When you assert that something matters, you are expressing a value. But a value does not exist as an objective truth in a vacuum. Rather, a value is something that is held by a person capable of judging.
You can not talk about what matters without talking about the individuals that it matters to.
When you tell me that black lives matter, then I must ask: To whom?
To be realistic, I would expect this to be followed by the loaded question: So you think black lives do not matter?
And I would say: Not to me, no.
And I would expect to be guilt-tripped and shamed a little, back and forth, blah blah yada.
But seriously, why should I – me as an individual – care about black lives? What does that even mean?
Continue reading “Black lives matter – to whom?”
I started smoking in the psychiatry 7 months ago. I continued smoking because smoking brought up some kind of diffuse but strong fear in me. A few days back I dropped the fags, because it is starting to deteriorate my teeth.
In those days without a smoke, a strange sort of peace sneaked into my life, but I did not realize it until today, when I intuitively felt the necessity to smoke one more cigarette.
The moment I tasted the smoke in my mouth, the memories all came back. The intense fear and helplessness of being bound to a bed, disrespected, forced to take medicine, looked down upon by the stupid staff.
It was a strange moment. One moment I had peace in my mind. I had practically forgotten about the incident. And then, just by the taste of the cigarette, it all came back at once. It was as if I was suddenly another person. I think this is what they call triggering.
Not for the first time has such a dramatic and sudden change in my mood forced an insight upon me: This pain is not my identity.
Continue reading “Cigarettes & Memories”
This is not an MRA article demanding that women desire weakling men. It is nobody’s responsibility but your own to love all aspects of who you are. So take this as an invitation for self-acceptance, not for another crusade for justice.
When it comes to healthy sexual relationships between the sexes, I pretty much share the – generalized – view that the man plays the dominant part, while the woman is submissive. This may not be the absolute truth in every last case, but I think it is a very fair generalization that at least describes a valid tendency.
But, if I were to give any advice, I would tell you to immediately forget this observation once you make it. Why? Because you should not have to be thinking about things like that. If it is the truth, it is the truth because that simply is what happens when you stop trying to control the situation or bring your ego ideas about correct or good relationships and interactions into it. Once you start acting dominant to do it right, you practically defeated the point of making such a point. If all of it was simply an act, all the time, in everyone, you could actually claim that it is a social construct. Hence I believe that the only way you can make such an observation in an honest way is to introspect and make some personal experiences.
You can only make a valid observation when the observed ones (that can include you) feel no obligation to support either view. That is, when they feel free to express themselves fully without thinking about it.
If you have to tell a man how to be a man, then you can not claim that you are making him more of a men, rather than less. At least when you, like myself, assume that being a man means to have the male biological sex – instead of abiding by some ideological construct like neo-masculinity. If being a man does not flow naturally from being born a man, then our concept of being a man logically must be flawed. Of course, that presumes that there are no forces in place during one’s formative years that restrict this natural flow.
Continue reading “Having a feminine side VS. being female”
I do meditation and I often say that my beliefs are close to Buddhism. But the more I know about Buddhism, the less I resonate with it.
The thing that I find most idiotic is also somewhat present in Christianity. It is a particular concept of selflessness. Serve others and find enlightenment / deliverance.
So, basically, it says that you should not focus on your own karma, but extend kindness and compassion to others instead.
But the hypocrisy becomes very clear when you realize that you are only doing this in order to become enlightened yourself. You basically want something for yourself – enlightenment – and thus you search for a way to bribe the universe into providing it for you. If you extend compassion and kindness to someone in this fashion, it is done out of a selfish purpose and I would not be surprised if – on a metaphysical level – you are giving up responsibility for your own karma that way. You do something good and expect karma to be taken away in turn. I would not be surprised if this act actually transfers some of your own negative energy or karma to the person you are pretending to be helping, making the whole thing more of a black magic act than anything of real value.
Continue reading “Buddhistic bullshit”
Liberals usually claim that homosexuality is inborn. Religious people and manospherians usually claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. Both commit the same fallacy, an appeal to nature based on personal bias. Both assumptions, when declared doctrine, are potentially harmful.
If we declare that homosexuality is inborn, we take all hope away from those who truly suffer from emotional disturbances and developmental setbacks. They are left in a desperate situation and when trying to reconcile the conflicting voices in their heads, they feel forced to support the voice that urges them into homosexuality, inflicting strong pain on themselves from even thinking about it.
On the other hand, I think it is plausible to make room for the assumption that some people are truly homosexual at their core and suffer gravely from having to repress that. Telling them that homosexuality is a mental illness hurts them just as much as those who experience the dilemma from the other perspective.
To make a little analogy, there may be a man who truly enjoys photography and art. And there may be another man who truly enjoys hard work and carrying around big bricks at the building site. Now let’s assume that each of them thinks that his profession is the only true and natural thing to do for a real man. They get children. The artist’s kid would secretly love nothing more than to be a hard worker. The hard worker’s kid would love nothing more secretly than to be an artist. Let us assume that both shame their kids for not doing what they think is the right way. Both kids suffer for having to be something they do not truly wish to be, feeling guilty towards their parents for not truly wanting to be their narcissistic mirror image. And yet, the fact that the kids suffer from having to live a life that does not fit them does not mean that this life would not perfectly fit somebody else.
Continue reading “The pseudo-intellectualism of contemporary discussions about homosexuality”
Nietzsche suggests in his book On the Genealogy of Morals a historical account of a nation that was harmonious and peaceful inside, while periodically going on crusades against other nations, committing the most heinous crimes; rape, murder, torture. And they enjoy it. He suggests that this nation has developed this mechanism as a way to vent the more animalistic tendencies that are suppressed inside its civilization.
Why do we get so angry about politics? Why do we see a flag or a famous monkey and are so hyponotized by it that we elevate it, in our minds, above all of those who oppose it? Why are we seemingly ready to kill people who disagree with us about political issues – and yet seldom dare to speak our own minds if they oppose that which is morally accepted?
I think the answer is simple.
Political issues and political leaders give us the permission to be angry. Something we are generally not allowed to be.
To be angry and violent, those are qualities that are looked down upon in society. To use force and power to get your own way, that is perhaps the greatest crime of all. Beware the selfish man. Serve the others, always be compassionate and so on. And yet, when our personally chosen leaders talk about the enemies of their values, we become feral, with foam at our mouths, ready to do almost anything to silence them. Very peculiar.
Continue reading “Anger hypnosis – why do politics enrage us so?”
A double bind, as I see it, is a situation where one is confronted with two conflicting desires, effectively rendering the person helpless and making a solution of the problem impossible. It is the scenario of being between a rock and a hard place. Having to evade an approaching train by jumping down from a bridge.
One of the meanest double binds I have experienced and lived with most of my life is something I would say is typical for co-dependent men, especially when it comes to dating, or, to be more precise, living out the sexual drive. But it does not only apply to fucking girls. It also applies to situations of open confrontation and conflict.
The double bind goes something like this:
- You have to be liked, wanted, desired and respected.
- To be liked, wanted, desired or respected, you have to be confident.
- To be confident means to not be dependent on being liked, wanted, desired or respected.
Now, note that I am not talking about objective truths. I am talking about deep, ingrained beliefs and compulsions.
Continue reading “The devilish male co-dependent double bind, or, anatomy of a cuck”
I will try and make a logical argument that morals are an exclusively human invention and therefore less important in the big picture than we may think. A part of the argument is of Machiavellian nature, but without the negative connotation.
A fine conclusion from it is that it is okay to forgive ourselves and others even the most so-called heinous crimes. And let go of pain.
My argument is really simple. I will give you the short version now and then elaborate a bit. It goes as follows:
Morals in the way we know them are exclusive to the human species. God likely does not punish animals for acting in a manner that would be considered immoral from a human perspective, nor is it likely that they feel guilt or shame for such behavior. Also very likely, our soul – the essence of our being – is not human. Therefore, it is unlikely that God favors human souls over animal souls, since the soul in itself is not human and is thus equal to any other soul. Hence, morals are an exclusive human instrument, primarily used for intra-species power plays – be that a good or bad thing, if you get the pun.
Well, that turned out to be not quite as clear as I hoped it would, but it should suffice to give you the gist for now.
So now, let me elaborate a little.
Continue reading “Proof (?) that morals are man-made fiction”
You walk the streets and you see some stupid protesters, do-gooder activists, hippies, oh damn, whatever thing you can think of that makes you want to throw up. You sneer at that thing or person. You say to yourself, society is going to hell. You say to yourself, but I know better. You say to yourself, I know who I am.
And you walk the streets and think of yourself and fancy what you see. A man of integrity, a man with a firm set of values, a man who thinks for himself. You know stuff like:
- Homosexuality is a mental illness.
- Liberals suck and are dumb.
- Life is hard.
- (fill in whatever fits you)
So that’s you. That’s your identity. You know who you are, because you know what you believe. You think, therefore you are. And the thing that keeps you You is the strength to stand by your beliefs. Standing by your beliefs is a good thing, you heard it many times. Not giving in to people who want to manipulate you, change who you are.
You grew up in a culture that constantly wants to feed you its propaganda, constantly wants to control your life in every which way. You are smart, because you look through it. You know who you are.
Continue reading “Does rejecting societal influences make you more You?”
A friend passes by as I sit around smoking a cigarette. We talk about something of no consequence. I show him the headline of the newspaper on a stand nearby. 26-year old girl raped by 5 men. I ask my friend why anybody wants to read this. Why anybody cares. Because it happened near us and we are interdependent with those people.
No, I’m not, I realize. It could happen in the same house I live in and it would have nothing to do with me. Why don’t the newspapers write about a father who passed the street with his kid without accident. Sure, it happens all the time. It is normal. It is not important. But a raped girl is not any more important.
My friend says that this stuff concerns us because it shakes our worldview. Does it really? People die all the time. And more than that, the newspaper is full of it all the time. There is nothing worldview-shaking about it at all. It is just a cheap effect. Why did I care in the past? I was proud of living in a horrible world. Of thinking I was better than that. I fantasized about saving the world, making it good. But it is not bad. That’s just our judgment.
Why do we care about rape? Why do we care about massacres? More people die of hunger than of any massacre. We eat animals and never think of their lives. So why care about other people’s misery? Because it harmonizes with our own?
My friend gets angry at me. I don’t know why. For suggesting the newspaper write about something equally unimportant, but much more uplifting?
Continue reading “A moment of clarity”