocean is bland and monotonous – it is a cold, vast, and dark emptiness. In contrast, the land is rich with natural beauty and abundant resources, and is drenched in warmth and light. The ocean is nature’s ghetto, and the land is its palace, and, therefore, while the numbers say that more of the planet is available to the creatures in the ocean, such a view does not account for the obviously unequal values of the land and the ocean.

Who can deny the cruelty in preventing sharks from ever experiencing the beauty of the land? Would a fish not like to roam the African savanna, and look upon its alien beauty at sunset? Would a whale not give anything to experience the serenity of a tropical rainforest at dawn? Would an octopus not sacrifice a tentacle just for a glimpse of a mountain range, stretching into the distance beneath a warm, midday sun? And would a dolphin not sacrifice a flipper to lose itself under a blue sky on a grassy plain? These pleasures – which we all take for granted – have been heinously denied to the creatures of the ocean for eons. This does not have to be.

Why does this inequality exist, you may ask? A Marxist interpretation of this, as usual, tells all. By restricting the ability of aquatic animals to swim on land, their tyrannical land-dwelling oppressors are able to corral them in small areas like rivers and lakes, making them easy to hunt, catch, and kill. Animals such as the bear would have to roam for hundreds of miles to catch its lunch or dinner if its victims were free to roam wherever they pleased on the land. Also, in making it so that certain types of animals remain in the ocean, the oppressive land-dwelling creatures ensure that they and they alone have dominion over the most valuable regions of the planet. If their water-bound brothers and sisters were to be liberated from their traditional domain, this oppressor/oppressed dichotomy would be broken, and an environment would be created that would benefit ALL rather than a privileged few.

Lots of people will make the seemingly reasonable argument that aquatic animals do not belong on the land, and that, despite the inequalities described above, they are happier in the water. These people are small-minded bigots. People who utter such words are either sympathizers of those who would oppress the beings of the ocean, or are those who oppress them themselves (humans ARE land-dwellers, after all). Arguments like this are not borne of logic – they are borne of hate.

Others still might go on to say that what we have traditionally thought of as ‘sea-dwelling’ creatures cannot breathe on land. This argument may have had some credibility in the past, but humans have had the ability to transcend the cruel limitations of nature for some time now. Just as humans have overcome disease and extended our natural lifespans, so too can we overcome the tyranny of respiration. With the creation and allocation of breathing equipment and perhaps some light genetic engineering (all taxpayer-funded, of course), we could liberate what could be as many as 50% of the world’s animal species from their saltwater prison, and usher in a new age of equitable access to habitat among the animal populations of the world. Can you imagine it? A world of animals, liberated from their wicked historic segregation, living together in harmony? If that is not a worthy goal for humanity to work towards, I do not know what is. This will be a costly, difficult, and time-consuming endeavor, but I believe – nay, I feel, that it is worth it.

Land and water animals as they exist today are UNEQUAL, and this outrageous inequality has persisted far too long. We must put an end to this injustice immediately, and, if you do not agree, then you will have revealed yourself to be the evil and bigoted aquatophobe that you are, and someone whose ideas have no place in civil society. The goal of our world should be to create equitable access to all the land and resources on planet Earth. We cannot say that we have accomplished that goal until ALL the creatures of Earth are free.

Note for people who think this is serious: it’s not serious.

Why people protest everything now

Generally, everyone wants to feel like a good person. It’s a psychological need, right up there along with self-esteem and belonging. But, in our world, where things are rarely black and white, it’s often difficult to know exactly how to be a good person, or how to receive healthy validation from your community for being moral. In the past, when humans were religious, we had a neat list of things to do if you wanted to be a good person. If you were a Christian, you followed the Ten Commandments, and, if you managed to stick to them (or felt guilty when you didn’t) you got to feel as though you were a good, upstanding human being. No-one had to define morality for the Average Joe or Jane: a list of things that defined a good person was right there in black and white inside any Bible, to be referred to at your convenience.

Now, with the rise of Atheism, that convenient list has gone away. But, the innate psychological need for a human to feel good and moral has not. So, what do you do when you desperately need to feel moral but have no idea how to? You do the obvious. You pit yourself against something that you deem is bad or immoral.

Vegetarians decided to pit themselves against eating meat.
Vegans are against eating meat and animal products.
Atheists are against religion.
Liberals are against isms, ists and increasingly dubious phobias.
Postmodernists are against inequality.
Feminists are against men.
Manosphere guys are against feminism.
Capitalists are against socialism.
Android users are against Apple fans.
Environmentalists are against mining, climate change, and deforestation.
Antifa is against fascism.
The list goes on and on.

This sounds good, but when people aren’t raised to follow general moral codes like those preached by religions, they are forced to feel moral by being against something, leading to conflict. As a result, people now satisfy their natural desire to feel moral by protesting basically everything, and the protests will never end because there will always be injustice in an inherently unjust world. Additionally, the more moral someone needs to feel, the more violent they will be against whatever it is they have deemed bad, amplifying the conflict inherent in a system that deems you moral for being opposed to something. This is also antithetical to cohesion in society, pitting otherwise peaceful people against each other simply to fulfill a specific psychological need. People who don’t think that such a system will eventually end in civil war are kidding themselves. The longevity of a system like this is also up for debate since, for example, in the case of feminism, there’s only so much you can ‘fix’. And, when there’s nothing left to fix in your issue of choice, you start creating new problems to rail against such as sexist street signs and air-conditioning, allowing you to keep your moral framework alive.

Raising a generation of people (millennials) without a healthy moral framework to follow is the reason people protest everything these days. Now, people don’t demonstrate their morality to God, they perpetually and publically demonstrate it to other humans, who have dethroned God and now sit in his chair, at the top of the universe’s hierarchy. And, instead of following a general moral code such as ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you’, they create their own immature and specific moral frameworks that pit them against other people, causing conflicts and arguments in an otherwise cohesive society.

Note: I am not Christian or religious in any way.

Why stereotypes are bad

Stereotypes are bad because there are always exceptions to them. Take snakes, for example: yes, some are dangerous, but many snakes are placid and not poisonous at all. So, the next time you run into a snake in the wild, don’t judge it. Instead, pick it up with your bare hands, give it a big kiss on the head, wrap it around your neck to make a scarf, and then skip happily toward the sunset.

Why I don’t pursue women anymore

Ever since I stopped chasing women entirely, I’ve enjoyed more female attention than I have in my entire life. Because of that attention, I’ve been considering getting back on the dating market, but, every time I see or talk to a woman now–even an extraordinarily beautiful one–I can barely muster the energy to shrug. As of this moment, I haven’t opted out of the dating market; I just feel toward it as I would studying a liberal arts degree: it’s tedious, boring, and a complete waste of time. The reason for this is why I decided to leave the dating market in the first place, that reason being that I’ve completely dispelled the myth that women can make me happy in any way shape or form.

Here’s what I mean by that.

When you pursue a woman not for sex but for a relationship, what you’re really pursuing is something that will permanently increase the quality of your life. It’s not particularly romantic to think of it this way, but, when someone is seeking a relationship, they’re looking to gain something of personal value that they can only attain via an alliance with a member of the opposite sex. That ‘something’ and the long-term quality of life boost that accompanies it comes in the form of love, joy, companionship, intimacy, and so on. All of these things are ultimately a means to increase your mood. So, when you ask a girl to be in a relationship with you, or even to talk to you, what you’re really asking is for her to make you happier than you were before the interaction. If men and women didn’t expect to gain something of value out of an interaction with the opposite sex, no such interaction would take place. And why would it? Talking to strangers is boring at best and nerve-wracking at worst, and you most certainly wouldn’t do it if there was nothing in it for you. Every encounter a man initiates with the opposite sex is in the hope that it will garner a positive feeling (all human behavior is driven by this, incidentally). Here’s what that hope looks like on a chart:

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 2.18.42 PM

But, after jotting down everything I remember about my past relationships and encounters with women at the end of last year, what I found is that even though the expectation has always been that a woman will make me happier than I was before an interaction (whether it be a conversation or relationship), the opposite always turns out to be true. Historically, the above chart has without fail ended up looking like this:

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 2.18.51 PM

And that applies at the macro and micro level. This chart would look the same if its x-axis was labeled ‘one year’ or ‘twenty minutes.’ No matter what the interaction is or how long it goes for, the trajectory of every single (nonsexual) encounter I’ve had with a woman has netted me a decrease in my happiness, and not the increase that every well-brainwashed beta male expects.

But, when I look at the other things I do (e.g. going for bushwalks while listening to the Minecraft soundtracks, playing guitar, reading on the porch with a glass of wine, writing books, bitching on Twitter, gossiping with friends, etc), the effects of those activities on my mood almost always follows the trajectory of the first chart. When I do the things I like to do, I almost always end up happier than I was before I started. This stands in stark contrast to my interactions with women, which have historically always made me appreciably less happy than I was before the interaction began. Even the bushwalks when I’ve almost fallen off a cliff and gotten chased by a brown snake have netted me an increase in my mood greater than the increase I’ve ever gotten out of a nonsexual encounter with a woman. The difference is really that marked.

What’s been so bad about my historical interactions with women, you might ask? I’m going to be purposefully vague so as not to give ammunition to the You Can’t Generalize Brigade, but, in short, it’s because there’s always something with women. There’s always a black stain on an otherwise pristine white shirt, so to speak, and I’ve seen them so often by now that I don’t even need to see them directly to know they’re there. Reading any of my prior articles will probably give you an idea of why my interactions with women have always been negative. Suffice to say, I’m not being in any way hyperbolic when I say that the most reliable way to lower my mood I can think of is to initiate a conversation with a woman in real life or online, in the hope of getting into a relationship with her. I know of nothing else that can elicit a drop in mood of that magnitude, 100% of the time. Some people will say that I shouldn’t generalize and that one day a woman will come along whose effect on me won’t follow that trajectory. I have two words for those people. Neither of them are nice. Those people are also probably thinking that ‘It’s just you.’ I don’t care if it’s me; it doesn’t change that second graph up there. At a certain point, the reasons behind a phenomenon cease to matter, and being able to deal with its effects is all that counts. And women who I’ve explained this to, and who have told me that they’re different from everyone else, have treated me to the most spectacular displays of bullshit I’ve ever witnessed. When it comes to my romantic interactions with the opposite sex, the projected reality never matches the outcome, and, to paraphrase Dr. Phil, the best predictor of the future is the past.

Einstein Quote About Insanity Albert Einstein Quotes Insanity – Quotesta

When I realized that there was a severe disconnect between my expectations and reality, I stopped pursuing women entirely. I managed to realize this because I self-administered basic psychology and looked for patterns in my history that could give me an insight into the problems I have today. This is an incredibly valuable skill to learn. It’s amazing what kinds of stuff you can learn about yourself when you throw all of your experiences in a given sphere into a Word document and see what patterns emerge. Doing this helps you re-evaluate your attitudes and opinions using the best data you have available: your own hard earned experience.

For me, I’ve realized that chasing women is the pursuit of less. As always, the things you think will make you happy are the things that will make you depressed. Women are like alcohol: you expect them to raise your mood even though all the data you’ve got says that they’re a depressant. And, if you depend on them to make you happy, watch out. My alone time is now akin to eating a hamburger, and dealing with women now feels like eating broccoli, only in this analogy the broccoli isn’t healthy, it just tastes like shit. And now, the chart of my mood during an interaction with a woman always looks something like this:

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 2.18.56 PM

So that’s why I don’t pursue women anymore. I hope you have found this explanation to be as enlightening and depressing as I did. And now, I will leave you with this:

Note: I am fully aware that this article could’ve just as easily been written by a woman about men. I thought I’d mention this since it seems as though you can’t make a point about the sky without mentioning the ground these days.

Why I’m (kinda) a feminist now

A couple of months ago, I decided to go for a bushwalk in a small forest near my home. As I approached the path into that forest, three women emerged from the tree line on horseback and proceeded to pass me. The first of those women was in her late-40s to early-50s. I nodded at her, and she waved and smiled enthusiastically as she went by. The second of the of the three women was slightly younger–probably in her early to mid-30s. She acknowledged my presence with a quick nod and a brief smile as she and her horse trotted past. The third woman was my age, in her mid-20s. Unlike the two older women, this girl didn’t acknowledge my presence at all. Instead, she avoided making eye-contact with me altogether, seeming genuinely afraid to look at me.

At the time, I thought this was a perfect metaphor for everything I’d been seeing in the world around me. Older women, unspoiled by toxic third-wave feminism, were courteous human beings. The women my age, however, having been raised to believe that men are oppressive rapists who are the cause of all the world’s ills, are genuinely afraid of the opposite sex, leaving them cold, callous, and rude in their dealings with them. The incident in the forest, I thought, was the perfect metaphor for feminism, showing the progression from women who are genuinely kind and sweet human beings into the nasty, Buzzfeed-syle misandrists of today. It was a manifestation of all the effects of feminism that I’d been observing and cataloging as I interacted with women both in real life and online, and as I started critically analyzing feminist doctrines that I’d always taken for granted as true. Everything I’d learned about third-wave feminism accounted for what I saw in Western millennial women everywhere, which essentially boiled down to a complete lack of civility in their dealings with me and the rest of the opposite sex, an attitude I snarkily parodied in this tweet:

From this, I concluded that there is something terribly wrong with millennial women, and it was easy to see how feminism–a school of thought that rewards women for existing in a perpetual state of indiscriminate rebellion–was to blame.

But now I’m not so sure.

Here’s why:

Last night, my best friend (an attractive and feminine woman in her early-20s) decided that she wanted to see what it was like to be a man on an online dating website. After telling her to locate a packet of antidepressants and a bottle of vodka, I gave her my login credentials for OKCupid and Plenty of Fish. What she found confirmed pretty much everything I’d told her: when you’re on there, the overwhelming impression you get is that the women on there don’t like you, don’t need you, don’t want you, and would love nothing more than for you to fuck off. Their profiles are either blank or grandiose; most of their replies are little more than grunting, generally consisting of no more than two words; and ‘conversations’ with them are invariably one-sided, painfully boring, and often end after two messages. She concluded her side of the experiment with an emphatic: “I don’t know how you live like this.”

I enjoyed the fact that she had this experience. We’ve had many heated disagreements during which I’ve asserted that women nowadays are rude, soulless, and dead, and that it’s their fault. She obviously didn’t take too kindly to this, but I never gave a damn because I, not giving a shit about political correctness anymore, will call the sky blue if I think it’s blue, regardless of the social ramifications. During her time acting as me on OKCupid, she got to see how it really was–or so I thought.

After this, I was bored, and I figured I should probably see how it is on the other side myself. I said that it was so that I could have a well-rounded view of all the things I complain about, but really I just wanted confirmation of everything I thought the situation for women on an online dating website was like: that men are generally of high quality and that women are just debilitatingly picky as they were described in Lori Gottlieb’s book, wherein women are portrayed (and rightfully so) as often willing to reject men over things like the color of their shoes. So, I logged on, and this was the first thing I saw:

IMG_5528

Ah, I thought–the paradox of choice in a 50×50 square of pixels. My friend and I had talked about this very thing only hours before. During that conversation, I proudly gave her a metaphor explaining how I saw the situation. I told her that modern women are effectively inside a room full of diamonds of exactly the same size, shape, clarity, and value, and they’re going through each of those diamonds one by one, attempting to find the best one in the room. This metaphor was presupposed on the notion that men were generally of a high-standard and that the breakdown of civil intergender relations I was witnessing was almost wholly women’s fault.

Holy fucking shit was I wrong.

I didn’t bother waiting for new messages to come into my friend’s inbox. Instead, I decided to take a look at some of the conversations she’d already had. We’re pretty similar in terms of personality, and her responses were as high-quality as I’d expected them to be. She didn’t act like the girls she’d attempted to interact with when she was using my profile–her responses were witty, interesting, and didn’t make you yearn for a thick piece of rope and the branch of a high tree. So, I figured this would be particularly informative since there were no identifiable problems in her conduct whatsoever.

Here’s some of the stuff I found in the first thirty seconds:

IMG_5522IMG_5514IMG_5513IMG_5511IMG_5505IMG_5499IMG_5503IMG_5507IMG_5501IMG_5494

I could keep adding pictures here, but I think you get it. I filled up my iPad’s memory getting screenshots of stuff like this; there’s literally that many messages in this vein, and I haven’t even seen a fraction of a percent of everything that’s there. I didn’t cherry-pick these messages; I just chose at random.

My friend’s message history was packed with messages like this. There were overtly sexual conversation starters. Nonsensical bios. Conversations that continued even though she obviously had no intention of replying. Entire message threads of small-talk, some of them sent by men who thought it appropriate to go by usernames like ‘Bigcok98’. I can appreciate a quality man even though I’m not attracted to them. In the hundreds of messages I read, I could not find anything resembling one. The guys on there were so dumb that I’m now genuinely worried about the economy knowing that these guys are out there working to prop it up. I don’t know what jobs they’re doing. Can you get a job as a professional flagpole?

And this is all in addition to some of the stories she’s told me about men she’s encountered in public, one notable example being some guy in a van who saw her as he was driving past, did a U-turn at the end of the street, and then circled back to try and flirt with her through his window. It’s not just online dating where guys are acting like this; it seems to be everywhere. I also tend to think that the mild anonymity that online dating allows lets people show their true selves. Underneath their public personas (assuming they have one and aren’t actually like this in real life too), it seems that a tremendous amount of men out there are as ugly as can be, both in appearance and in their speech.

There’s a certain style of communication that suggests lucidity. It’s part of what makes a man charismatic. For an example of this, just watch any Jordan B. Peterson lecture and pay attention to his self-aware style of elocution. Every word he utters conveys the idea that his brain is firing on all cylinders. The style in which these guys articulate their thoughts, however, makes one wonder what’s really happening in their heads. Sure, the fact that they’re breathing and typing suggests that some neural activity is indeed taking place between their ears, but that’s about all you can say about them. I wouldn’t be comfortable talking to these guys if I were a woman. I wouldn’t even be comfortable talking to them as mates. There’s nothing relatable about them, and I’m skeptical that, if I tried to connect with them, that there’d be anything in there connect with. That’s an extreme thing to say, but it was really that bad.

Bigcok98 and his gang of barely sentient compadres aren’t the men I figured I’d see when I logged into my friend’s profile. Sure, I figured I’d see some guys like this, but I didn’t realize that the percentage of them would be close to 100%. There wasn’t a split between alphas and nice guys, the former being strong and attractive and the latter being weak but intelligent. Instead, what I found were that some guys had muscles and some guys didn’t and all of them were idiots. Absent were any of the guys I occasionally have the pleasure of interacting with on Twitter or in the Manosphere. There weren’t any of the guys I’d gotten used to seeing around the place who are civilized and virtuous, who love to read and think about themselves and the world around them, but who would also do fine in a fight or a situation where they needed to survive. There weren’t any men who would look just at home in a suit as they would in camo.

170523-roger-moore-james-bond-njs-933a_fffc1678866031c232985e1470d88447.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

Roger Moore as James Bond.

See this guy here–that’s a real man. He’s strong but not a dumb meat-sack; he’s smart but not a nerd; and he’s stylish without being a metrosexual. He exudes dignity, class, intelligence, and authority. You wouldn’t catch him starting conversations with ‘Hey sexyyyyyy’.

I had a conversation with a mate of mine recently during which I–like the arrogant fuckwit that I am–insinuated that one of his buddies wasn’t what I consider a real man. This friend responded to my assertion by saying that the guy in question was a real man because he was competitive and aggressive, and I couldn’t help but wince. Being a man isn’t about punching shit. That’s a relatively recent conception of what men are supposed to be, and it’s destructively inaccurate. You won’t find Zeno, Seneca, or any of the other Stoics advocating men actualize their masculinity by yelling ‘do a fucken burnout, bro!!’ Masculinity is about strength–something that comes from the body and the mind. Strength of body without strength of mind is weakness, and, if you don’t believe that, look up the Wikipedia article for any branch of martial arts and do a bit of reading; you’ll quickly see what I’m saying. Martial arts are as much about the mind as they are the body. Martial arts are also lethal; the epitome of survival and strength. I thought the high-quality men in the Manosphere were the norm and that women were at fault for not upholding the tenants of civility and virtue in our society. Women, it seems, aren’t destroying civility, they’re as civil as you could possibly expect them to be when this is how men are acting. They’re actually upholding surprisingly high standards of propriety while men are gleefully flipping those standards the bird and acting like pigs. The behavior of men on these websites–something that I will again say is indicative of men everywhere and not just the ones online–is so bad that my friend had to constantly let the men on there know when they were being inappropriate and to stop, like a mother attempting to verbally control a child. Even the lowest man-hating feminist I’ve met has been less loathsome than some of the best guys I saw on those websites, and I would rather spend time with the delusional, purple-haired SJW stereotype than spend another moment talking to the men on there. The lowest quality woman in my experience is higher quality than most of these guys. There was nothing whatsoever to like about them.

I would estimate that men are 80% responsible for the monster that third-wave feminism, women, and even liberalism has become. Why do liberals hate straight white men? Because by all accounts, straight white men are complete mental cases. Why do liberals like homosexual men more than straight men? Because gay men almost always have a bit of intelligence and class (at least when they’re not flouncing about the streets half-naked for children to see during Mardi Gras). Men like I used to be, who are surprised that women think they’re intellectually inferior rapists, after seeing the sheer amount of sexually explicit comments women get both on these websites and occasionally in real life, have got to be joking. You can’t see men act this way in these quantities and not think that this is a rape culture. And is it any wonder the divorce rate is so high when this is the average intelligence of men? Maybe the divorce rate is so high not because women are picky, but because the men they’ve settled for are garbage.

Going back to my OKCupid account, with a message from a woman every few days, felt like going from a clogged, traffic congested road in the city where you can’t hear yourself think to a tranquil steam in the never-never. I always thought that it would be amazing to get so much attention from the opposite sex like women do. That’s not true. I would take the reasonable amounts of attention I get from women over this deluge of acid any day. I’m glad that my friend’s experiences are not mine.

The guys in the Manosphere are real men—we’re classy, attractive, philosopher types who venerate knowledge but who wouldn’t mind snapping someone’s neck if the situation truly called for it. This is not the norm. I am disgusted by the objectively terrible behavior of some third-wave feminists, but the standard behavior of men, it seems, is way out there. This is what you get when there are no clear and defined gender roles for both genders instead of what we have now. Feminism paints a clear path for women–it lays out a clear path to success that, once attained, women can point to and say ‘I’ve done it.’ Men have nothing like that anymore, and this is the result. Men haven’t always been this dumb. Older gents aren’t dumb. Men like Roger Moore were men, but they weren’t morons. You wouldn’t find Roger Moore in an alley marking his non-existent territory with a can of spray paint.

So I’m a feminist now, or at least I most certainly understand why third-wave feminists and women in general are the way they are now. You can’t not have a change of attitude after seeing something like this. Even the screenshots don’t do it justice–it’s really difficult to explain without experiencing it. This complete change of opinion may give people the impression that my worldview is schizophrenic. It is. There is no profit in having a static worldview, and having a dynamic one that updates upon the receipt of new information comes at the cost of consistency. This is a complete 180 in my thinking. I think that’s healthy. I like not thinking the same thing I thought last week. I believe that, if you think more or less the same thing you thought last week, you probably didn’t do much with your week. You won’t find me watching Amy Schumer movies after this (because I value my eyes) or protesting the Wage Gap (because I value my dignity) but, whenever I’m bitching about humanity on Twitter or wherever going forward, there’s going to be a lot more nuance in my worldview. Hopefully said bitching will still be funny.

It strikes me as weird that many feminists have tried to explain all this to me and most of the other guys I know again and again, but we’ve always written off their words as ridiculous. It makes me wonder why we did that. I think it’s because, as is the trend these days, people don’t debate anymore, they lecture. I can’t empathize with someone if they lecture me as if I were a child; no-one can. There’s so much division of thought in the West now because of this that, if the 2016 U.S. election is anything to go by, it could lead to the second American Civil War. In the case of the trans community, for example, they’re not just lecturing they’re threatening and hitting people. I don’t know of anyone–trans or no–who doesn’t think that community is toxic and evil, or who takes them seriously anymore. It is very difficult to see people as anything but villains when they act exactly like villains. Many third-wave feminists are in constant attack mode, and while I now understand why, that attitude is creating more problems than it solves. This whole thing wouldn’t have been as successful if my friend didn’t go on my online dating accounts and acknowledge my side of the situation over there first. Like a teacher who knows that students appreciate feedback that lists their work’s merits before launching into criticism, all we have to do is to acknowledge the other side’s position first before respectfully disagreeing for them to understand. No-one will, but that’s beside the point.

So that concludes my story of an anti-feminist’s adventures in blue pill land. Now, I’m gonna go and have a glass of wine, while I try to ignore the guy chain-messaging my friend every few minutes even though she’s never replied to his messages.

Author’s note: I was going to title this article ‘How Buzzfeed happened,’ but then I didn’t.

Narcissistic millennials date for validation, not love

I posted this on Twitter a couple of months ago:

Fact 1: Narcissists are incapable of love.
Fact 2: We live in a culture of narcissism.
Fact 3: Wine is only $11 a cask at Woolworths.

I thought that was funny.

I also think it’s true.

A lot has been written about the narcissism epidemic. The upshot of all the writing on that epidemic is that most people in the Western world have narcissistic personality disorder to some degree, especially millennials growing up in the age of selfies and smartphones. Narcissistic personality disorder isn’t as simple as ‘this person loves themselves’–it’s a distinct type of personality that can be identified, diagnosed, and quantified, and is part of the Dark Triad of malevolent personality traits. People with this disorder aren’t your average human–they’re something distinctly different, and those differences can be observed and quantified.

One of those quantifiable traits is an overwhelming desire for external validation. When a narcissist gets the validation they so desperately crave, they will achieve a high not unlike a high one would get from taking an illicit drug. This high is commonly referred to as ‘narcissistic supply.’ When a narcissist is unable to receive validation, they will ramp up their efforts to gain it through attention-seeking behaviors, and, if that doesn’t work, or if they are invalidated, they will either fall into a depression or be overcome with anger.

In 2017, everyone has this disorder to some degree. We all crave external validation, both in real life and via our smartphones, tablets, and computers. Our devices produce pleasing ‘dings’ at all hours, informing us that someone has validated us in some way. Sometimes they inform us that our intelligence, wittiness, or ideas have been validated on Twitter and Facebook. Other times they bring news of our validation on Instagram, telling us that people have approved of our faces, bodies, or artistic eye. And other times they herald validation of our personalities and looks on online dating websites such as OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, and Tinder.

Narcissism is so dangerous it prompted the Ancient Greeks to create the tale of Narcissus, a man who fell in love with his reflection and stared at it until he died. Narcissus is portrayed in the tales as an extremely attractive man, suggesting that the Ancient Greeks knew that narcissism is primarily a malaise of the beautiful, and, that since people infected with this disorder lose their humanity, beautiful people are at a serious risk of experiencing a living death. The story was intended as a cautionary tale, warning the most attractive Ancient Greeks about the dangers of their beauty.

Western civilization in the 21st century has no such cautionary tales. Our society doesn’t warn people about narcissism, it encourages it with advertising, social media, feminism, and reality TV. As a result, the vast majority of us have unknowingly contracted this terrible disorder, to the point where even the most humble of our number have it to some extent. What that means is that millennials are addicted to external validation, and this is a legitimate addiction, as real as an addiction to alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.

The proliferation of this disorder has given rise to an interesting phenomenon in millennial dating:

Having a crush on someone and then immediately losing interest when the person you desire admits they like you.

Millennials do this all the time. If someone likes us, we don’t like them. And, if someone doesn’t like us, we fall head over heels for them, sometimes bad enough to drive obsession.

I’ve been thinking about this phenomenon for a long time since it happens to me and everyone I know. It also explains why myself and the rest of the guys in the Manosphere do so well with aloof game–when you don’t show interest in girls, they can’t get enough of you, and when you admit you’re interested or that you like them, they act like you’re holding an unsealed vat of nuclear waste. According to my female friends and my own experiences with myself, that’s the case with most millennial men, too.

As a result of that thinking, I’ve concluded that this is absolutely a symptom of rampant narcissistic personality disorder. When you’re on a lifelong quest for external validation, validation from the opposite sex is your Holy Grail. When someone validates you, it feels great. When someone refuses to validate you, it drives you crazy, especially if you’re a woman who’s used to being validated at every level of society, at every stage of your life.

Dating in a society of narcissists isn’t about finding love, it’s about seeking the most potent external validation fix: the fix you get from the opposite sex. The more beautiful the person the greater the hit. Because we have learned to see people only as potential sources of external validation, when someone does validate us, their value to us immediately drops to zero because validation is only worth something when you don’t have it–it’s a prize that is worthless once received. Relationships are on their deathbed because of this phenomenon, because committing to someone cuts off your access to external validation–the millennial drug of choice. When you’re in a relationship, you can no longer hear the ding of your smartphone, alerting you of the delivery of yet more of your favorite drug from social media or online dating websites, and you can’t entertain attention from the opposite sex in the real world. This has given rise to alternative intergender arrangements such as open relationships or the friend zone–a way to have all the benefits of a relationship while still satisfying your addiction to external validation through attention from the opposite sex and casual sex. It has also given rise to unprecedented divorce rates among narcissists in relationships eager to get back on the dating market to reopen the faucet of narcissistic supply.

In summary, in 2017 love is dead, and narcissism has killed it. Validation is the only thing worth anything to millennial men and women, and, as far as I’m aware, there is no way to fix that. Commitmentphobia will be the norm for as long as narcissistic personality disorder grips our population, and traditional relationships will be remembered as one would the rotary dial telephone–a quaint novelty from the past. Instead of being in committed, monogamous relationships, most of us will remain forever alone, falling deeply in love with those who display no interest in us, and discarding those who have genuine feelings for us without a moment of thought or concern. And all the while, at the end of each day, we’ll likely find ourselves sitting in our living rooms, with a glass of wine in our hands, wondering where all the good men and women have gone.