When somebody is in competition to another, it is not so much whether he is actually better that counts.
It is whether the voices that most people listen to judge his performance as better.
The “critics’ consensus”. The consensus of the voices that most people think are reasonable and informed. Whatever that means, right?
When you trust a source that says “Trump totally owned Hillary, that bitch”, then that is the truth.
When you trust a source that says “Hillary is the rightful winner, Trump only tricked himself into winning”, then that is the truth.
But it’s much more apparent when there is no actual competition rules, like in a presidency.
In a debate.
Take a public debate. Most people afterwards will gravitate towards sources that proclaim that their preferred debater “won” or “totally burned” the other one.
In a debate there is no objective winner. What counts is not so much whether someone has actually won, but whether you can convince people that some particular part of the debate marked a participant’s victory.
And suddenly, after the critic says it, “it becomes obvious”. Well, why wasn’t it obvious before the critic or “expert” said it?
Continue reading “Arguments are power plays”
Man is not meek nor does man fear his own cruelty. But he fears that if he admitted his own cruelty, he would validate the cruelty of others, which would put him in danger.
Thus hiding his own cruelty he convinces others that he is meek, thus winning their trust and resources.
Many who pretend they are meek then so find together as a community.
Thus community is something born entirely out of selfish interests. Pretending to be meek is the best way – at least in our society that I know – to ensure safety of the self. Selfish satisfaction.
And when one stops pretending, he is shunned. Not because he is ‘worse’ than the others. But because someone else who doesn’t feel obliged to pretend is an inherent danger to the self.
Ironically, you can not ‘explain’ to that person why he should be pretending. So what you do is – you unleash your own beast on that non-pretender. And he ‘learns’ that the pretense is better. And on the surface you may say to that person ‘You have been bad and this is your punishment.’ But that’s only the surface. The real communication is through pain and that one doesn’t lie. It says: I am a beast and I will keep hurting you until you do as I wish you to do.
Unfortunately this contradiction between verbal and non-verbal communication leads to madness. Classical double bind. It creates a disconnect between the mind and the body. And the result is what we all know as ‘hypocrisy’. It is a man whose mind doesn’t understand his body and whose body doesn’t understand his mind.
I really never understood why people thought ‘altruism’ was not selfish…
The male ego.
Why do men have greater egos?
Because men are expected to shut up about their pain. When they open up about such things, the typical response is “suck it up crybaby”.
And I guess that’s all cool and shit. But don’t go about complaining men have big egos when they learn from small on to hide their feelings as if they were some dirty secrets.
Men have big egos because that’s what is expected of them. And not just because of patriarchy. At least as big – if not bigger – a component are women who expect men to be strong and impenetrable and take care of them while sacrificing their own needs. They keep throwing shit tests at men who display weakness, and using men to their own advantage when they sense they can do this. Thanks to their ability to “empathize”.
In fact, I dare say every woman even reading this post will feel a repulsion to even such a limited amount of openness and “weakness”. Makes sense, as she is evolved to crave for a protector and shit, right.
But think of it … when even a post like this – or a real life equivalent – can repulse a woman from considering a man attractive or lovable – saying this as a matter of fact, not to cry for sympathy -, or use it as cannon fodder for her manipulations …
Well then don’t fucking complain about the male ego, because that’s basically what you’re asking for.
Matter of fact, I think women dislike the male ego precisely because it makes the man wisely close up towards women about his emotional world. Women crave to know stuff about people so that they can use it against them … so they naturally want men to let their guards down. It gives them power.
So … let’s celebrate the male ego. It is a fine protection against the harpies. And as for being open and honest: That’s what locker room talk is there for.
There was this fat black bitch in a therapeutic living community I was residing at for some time. She had this tick … whenever she saw somebody in a uniform, she went haywire. She literally was getting into fights with cops and ticket inspectors. She knew all the local ticket inspectors by name. And the boss of those ticket inspectors – I think she called him Nicolini – he was like her nemesis, evil arch angel. She could ramble about what a basterd he was all day. It was like listening to some epic mythological saga.
Well, anyhow, one day it turned out that when she was a kid, her daddy was a police officer somewhere in Africa or something like that. Her house was under surveillance by lots of men with uniforms. And those men raped her best girl friend.
I found it a little silly back then, but the world being funny as it is, turns out I suffer from a similar affliction. I also developed kind of a strong hatred for police officers and people who think they have authority over me. At first, it was just unreflected rage. I did not know where it came from. But I’ve had time to introspect since and it turns out, when some cop barks at me, it triggers emotions in me of myself having been raped.
Of course, the cop is not the person who raped me. But the mind does not care. It is a defense mechanism. And if you think of it, it is a somewhat valid one.
When somebody traumatizes you, your mind creates this image of an “oppressor”. It may be some emotion that this person displayed while harming you. It may be something about his looks. Basically, the brain just goes haywire associating and trying to find a pattern. Why? To avoid it from happening again.
Continue reading “How everybody is your rapist – and how not. Or: Beating the devil”
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?”