Men and Women Will Never Truly Understand Each Other

The Manosphere has done a massive amount of research, both in formal study and in personal anecdotes to understand how women operate. There are multiple reasons for this, as some men choose to bed them, others to hold onto them, and all are trying to avoid being taken advantage by them. Similarly, we have looked inside ourselves in order to understand who we are as men. Through these pursuits, we’ve generated what amounts to an entire new field of gender psychology (though I’d call it sex psychology, for reasons I will detail later).

 

(Aside: Here I’d like to point out how the supposedly misogynistic manosphere has devoted so much time into understanding how women function on an objective analysis that tries to get to the heart of the female human condition, petals and thorns and all. Ironic, isn’t it, how we wish to understand them, but feminism has not desired to do the same for men. If we are psychoanalyzed at all by the opposing side, then it is through the lens of sophism, projection, and oppression. But I digress…)

 

Months ago, I wrote:

 

“In its most basic form, the male human condition is about becoming a man worthy of reproduction through demonstrable strength, intellect, and/or dominance. That is a man’s purest quest, condensed. However, the female human condition is about holding onto the things that nature, genetics and circumstance have given her without her control.”

 

What I meant by that is, because nature has given us different means and consequences for reproduction, the life’s story of a boy and a girl are so different that they might as well be different realities.

 

But that only scratches the surface. Plumbing is one thing, psychology is another.

 

As much as we men can understand the computations within the female brain, much like how we understand how a motor functions, we cannot get into the mind of a woman and feel what she feels, sees what she sees, think in the way that she can. We can only observe from the outside and understand where her programming will likely take her, but not the journey. Similarly, women cannot do the same for us. Despite all we have learned, there remains the impenetrable barrier of our inability to understand the other half of the species.

 

That is because our brains are different. There are several main considerations when talking about neurology: density of neurons, type of neurons, structure of neurons, and chemical neurotransmitters. Between men and women, all four are different.

 

“Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?

Gray matter areas of the brain are localized. They are information- and action-processing centers in specific splotches in a specific area of the brain. 

White matter is the networking grid that connects the brain’s gray matter and other processing centers with one another.”

 

Think of grey matter as a computer chip and white matter as an Ethernet cable. Men have more processing power in select areas while women connect smaller patches of calculators over a wider network. Thus, it should not be a surprise that, over time, men have been stereotyped as focused and logical while women have been stereotyped as holistic thinkers. Stereotypes exist for a reason, people.

 

“The right and left hemispheres of the male and female brains are not set up exactly the same way. For instance, females tend to have verbal centers on both sides of the brain, while males tend to have verbal centers on only the left hemisphere.”

 

The white matter neurons (the “Ethernet cables”) mainly run from front to back in males while neural pathways run from side to side in females. This distinction is made all the more apparent when examining the female’s larger corpus callosum – the main bridge that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain, allowing them to communicate.

 

Consider not only neurons (their type, density and structure), but also the chemicals that allow them to send signals:

 

“Male and female brains process the same neurochemicals but to different degrees and through gender-specific body-brain connections.”

 

Testosterone is the reason why men punch refrigerators when we can’t fix them (and feel absolutely justified in doing so), and the neural structure of women is why they can’t understand why we do.

 

But not only can women not understand men, but men cannot understand women. But perhaps “understand” is not the right word. Men and women just can’t grok each other. Remove a person’s optic nerve or visual cortex and no matter how hard they try to see it simply won’t happen. Remove the prefrontal cortex of one’s brain (which governs behavior and holds back our impulsivity) and they will simply not be able to physically stop themselves from certain behavior. The circuit has literally been cut. We cannot think with brain matter we don’t have, and because men and women are both built and lacking in certain areas of the brain means, no matter how hard we try, we cannot get into the mind of the opposite sex. It just isn’t possible.

 

I personally believe that men and women experience two totally different realities. Not only do we process sensory data and memories differently, but the act of processing information itself is different. I have a pet hypothesis that women literally see the world differently than men. Consider two things: men have a much higher rate of colorblindness than women due to the Y chromosome; while research points to women having higher instances of Tetrachromacy (being able to process more shades of color).

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the world looks more vivid through a woman’s eyes. Stereotypes abound with women fretting over the color of a salmon dress vs a coral dress. We men think this is stupid because we cannot see the difference as well as they can (it’s all pink to us). Perhaps we truly, physically, can’t. The kicker, though, is that we will never know. We cannot prove it. Giving me a woman’s eyes will not change the fact that my brain would still not be able to process it. You simply cannot compare the experiences of man and woman, side by side. This is not the fault of society or education or privilege, but of biology.

 

The word Gender as we’ve come to use it is a misnomer. The word Gender is a deflection from the word Sex, as Sex in the context of man and woman (and not the act) refers to our biological state, the plumbing, neurology, and chromosomes that differentiate us. It has been replaced in favor of Gender, which tries to take the onus of male and female differences off biology (where it actually lay) and puts it on social conditioning, as if biological differences only apply to our genitals. Obviously, they don’t. However the trend is so ubiquitous and so subtle that academics even make this mistake. The freaking article I cited even calls it “Brain Differences Between Genders“. Uh, hello, we’re talking about XX and XY, biology and neurology. It’s Sex, professor. Once again, another example of the conditioning our world puts us through to render men and women as more similar than different.

 

However the more digging we do in the Manosphere the more we end up realizing that this gap between male experience and female experience is wider than we expected and cannot be bridged, although many will try. As a writer, I’ve come across the same question from many an aspiring young man as to how to write female characters. Every time I give them this information there are at least five people – an assortment of PC white nights and feminists – willfully ignoring these facts as they try to force the two separate human conditions into one, egalitarian-friendly worldview. Feminism’s attempt to close this gap between the sex’s personal realities, or even disavow their existence, leads to horrible consequences for men and women (and really shitty novels).

 

In trying to make boys more feminine and sensitive, and in trying to make girls into alpha males, the result ends up deforming them into something neither man nor woman – an offense not to “traditional gender roles”, but to their own biological being.

 

In this egalitarian view, we’re expected to judge each sex’s behavior and attributes via the same metric. However, judging men through the eyes of women only produces the idea that we are angry brutes that think about sex every 6 seconds (thank you, 90’s). In trying to look at women through a man’s eyes we see only an emoting child who can’t do math or logic (thank you, 50’s). Both of these stereotypes result from trying to define male and female out of context, by the opposite standard. It is pure madness.

 

Part of being enlightened requires you to see something as it is, fully and completely, without mental bias blocking your perception, realizing too the limitations of your own judgment. This means we cannot deny the context in which our biological sex resides. We must see that these human conditions are different and should be judged based on what they are, men as men, and women as women. If not, we force upon ourselves heaps of frustration from our lack of understanding and lay upon others undue criticism for the very same reason.

 

The reality is that men and women simply cannot grok each other, for our mental computers run on separate operating systems. Yes we can use logic to make decent guesses about other’s behavior. We can certainly observe and take notes from afar. But we are trapped within our own minds, and thus within our own worlds. In the end, we might not be able to bridge the gap between the sexes, but we can come to appreciate our respective mesas for what they are.

 

And if those who disagree, asserting that we are more alike than different, my response would be:

 

How do you know?

Hate in the Era of Social Justice

Something to keep in mind about the human race is that despite the advances in technology, we are still very much cavemen at heart and technology likely won’t change that for a long time. Granted, there are things about the modern age which cross our psychological wires and produce deformities in us cavemen, like facebook contributing to attention whoring and the easy, modern world contributing to narcissism, but these defects are defects for a reason. Most of the time, we humans function with the same wiring as we have for the last several thousand years, wiring that governs love, sex, and, in this case, hate.

 

Hate is a strong emotion that can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on context. Hating something after studying it in depth and coming to the conclusion that it is evil is one thing. Hating something because of the exact opposite, because you don’t understand it, or because you were simply told to hate it, is another thing entirely.

 

We humans are wired for both kinds of hate, and we have hated as such for thousands upon thousands of years. The sudden advent of the modern world, John Lennon’s Imagine and the hippies et al to the contrary have done nothing to stop the emotion from erupting from our deepest, most primitive lobes. The only difference is where the hate is directed.

 

In every era, the establishment has deemed a scapegoat for hate in order to turn the masses in service to the establishment. Whether this hate is justified or not makes no difference.

 

In the past, the establishment, the church, cultivated hate toward pagans and witches. The establishment of the Catholic Church generated hate against the Lutherans, and the Lutherans designed their own hate against the Catholics. Blacks, Irish, Italians, Polaks, Chinese, Jews, etc. were all designated as hate targets at one time or another so the political establishment at the time could benefit by the outrage. The masses took the bait, as they always have, and always will, and proceeded to incite their own witch-hunts, lynching’s, mobs and genocides.

 

We’re fortunate that we live in a world that has grown up and left that hate behind. Or do we truly live in that world? Has the world changed? Have we changed? Unfortunately not.

 

We do not see less hate today because it is an emotion locked away within our most primitive hindbrain. Like sex and hunger, and the fight or flight mechanism, it simply won’t go away even after a few tokes and a kumbaya. We are, after all, still cavemen.

 

One could say that we are more intelligent and educated, thus inoculating us from hate. Problem is, plenty of intelligent people were witch hunters who sent plenty of other people to the stake. If anything, more intelligent people are more adept at justifying their prejudices than people who understand that they know so little.

 

The psychology of the human animal doesn’t change much in a thousand years, only the establishment does. The only reason why we don’t hate Polaks like before isn’t because we’ve become more tolerant of them, but because the establishment has changed and Polaks, Chinese, Italians, etc. are no longer a threat to the Powers That Be. Instead, that level of hate has been redirected once again by the current establishment for its own purpose.

 

That current establishment can be described many ways – liberalism, progressivism, egalitarianism – but no matter what name you use, it is still some form of Cultural Marxism – the belief of human equality, of class oppression, and of racial/gender privilege. In contrast to its predecessors, this establishment wants to put on the guise of tolerance and acceptance to “diversity”, but like all establishments that came before it cannot exist without the masses hating a designated group. However in this era, they cannot hate any particular national, religious or racial group like the belief systems of before.

 

In order to sidestep this hypocrisy, the establishment has elected a new hate target that simultaneously allows the masses to hate in its service while also seeming righteous and tolerant. These targets are now racists, sexists, and the privileged. In other words, white males are the new pagans while the new masses of torch-bearers are Social Justice Warriors.

 

If you read the blogs of tumblr, or wander the social justice twitter feed, or even just talk to one of these people, you will likely notice a psychology of intense hatred. Replace what they say about whites with the word black, or replace man with the word woman, and you’ll see how strong their hate is. And that is being charitable. The way they mobilize a mob to burn down people’s careers and lynch their reputations shows how closely they follow the ancient script. If born in a different era, the Social Justice Warriors would have wielded the torch that set witches on fire, or the bombs that destroyed churches. It’s not as if Social Justice Warriors truly like black people (for example), for they can be just as racist as anyone else, instead they just hate racists and privileged so much more. They don’t like women, they hate men. They don’t like Islam, they hate Christianity. They don’t want to work hard to build something of their own, they just want to tear something down. Their hate is so pure and strong, like their forerunners, and is justified all the same by the establishment’s mouthpieces, whether they be priests or professors.

 

But just as there are witch hunters in every era who follow the commands of the establishment, there are skeptics in every era who are not without reason. These men and women were the ones to reject and question the ideology of their day. They were enlightened enough to balance their feelings with reason, and likely walked away from the mob, or took a stance against to. Today, ironically, these people are so called bigots, and are labeled as misogynists and racists for the crime of seeing reality. They are red pillers who stand against, not with, the Social Justice Warriors and their mob, though the Social Justice Warriors themselves would die before they admit this.

 

It’s sad to see how history repeats itself. The lessons of tolerance were never learned, but instead repackaged and rebranded into another form of bigotry. The Social Justice Warriors don’t realize that they are the useful idiots of another era, the people who absorbed the ideology of their times and are all too happy with dispensing it.

 

Remember. People don’t change. Institutions do.

 

My advice to current and converting red-pillers is to not be like the useful idiots of this or any other time. Don’t let hate guide your life because it’s a fleeting emotion liable to make you a pawn, but don’t try the futile attempt to eradicate hate because it will never happen. Instead, balance your emotions with your reason. Do not focus on tearing something down; instead focus on building something up.

The Meaningless Distraction of Social Justice

[Reminder: if you like my stuff then follow me on twitter, leave a comment, or like a post on stumble. I’d appreciate it.]

 

Wages are stagnating, our dollar is inflating, the economic prospect of the west isn’t looking good. Most of us are growing up in a time where opportunities to have even a modest living are shrinking away while the cost of living gets higher by the year.

 

And yet I’m told we need to have discussions about things, as if these things are going to shorten our work weeks and get us better pay. Apparently, we need to talk about transgender issues and gay characters in science fiction. We need to do away with the “gender binary,” said some hack writer from the Guardian. I’m told that misogyny and harassment and trolling exists on the internet, yes, the internet of all places, and it needs to be addressed because it’s hurting women’s feelings and taking away their opportunities to be engineers. We need to have this discussion about cisprivilege and thatprivilege, because our world would be better if we just accepted people, all people, including weirdos and their fetishes.

 

However, I doubt this world would pay me more so I can support a future family, or protect that family from an economic collapse or a frivorce (same thing really).

 

I think it’s quite strange how all these trenches are being dug on battlefields that have no significance to our lives outside the internet where we have to live and work in continually declining economic conditions. It seems pointless whether or not the “guy” next to you identifies as a femme-showing transsexual when you and zir are homeless and eating out of the trash.

 

I’d be willing to bet that gay/trans/race/women’s issues are only being pushed as hard as they are because they represent a safe release value for the legions of overeducated and underemployed college grads who make their homes on the internet. The progressives in media highlight an elusive boogeyman which doesn’t threaten the economic powers that be, the liberal economic powers that be, but is nonetheless an issue which allows all the useful idiots to get their rage on. These battle lines are purposefully drawn in a virtual playpen so that absolutely nothing changes in the real world even if the Social Justice Warriors win. In the era of mass media, these things exist precisely because they’re a meaningless distraction. If they were anything else, there would be radio silence.

 

Meanwhile, the media profits by presenting the college-educated proles with clickbait and the politicians benefit by having legions of news-fed useful idiots. The elites know they’ve screwed the pooch economically thanks to globalism, crony capitalism, debt, you name it, but they don’t want to take the blame. So they engineer other issues on the deck of a sinking Titanic. No, it’s not globalism that’s making our lives worse; it’s institutional sexism. No, it’s not an issue that we can actually solve; it’s this illusive and invisible mythos of privilege that can only be fought with a hashtag campaign on twitter.

 

And here I sit as a young man and blue collar worker with a useless and unused Bachelor’s Degree, trying to figure out my own opportunities in life, but finding few. I wonder, who the hell is actually advocating for labor these days? It’s not the feminists, Social Justice Warriors, or the tri-gender otherkin on tumblr. All the true blue Marxists who would be tearing down the banking system were bounced out of the protest for having inadequately pale skin pigmentation and a dangler between their legs.

 

Hmmm. I wonder who orchestrated that…

The Problem With Politically Correct Fiction

Fiction takes place in the imagination, but that doesn’t mean that literally anything goes simply because it’s imaginary. To every story, there is a suspension of disbelief – a cloud of willing delusion that allows the reader to get into the story by tossing rationality out the window.

 

Of course there is magic in Lord of the Rings. In that universe, magic exists, and if a critic were to stand up at a sci-fi convention and proclaim, “I just can’t get into LoTR because this magic stuff just doesn’t exist in real life,” then they’d be laughed out on their ass. Fiction isn’t supposed to mimic real life, otherwise it wouldn’t be fiction.

 

We have no problem with Thor wielding a flying hammer because we’ve accepted it as part of the story. Gods in that universe exist, the Nordic Gods specifically, Thor being one of them, and godlike weapons just… do that kind of stuff. But fiction must have some internal consistency. If [Token Love Interest] started flying around too with absolutely no explanation given, then the confusion would kick us out of the story. There must be some laws regarding fantastic elements of the story.

 

However, there are expectations and assumptions that we take in to every story from our real-life experiences.

 

We assume in the Avengers universe that most cars run on gasoline. We also assume that there is air on Earth and that the physics, when not contorted by superheroes, functions in similar ways to our own world. These aspects of the world are never explicitly stated, and they don’t need to be, because if they were then we’d be in for a twelve hour movie. Instead, we assume that everyday objects in fiction act as everyday objects in real life. If they suddenly don’t, then we run into problems.

 

If we were to watch the Avengers and see [Love Interest] fill the escape car with vegetable oil instead of gas, with no explanation given, we’d say to ourselves, “Wait, so do all cars run on vegetable oil in this world? What’s the point of that? Everything else works the same. We saw the jet planes use gas. I don’t get it.”

 

That, “I don’t get it moment,” is the moment where the story falls apart. The suspension of disbelief is broken, even though we just saw Thor fly across the ocean in the previous scene. You assumed cars ran on gas because everything else looked the same.

 

To put it all in simpler terms: while there are assumptions we must leave behind to enjoy fiction (Thor’s hammer makes him fly), there are also expectations that we can’t help but take with us (cars run on gasoline). The proper balance between the two creates a story that we can get lost in, but one that doesn’t need to spell out that universe’s laws of physics.

 

And these expectations are what makes the craft of fiction so much harder (though not impossible) for your average Social Justice Warrior or Politically Correct Writer. If you’ve spent at least some of your life outdoors and in the company of other people then you’d see for yourself how different groups of people, especially the sexes, have different attributes, both physically and psychologically. Our experience reinforce stereotypes, which might be wrong, but in many cases are right. There are things we don’t see, like rainbow coalitions with every race and sex/sexual orientation, Asian football players, or women the size of the Hulk. And it is precisely these views, gained from our own experience, which clash against the egalitarian fiction that the Social Justice Warrior creates.Their view of real life people revolves around human equality. They believe that the abilities and psychologies between all races and genders is pretty much the same, and that the difference between race and sex ultimately comes down to superficial aesthetics and some internal plumbing.

 

That may be great for inclusiveness, but it makes the storytelling process harder, not easier..

 

For example, has it ever seemed odd to you when a crime drama or thriller busts out a class-A hacker, that hacker happens to be a girl? It’s odd because you’ve never seen a class A girl hacker. Heck, you’d be hard pressed to find a class A girl programmer in real life, given how computer science is mostly a man’s game. You’ve never seen such a thing in your life and yet politically-correct fiction presents this over and over as if it’s reality. At some point, you notice the disconnect between your expectations and the fictional world, and there goes your suspension of disbelief.

 

What’s interesting is that this fictional world can also have cyborgs and aliens and dragons, and yet this largely mundane aspect can kick us out of the story because, like I said above, there are assumptions we must leave behind and there are expectations we can’t help but take with us. Aliens and cyborgs are okay, but a woman acting contrarily to every other woman we’ve ever met in our everyday lives, without sufficient reason, is not. If there is no reason, then we see such things as explicit endorsements from their creators of what the world (both fictional and real) should be like, rather than what is.

 

The irony is that fiction that more accurately aligns with real world expectations and assumptions, even if they are supposedly racist and misogynistic in certain aspects, will cause less friction with our willful suspensions of disbelief. They might not be better stories, per se, but they will be easier to get lost in.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 4: The Social Justice Singularity of Insanity

Another toxic component of the Social Justice Warrior psychology is not just attacking perceived oppression and injustice through witch hunts, or about finding a purpose through contrived oppression, but about gaining status among other Social Justice Warriors for extra validation.

 

If everyone is a special snowflake then no one is special. If you’re a Social Justice Warrior trying to find validation for your meaningless life, and all the other Social Justice Warriors are trying to do the same, then the real threat to your metal state isn’t the racist, neo-nazi skinhead, but your fellow warriors beating you at your own game. In order to succeed as a Social Justice Warrior, you need to find a way to distance yourself from them. No, actually, you should find a way to out-social justice them. That means one-upping the social justice warriors around you. Not only are you Holy, but you are Holier than all the others.

 

For example: let’s say you’re not racist and treat people as individuals. That’s fine, but everyone else in your clique does that too. So, to get over on them, you also must like the oppressed, and not just like the oppressed, but prefer the company of the oppressed, and not just prefer the company of the oppressed, but hate everyone that isn’t the oppressed, and not just hate everyone that isn’t the oppressed, but you must identify as a member of the oppressed, and not just identify as a member of the oppressed, but believe that you are a member of the oppressed born into the wrong body. Yes, that’s a thing. The tumblrists call it Transethnic.

 

This presents a problem: because every Social Justice Warrior tries to out-justice the other Social Justice Warriors, their beliefs can only become more extreme. There is no other choice; the social justice warriors can’t beat the others in a status competition if they go against the holy doctrine progressive narrative.

 

Every school of leftist thought does this against itself. Feminists of old, for example, might be confused by the recent development of body acceptance and anti-fat shaming. If the old guard made up of aging hippies, yuppies and healthfood nuts believes that obesity is harmful, then, according to fourth wave feminism, they are bigots, sexists, and patriarchal allies, or worse: conservatives (never mind that the old guard was burning bras before the millennials were born). White, liberal, anti-racists do this too. They not only seek social justice justice for other oppressed people, but they flog themselves over the privileges they have. The more they hate their race, the holier they appear. And if you were wondering, trying to stick out from the social justice crowd also explains why white, middle class, tumblrists constantly invent new sexualities and identities that are literally insane by our current-day standards. But you just wait a few decades…

 

This zealous push for increasing purity and status gives rise to more radical ideologies, which generates even more radical ideologies, which spirals downward into greater radicalism. Given enough time, and assuming it doesn’t stop, the ideology of the liberals/leftists/social justice warriors (whatever you prefer to call them) will accelerate to increasing irrationality until the bayonets turn toward everyone, then, when everyone is either in line or dead, they will turn to each other for not being holy enough. It is the memetic equivalent of a malignant tumor.

 

I’m not sure who you are. You might be a moderate, tolerant liberal in this day and age. However, you would’ve been considered a radical leftist 50 years ago, and you will be considered a radical conservative 50 years from now. If you haven’t been labeled on oppressor yet by today’s Social Justice Warriors then, trust me, you will be. Time just hasn’t caught up with you yet. The steamroller of progress is coming for you, and it will get to you.

 

That is, unless we can stop the psychology behind it.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 3: The Cowardice of Bullies

In my previous posts on the subject, I explained that social justice warriors are weaklings with no sense of purpose except for the fictional crusades they manufacture, and how they inject those crusades into every discourse and media, whether it belongs there or not.

 

Both these things together make social justice warriors into the worst kind of people: pussies looking for a fight. They want to spread their ideology for validation’s sake against the oppressors of the land, but, because they’ve been sheltered all their lives, they wear psychic armor of glass, crumpling at the nearest hint of actual oppression.

 

The perfect example of this was tumblr’s hilariously bad attempt at attacking 4chan on July 4th. They fought the only way Social Justice Warriors can truly fight; they mobbed the boards and shamed people. 4chan, being 4chan, fought back with a much more potent weapon: their worst nightmares triggers. In the end, the tumblrists retreated to have their existential meltdowns without adversely harming 4chan whatsoever. At least the trolls got to bring their guns to tumblr’s knife-fight.

 

You know who acts like this in real life? The bullies with no backbone, who feign toughness and swagger until they receive the lightest tap on the nose. The Social Justice Warriors, like the schoolyard bully, are simply a bunch of narcissistic cowards (but with social messiah complexes), who’ve never been in a real fight. They will light up twitter against the latest perceived sexism and racism in the industry (from the safety of their computer screens), get people fired and blacklisted, get games shut down and edited to suit their image, but the moment their tactics are used on them, attacking their reputations and their livelihoods, then suddenly mobbing your opponents is a no good very bad thing, and we need to sit down and have a discussion, we need to stop the harassment.

 

Sorry, but I don’t buy it at all. If the social justice warriors truly knew the meaning of justice and fairness then they would have stopped themselves from posting hit piece after hit piece against gamers for the last few years. They wouldn’t have wrote off criticism as bigotry or used minorities as human shields. If they understood true justice then they would have gracefully backed down from the conflict, maybe even admitting that they overstepped some bounds.

 

But they haven’t, and they won’t. They keep falling back and doubling-down because they’re cowards with egos on the line.

 

Personally, I feel no pity for them. You poke a hornet’s nest, you’ll get stung, and no one but the least self-aware should be surprised at that. This reaction has been a long time coming, and it needs to happen. A lesson must be learned.

 

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 2: Ruining Dinner Parties… And Everything Else.

A friend of mine is an assistant professor at a very liberal school in a very liberal town in a fairly liberal state. He teaches Marxism for fuck’s sake, and yet he is still my friend precisely because we have unspoken lines regarding certain discussions that we do not cross. Any political or religious debate between us would only harm our friendship, and so we mutually avoid those topics for the good of our relationship. Most sane people understand this and would prefer to never know their associates’ political or religious orientations, whether they be friends, family, or coworkers.

 

What you don’t want is to make politics, or religion for that matter, a primary focus for an organization that has no political or religious purpose. For example, people go to work not to have debates, but to actually work. Any injection of politics in that scenario would only divide the workers/management against each other, make them less productive, and harm the organization itself. Whether this is your business, your family, your fiction or even your video games, we’d all prefer to leave unnecessary, galvanizing topics out of the mix. Broaching those topics requires a specified time and place, and clear ground rules.

 

And this is precisely why Social Justice Warriors suck so much, and should be met with almost universal scorn, even from people of their own political orientation. Unlike everyone else who would rather keep these stances private, or left in the voting booth, the Social Justice Warriors want to inject their cocktail of politics into every medium and organization that doesn’t adequately stop them at the door. They are driven by self-righteousness moralizing, and so they see every parcel of media as a new opportunity to spread their ideology.

 

Folks like Larry Correa lament the intrusion of SJW’s into science fiction. In an ideal world, science fiction is meant to entertain, first and foremost, for if you have no story as part of your storytelling, then you are merely writing an awkwardly-constructed essay. Politics and religion are only means to an end – to give the story character. To make politics or religion the focal point in fiction and force the story into the backseat is to undermine the ends for the means. However, the SJW sees this as an opportunity to spread their gospel, and so they write politically-correct fables set in space yet can’t conceive why their sales plummet. Must be the internet or video games or something taking peoples’ attention.

 

Speaking of video games, have you heard of Zoe Quinn? Right. Enough said. Moving on…

 

It won’t just end with Video Games. They are merely the latest casualty. Comics, movies, television are eroding bastions for social justice. Where once these things were treated apolitically so that more people could enjoy them, unified in a common attraction to those genres, titles, or forms of entertainment, they are now being divided by the politics of the Social Justice Warriors. Games must showcase not only a rainbow coalition, but must acquiesce to the Perpetually Offended. Heroes must be gender-bent, racial-bent, with ambiguous sexualities. It is no longer about the entertainment itself. All media must teach a code of Social Justice. And once the power of political correctness has made the region toxic, the Social Justice Warriors will move to the next opportunity to “educate” the masses.

 

They are the leftist equivalent of the church lady who brings up religion at every casual gathering, or the evangelical who is obsessed with proselytizing at every opportunity. Imagine if we were in a dimension where every comic hero had to reference Judeo-Christian values, and every video game had a Christian message. What if every science fiction story was a quasi-biblical tale where plot was sacrificed for message? What would we think of that world where such media not only merely existed but that most media was that way, and the crowd pushing those values wanted more without end, attacking anyone who stood in their way as a heretic?

 

We would clearly see the intrusion for what it was – a divisive measure used to propagate certain views. We would distance ourselves from it. We would react against the proselytizers.

 

That is why, in this world, we need to react against the Social Justice Warriors. In their quest for tolerance, they produce hatred. In their quest for inclusion, they produce separation.

 

This is not a right/left issue, but an issue of personality flaws. Honestly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to solve problems of injustice, by whatever metric one tends to view them. What’s toxic is the psychopathology, the egotistical desire behind them which will ruin all institutions that harbor these people, whether they are the hipster indie game dev conning their way to produce the banal Social Justice Quest, or the bible-thumping preacher found smoking meth in the men’s bathroom. They are merely different manifestations of the same psychosis.

 

This obsession with trying to change the world in your image must be reversed. Until that happens, there’s no point in getting mad or being surprised that the infection has spread.

 

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 1: Characters Without a Story

Take a man born to a mother and father who struggled through the depression. Give him a rifle and send him to war to see the faces of his comrades go pale as they succumb to their mortal wounds on some no-name pacific island. Take a girl raised in the dust bowl and give her a job in the munitions plant, so that at the end of the day she can buy some rations for her family. When the troops come home, the man and woman find each other in a postwar world of sudden abundance. They start a family, and the living is easy. They want to give their children a better life than what they faced.

 

Those children grow up without struggle and conflict. The streets are safe and their family is relatively well-off, thanks to America’s economic boom. However, their easy lives don’t give them true challenge, and thus no true meaning. They live without knowing who or what they are, until they are given a university education and are told of the oppression in the world. Up till that point, their lives are an uninteresting story with no upward arch, but with this narrative their lives could finally have validation. They define themselves by fighting oppression in the racial conflict, in the battle against the patriarchy, in the fight against poverty, in defense of the planet. They, the baby boomers, are the first activists, the first Social Justice Warriors. They assumed the roles of power in the universities, media, and government, but their greatest power would come from having their own children.

 

The children of the baby boomers live in a world with no major wars. The greatest threat to the west ends with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They too are born into a playpen without struggle and thus without definition in their stories. After incorporating the teachings of the elder activists, they then perpetuate the cycle further and push the policies of political correctness into new territory. They propagandize the media and sanitize the discourse, setting the stage for their descendants.

 

Now, their children live in a world without physical struggle. They have no great depression or a great war. Every convenience and entertainment is bestowed upon them without cost. They have ingested the politics stuffed into them by the two previous generations, and so their zeal outshines their parents, but so does the void in their heart. They live without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who lived without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who, also, lived without struggle in America’s middle class.

 

Their lives have no story. No one will talk about them after their deaths. They are average nobodies in a faceless crowd, and part of them knows this. They search for some meaning or some way to differentiate themselves from others. But in this world of abundance, the only supposed conflict is the narrative of oppression. In order to avoid looking at the emptiness in their lives, they’ve that cast themselves as the protagonist of their own movie, fighting the good fight against the evils of the world. That is why they fight so hard, with so much zeal and hatred and loathing against their make-believe villains. It is all an attempt to make themselves a hero and give themselves a story. It is the only thing keeping them from complete existential annihilation.

 

All Social Justice Warriors, from the hippies of the 1970’s to today’s Tumblr activists, are all searching for some reason to live. While their grandparents and great grandparents found meaning from overcoming the odds and antagonists against them, these children only have their role in the narrative.

 

The Social Justice Warriors believe the problem is the world, when, in reality, the problem is within them. The problem has always been within them. If only they realized that if they simply filled the void inside themselves then all would be made right. Their fears and hatred would dissipate. They would find happiness. And they would be truly defined, maybe even enlightened.

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Dildocracy Defined

(I didn’t invent the term Dildocracy, but it’s missing from the manosphere lexicon.)

 

Dildocracy: a social, political and/or economic system that seeks to replace any negative feelings, pain, or inconvenience with expedient pleasure without significant cost.

 

There are three heads to this beast: the social dildocracy of activism, the political dildocracy of vote-mining, and the economic dildocracy of consumerism.

 

1: Social Dildocracy – ex: Feminism

 

Every activist crusade from the social justice camp ultimately seeks one goal: the elimination of discomfort. They are all Utopian, which means they seek the a state of Dildocracy, of all pleasure, no oppression. While Feminism isn’t the only culprit, I’ll be using Feminism in this instance because it is the best example from our perspective in the manosphere. The ideology is our main antagonist, after all.

 

If you look at Feminism’s main advocacy-points without the lens of the Dildocracy then few things about the ideology are consistent. Why would Feminists advocate for female empowerment but attack the means to empower women? Check out this post from Larry Correa. It’s old news, but it is illuminative of such an inconsistency. In short, Miss Nevada gave some practical advice to stop rape: learn to kick some ass and carry a gun. Feminists rallied behind her to support her message, in some alternate dimension that, sadly, isn’t this one. In this world, they became outraged and offended, as always. But why? Surely carrying a weapon will reduce (though not eliminate) the dangers of rape, and not only rape but assault, robbery, and murder too. Their contradictory stances make no sense, without realizing the Dildocracy.

 

Rape makes people feel bad. Feminists feel bad in particular if this happens to women. So they’re against rape – not a controversial opinion. However, the Left (Feminism included) regards guns as no-good-very-bad-things because guns kill people, like children. Learning to shoot a gun means getting out of your house, learning a skill (with a deadly weapon no less) in preparation for facing future danger. That’s just compounded layers of badfeels. At the same time, carrying a weapon doesn’t eliminate all rapes, or murders, robberies, assaults, etc. so there is still danger out there thus why Feminists are still angry, because some danger remains. The only consistent position to hold as a Feminist, in a Dildocracy, is to be both against rape and against shooting someone to prevent rape. The only “rational” decision for the Dildocratic Feminist is to rail against both from the safety of one’s locked apartment, hoping that telling men not to rape (a unchallenging, masturbatorial activity at best) will be society’s saving grace.

 

The Dildocracy doesn’t tolerate “oppression”, because it is a barrier to constantly feeling good. At the same time, the Dildocracy doesn’t want people to confront their “oppression”, because that doesn’t feel good either. The tumblurists, the feminists, the anti-racists and all other activists sit at the center of this inconsistency, wanting their ideal society, but lacking the balls to exact change. Once again, this doesn’t just apply to Feminism. The underlying motivation for the march of progressivism is the elimination of pain and a utopia brimming with dopamine. For those of us who have been made into better men because of pain, this view is seen as a formula for disaster.

 

2: Political Dildocracy – ex: Democracy and Political Correctness.

 

When you strip the concepts down to their core, Democracy and Dildocracy describe the exact same process. In my opinion, they might as well be the exact same term.

 

Democracy is just another word for popularity contest, and popularity contests aren’t won by those swinging the flail of hard truth, facts, and logic, because reality itself cares not for feelings. The honest politician who dispenses truth will dispense offense, and offending the constituents is the quickest way to finding a new career. The politicians of the Dildocracy were the ones to spawn political correctness. No matter how true a fact is, if it offends then it must be removed from the discourse, by the torch and pitchfork if necessary. To win, politicians must gently pluck the feels of the masses, conjuring hope their own pet ideologies and rage against their opposition. It is a delicate melody that avoids offense at all costs, one that never says, “no, you can’t have [X]”.

 

If one defines the “greater good” as giving the voters anything they want, then the Dildocracy is the perfect system. However it’s hard for me to believe that the goodfeels of the masses will coalesce into a perfect and sustainable central plan for society. As we are seeing now, the Dildocracy leads to political ruin.

 

3: Economic Dildocracy – ex: Consumerism.

 

Tell me, what about our consumer economy is designed to go against the dynamic highlighted above? The whole purpose of the market is to fulfill demand, or, putting it another way, desires. No company would be profitable doing anything else, which isn’t necessarily a problem outside of a Dildocracy. If the economy is young and still growing then innovation is usually focused on greater productive efficiency. However, when you have an economy like ours which is focused on consumption for the sake of consumption then every product is made to feel good, to stroke the physical and emotional sensibilities of the populace while mitigating any inconvenience from their lives. Essentially, dildos.

 

Plugged in, drugged out, overfed and unchallenged are ultimate outcomes of the economy because they are the path of least resistance in the human psyche. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not blaming the market for working as it’s supposed to; it is merely an expression of human actors. However, I am saying that the unnatural process of reducing all human action to goodfeels is a natural part of the market, given enough time.

 

Conclusion

 

The Dildocracy is antithetical to everything the manosphere/reactosphere stands for. We are about improvement; the Dildocracy is about dumbing down. We are about truth and insight; the Dildocracy is about feelings over facts. We are about leaving the comfort zone; the Dildocracy is about making everything the comfort zone. We seek challenge; the Dildocracy eliminates it.

 

Struggle by definition isn’t comfortable, but the challenge gives us the opportunity for personal growth, whether in victory or defeat. Pain is an essential tool which tells your body and psyche that something is wrong. Criticism and offense can hurt sometimes, but they are necessary components of development. All of these things and more lead to a better person, and better people.

 

The Dildocracy’s fundamental premise is to remove these things for temporary pleasures. It renders all things, both virtue and vice, into a Brave New World of never-ending, artificial dopamine injections – meaningless experiences without context or challenge – and it must be opposed. We must fight against Utopia.

The Left, Narcissism, and a Trojan Horse Named “Discussion”

For most people, discussion is an acceptable way to exchange ideas and evolve their personal worldview. Discussion is great when it comes to friends sitting down to booze and politics, or if it’s between politically polar opposites coming together in good faith. Even if there is a propensity to hold onto our pet ideologies, entering the ring of discussion (not necessarily debate) means you respect your opponent enough to listen and they respect you enough to do the same, to a degree, in theory. Even some liberals want to discuss things with impartiality. Conversely, some conservatives do not.

 

In my opinion, it has little to do with particular leaning, but psychological personality.

 

To someone with narcissism, there is no such thing as a political discussion in good faith. A narcissist chooses political affiliation as a matter of identifying with the right demographic and less about planning the structure of society. So, when they are thrown rebuttals or contrary opinions, it causes narcissistic injury followed by narcissistic rage. Liberals tend to feel this rage by an injury to their personal image as societal savior, while conservatives tend to feel this rage at the injury to a secondary source, their narcissistic supply, i.e. their national identity.

 

And while I just tried to appeal to the middle ground by bringing both liberals and conservatives into the battle, there is just no beating around the bush that today’s politically correct left (not necessarily the Marxist revolutionaries of the past) embody the concept of identity politics and narcissism more so than your average conservative. When these leftists plead for a nation-wide “discussion” after a crisis, they aren’t doing it in good faith for three main reasons:

 

1: Their views are driven by personal ego rather than any intellectual foundation. Advocating for social justice is less about actual fairness and more about how to appear more not racist then other leftists (yes, the awkward wording is intentional). The whole charade is a status display – political peacocking. Thus, they take any disagreement personally as an attack on their ego. Ask yourself this: would a leftist really go into an honest discussion knowing that they might have to undergo an existential crisis in the process? Newp.

 

2: Because of their university education, they have a hyper-inflated confidence that their worldview is the correct one. Every teacher told them so, and all their friends from the university agree. I mean, they wouldn’t teach it if it wasn’t rigorously studied, right? They believe that if your arguments aren’t supported by academia, then your views are part of the ignorant, unwashed masses. So what would the leftist with a degree in useless have to learn from you? Nothing. Their “discussion” can only be one-sided, with them thinking they hold the torch of knowledge.

 

3: They have access to your ejection seat. Say something they don’t like and they’ll terminate the conversation with ad hominems of racism/sexism/privilege. The “discussion” is entirely under their control; it is not two parties coming together in ideological synthesis and mutual respect, but someone coming to convert the unbelievers.

 

Taken together, these leftists don’t come into a discussion with the assumption that their worldviews will be changed. Every Elliot Rodger equivalent that goes on a shooting spree sparks another “discussion” about gun control, or misogyny, or masculinity, but it’s telling that leftists aren’t content with the discussion not going their way.

 

Looking at it from a psychological standpoint, the fortress of solitude that defends their ego is marvelously effective. The way their neurological programming forwards political and social causes, entwining them with a broken self’s twisted desires, is almost a work of art. A super villain could not have orchestrated a better mind-control scheme.

 

And yet, I don’t think it’s a problem with the left per se. In some alternate dimension, I’m sure the religious right’s narcissism could be just as destructive. The root of the social messiah complex is the inability for these people to find solace with their inner selves. They cannot be content with the world because they aren’t content with their person, and so the distorted ideologies conform to their broken psychologies. Take away the narcissism and the left reverts to old liberalism and the right to traditionalism, and, without psychopathology, the political spectrum would be far easier to work with.

 

For that to happen, however, people of all ages would need to grow up.