Everyone gets all apocalyptic just because there's going to be a population crunch because of the specific situation around Boomers, the post war global economy, and the invention of female birth control, which is plain to see everywhere you look, and impacts every part of our lives, but people don't understand statistics and second order effects and just operate on vibes, and then they imagine REASONS for the apocalyptic vibes they are catching, and try to explain that they feel sad because (world war 3 is gonna kill us all, putin and the Russians are gonna kill us all, China is gonna kill us all, Trump is gonna kill us all, covid is gonna kill us all, Bill gates is gonna kill us all, AI is gonna kill us all, AI Regulation is gonna kill us all, climate change is gonna kill us all, George soros and Peter thiel and the antichrist is gonna kill us all, etc etc) Emotions always "come first", and you feel apocalyptic BEFORE you read the news every morning, to find out WHY you are feeling like that. Modern information-scape is not journalism or even information, but a very nuanced and complicated form of "therapy"

There is a vast difference between talking about sex, and sexual fantasies - sexual fantasies barely have anything to do with sex, but everything to do with trauma. sexual fantasies are simplifications of the world, deliberate simplifications of things that are complicated, and in their complication, frustrating to the mind. Usually more than frustrating, frightening.

Fetishization is formalisation of the distance at which approaching the object of desire is safe. if, for example [brown people] appear to hold the object of desire, appear to have access to or contain some kind of Value, but they are foreign and unknown territory to you, and there is an anxiety in that, then the solution becomes, approaching [brown people] inside sexual fantasy.

Generally, whatever gets you off, whatever you hyper-focus on in sexual fantasies, is in some way the thing you are most scared about. This is not because it helps you get off - rather the other way around. It as a psychological attempt at bio-hacking, at hacking your own biology; tricking yourself by jerking off so you wont feel so scared.

It’s not: "arachnophobic huh you must secretly want to fuck spiders"

its:

You are SO AFRAID of spiders that in a panic, you start jerking off whenever you see one, to try to drown out your fears and thoughts in the pleasure-stimuli, and over time doing this has made you associate spiders with jerking off, and created a self destructive feedback loop as a coping mechanism for your initial fear response to spiders. You don’t want to “fuck” spiders, you specifically want to jerk off while being afraid of spiders.

This is also the answer to “Monkey in nature does not jerk off, only monkey in captivity, what this mean”. It’s also why you feel ashamed after finishing. It’s also why people get “addicted” to internet porn. It’s a lot of things.

Great internet poster and zoomer “Brian”, recently spoke of, “Polygamy, promiscuity, strange sexual habits in general, are acts of cowardice and attempts to hide oneself from love“, this is true. Strange sexual habits in general are a way to affirm distance to what is desired, and in terms of sexuality, this is, closeness to the other, connectedness, love. Once upon a time there was a little boy that got raped by his paedophile uncle. His name was C, for Child Abuse.

After being abused sometime before his teenage years, he became a very moody and aggressive teenager. He changed schools and moved away from home early, and he kept the fact of his victimization secret from everyone he met, except people who proved themselves in some way as trustworthy. After years, when he was legally an adult, he would tell certain people, who he considered his closest friends, as a way of expressing his trust in them.

C claimed that he did not have any conscious memory of the incident, but only the aftermath. He claimed he did not remember it happening at all, but only being told about it, and living in the aftermath of it all. He would even crack jokes about it.

C didn’t know the specifics - of “how bad was it”, he didn’t know if he had been anally raped, orally, if he had been indecently touched, how much, how little. All he knew was that he had been “abused”, somehow. And of course, his parents didn’t like to talk about it, so he had never asked for clarification. In fact he had never asked for clarification about anything and didn’t know anything about what had happened to his uncle in the aftermath of being found out. C didn’t know how he had been found out. Had he told his parents? Had his rapist been caught red handed? C simply didn’t know, and he didn’t care to find out. “best not to think about it”, he figured. “I don’t want to be like one of those victims who make it their entire life story you know”. Then a huge ominous thunderstroke split the air exactly when he said that.

The Uncle was not in prison. Had he been at some point? Had it gone to the police? C didn’t know. If it had - then how come he was now out and about in the world, and not in prison? If it hadn’t - then how could his parents love him? If it was all true, how could his uncle be alive and seemingly unpunished? And seeing as he couldn’t remember any of it happening, was he just taking his parents word for it? Did it really happen? And if it did, why was the only feelings and memories he had of his uncle good and pleasant? That would mean he was a sick disgusting gay freak who enjoyed his own victimization, right? Right?

C had a lot on his mind, and couldn’t make heads and tails of it. So eventually he simply gave up trying to, and locked it all deep deep down never to be talked about or thought about seriously ever again.

When C reached sexual maturity, a social pattern in his behaviour started to emerge. By the time he was a legal adult, it had more or less fully solidified as his core personality.

C would take it upon himself to act as a tutor to people he found “worthy”, being intelligent, cunning, or funny. He would act as a kind of social teacher to other misaligned youths, and help them find a way to enter into a community. He was drawn to people with some kind of Great Pain in them, and would offer solidarity and friendship to them. He would be a big, safe “teddy bear” man, who was big and strong, but unthreatening, and soft, and sexless. C never had any long term romantic relationships, a perpetual bachelor. Like a big, safe, trustworthy, uncle, who just couldn’t find a nice girl to settle down with, and instead settled into being this pseudo-familial figure to all the little lost souls of the world, all the little boys and girls both.

Then, whenever one of the girls was heartbroken and weak and easy prey and had let her guard down around him after years of grooming, he would suddenly “fall in love with her” - this time it’s different, we’re actually in love! And then he would seduce and abuse them in their time of vulnerability - be it after a breakup, a death in the family, anything that made them emotionally vulnerable - and he would get tired of them in a month or two, then cut all ties and burn all bridges with them and anyone related to them, and sociopathically pretend they were never that close in the first place, and good riddance anyways.

C returned to the “scene of the crime” in his mind, that he remembered better than he would admit, and spent his life roleplaying as the man who had victimized him.

C did this on a subconscious level, because it was a way for him, through the safety of fantasy, of being-within-fantasy, being able to reinterpret and interact with his own emotional residue of being abused. Within this fantasy re-enactment he was “safe” to engage with his emotions of shame and humiliation and guilt - and love for his rapist.

C was a amoral monster that caused incredible amounts of suffering in the world around him, and he never apologised for it, because, of course, in the end, he was the victim.

Roleplaying as the perpetrator, as the aggressor and the cause of his trauma, allowed C to explore the memory from a position of “control”, and explore his emotions from a position of relative safety. Every re-enactment of his own rape was a kind of virtual reality space to explore, to go back in time and try to discover the answer to the ultimate question:

How could he do this to me?

The anti-hero and it’s consequences has ruined countless generations of men, and it continues to ruin them even as we speak. The literary anti-hero is a reflection of a psychological tendency that runs in all modern men. It’s a little voice that tells you that you are beyond redemption.

There’s a lot of talk about reviving the mode of being that is heroism. Neo-masculinity, neo-paganism, neo-barbarism. Neo-spartanism. Neo-antiquity. The basic premise that man today is weak and needs “rewilding”. Same basic idea. But if we are to become Greeks, one should take seriously the question of, “and then one day, for no reason at all, the Greeks converted to Christianity”.

In this falsification of history that we are all collectively undertaking, in creating a new interpretation of history, you have to account for the mythological significance that the undiluted, uncorrupted, non-decadent superior Greek was supplanted. I’m just saying if your explanation is “they got tricked”, then your premise of supremacy is in contradiction with itself. Odysseus is rolling in his grave. He would have loved someone who was that good at tricking people.

In our era, the anti-hero is more prevalent than the hero himself. We are already long beyond the anti-hero in literature and fiction. The idea of the masked, caped “super-hero” is already at it’s invention, created as a literary deconstruction. Spider-man was created to be an anti-hero: a permanent loser who couldn’t revel in the spoils of heroism. All “super heroes” are, as a literary category, anti-heroes.

The most terrible example I can think of is the Scandinavian brooding divorcee police detective, of so many airport novels. This archetype has invaded all of contemporary fiction. It’s essentially the cornerstone of the archetype of the man “stepping back” and letting women have a go at it, which is having an upsurge lately. Brooding bald single dad in video games. It’s the closest the mainstream has come to making a character “relatable” through his “personal flaws”.

There’s something very revolting about these things, which becomes especially apparent as time goes on, and you see worse and worse men trying to write them. It becomes more and more apparent that this is self-indulgent. The brooding bald single dad feels sorry for himself. That’s not particularly masculine and heroic. The anti-hero is ultimately childish. It’s wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Rather than standing up to your wife in IRL life, you’d rather write God of War 3 where your stupid bitch wife is dead and you can just be free to indulge in revenge or rage or whatever. It’s a coping fantasy of avoidance of the central problem, that becomes more and more pathetic as it’s iterated by worse and worse, more and more cowardly, male writers.

Many mainstream popular media fields have gone through the same process. The first iteration of creative work was generated by “real men” - comic books as we know them were invented by a group of American war veterans. Then after a while, they started to be made by people who had never been to war, but had grown up reading comic books. Now they are being made by women and failsons and Disney suits. Video games went through a similar process: The original creative spark was a group of autistic hypernerds. Today video games are being made by people who grew up playing video games. Manga and anime went through a similar process.

Television, very notably, went through a similar process. Today all television is written by people who grew up watching Joss Whedon being “snarky” and jerking off to teenagers. In ten years it will be made by people who grew up watching Rick and Morty. The people making these things are like all of us, dealing with the impacts of modernism and our technological environment. Living in permanent hyper-propaganda in a socially disintegrating, more and more alien and lonely world, where we are all desperate for affection, which the tools we have become dependant on, frustrate and actively prevent. But unlike the people who invented comic book super heroes, they weren't forced by circumstance and history to become hardened killers. So the product shows this. They are still childish.

The anti-hero is the brooding teenage fantasy of being a “secret good guy, who does a little bad things, but for the sake of good”. Everyone thinks about this at age 12, because it’s a stepping stone in trying to come to terms with your own agency as a man in the world. Your relationship to women, you are disgusted and horrified the first time you hold one in your arms and realize that you have total power over her. Part of working that out is imagining that you are a grey jedi, who does a little bit of the dark side, but he’s actually on the good guy’s side. It’s like imagining stopping a school shooting or saving that girl you like in class. Everyone does it. But it’s not enough when you’re older than 20.

Redemption demands total commitment. You can’t have it both ways. The leap of faith is total. You can’t keep a foot on solid ground “just in case“ things go wrong and it doesn't pan out. Redemption is free. Redemption will cost you everything. There is no contradiction.

The reason modern mainstream media sucks is because it’s being written by people with a total lack of commitment to anything. The anti-hero is the lack of commitment crystallized to an archetype. The Hero is total commitment. Gigachad is a hero.

The way this manifests in you is your lack of commitment. “I want a good trad life for YOU, but me, oh no I couldn’t possibly have one.” “I want for YOU to have a loving wife and many children, but me? Oh no I’m beyond redemption, I don’t deserve that, so I can just have a little degeneracy and have sex with floozies and put notches on my belt.” “I want for YOU to be healthy and strong, but me, oh no, I don’t deserve that, so I can just indulge in being fat and eating trash.”

The anti-hero inside you is not this false humility: the anti-hero is pride. The only thing preventing the anti-hero from becoming a genuine hero is his own pride. Peter Parker holds on to his secret identity out of pride, not humility, and every single story ever written about Spider-Man is about how he creates his own problems. “With great strength comes great responsibility” - but he refuses to let go of his desire to have a private life and commit to becoming a full hero. All of super-heroes famously have these tragic personal flaws that supposedly “humanizes” them. Another way of saying “humanize” in this sense is “holding them back from achieving their potential”.

Rather than humility, of being a mere-human, the anti-hero is messianic: it is the claim that YOU are Christ. YOU are the transcendent point between humanity and divinity. YOU get to have a foot in each world. It is saying “*I* am going to carry the cross of humanity on my back”. Oh no, a good life, I couldn't possibly. You have one though. Me, I’m good. I’m busy over here with my cross. And my promiscuous sex life and my indulgences of appetite.

Messianic thinking then leads to apocalyptic thinking, because to justify divinity, you always need an apocalypse. And before you know it, you’ve filled your head with ideas of the end of the world which – I mean, it’s the END OF THE WORLD we’re trying to prevent here, so we’re going to need every hand we can get. Even a brooding, edgy antihero who uses a little bit of the dark side of the force. Right? Ends justify the means.

Counting and weighing your own sins in this way is an attempt to barter with God. God is not a merchant looking to scope a hot deal. Or if you don’t like the religious framework:

Self-denial for the modern intellectual
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

🧵 I have low self esteem. That is a causal thing, a biological thing. Self esteem is not a conclusion you make after rationally inspecting yourself. It’s probably the thyroid or something, I don’t know the exact details.

The Dizziness of the Good Samaritan
What does it mean to have the best intentions in hall of mirrors

threadpost 1/🧵 Kierkegaard describes the concept of human agency as "the dizziness of freedom", with the parable of, when you are standing at the top of a cliff looking down, the vertigo and nausea you experience is caused not by the fantasy "I might accidentally fall off and die",

reacting to a ten year old jpg by turning the chair around and "getting real" with the kids: ACTUALLY this is serious business and here's why 1/? 🧵

https://twitter.com/Articus_chad/status/1942083005243068707

of course it references something in the real world. thats how sharing works. someone shared that this happened to them on the internet, and people related to it, and thats why you have seen the picture

28 Years Later is a subversive Masterpiece about Modern Man’s need for confrontation with Death & has single-handedly revitalized Cinema as an artform, much like the Fisher King Grail Quest it depicts

Spoiler alert 🧵 Cinema is back: Donny Boyle’s 28 Years Later, in theaters now, is a subversive masterpiece, which is the only way for a movie to be a masterpiece. Movies are inherently perverted in terms of their form, the technology, and the ways in which it is consumed, voyeuristically,

The "A Minecraft Movie" movie is the most reactionary movie I've ever seen and the future zoomer world order is bright and wonderful

I would have called it "The humiliation of the coward Jack Black and the end of irony"

🧵 The “A Minecraft Movie” movie is a good movie. It is very different from what was advertised. The exact thing you think it’s going to be when you watch the trailer, is what it is, but it is also something more than that.

Literacy causes neuroticism. Literate society is neurotic. Pre-literate societies awe immediate and pragmatic. In the individual as well as on a group level, learning to read fundamentally changes how people think. This is a mechanical process. We are not talking about "reading makes you smarter because you can read Plato". The act of reading, the process of it, causes a mental disconnect from the immediate world of Pre-literate society.

When changing your life, it's better to say "what am I doing different today, right now", and not "well I commit to doing this tomorrow and this on Tuesday and this on Wednesday" and so on. Plans are also good as long as you remember that plans are not pre-emptive choices, they are planning to make a choice. You are not planning on doing x y and z next week, you are planning on choosing to. And when the day comes choosing will feel just as difficult or easy as this moment, planning to choose will not make it any easier. On the day you still have to say: "here's what I am doing different today, right now" It is better to pray and hope about the future

I watched "The Wedding Singer " featuring Adam Sandler the other day.
At the end of the movie, Adam Sandler is going to try to stop the wedding of the girl he likes because her fiance is a bad man who cheats on her.

https://twitter.com/TulikaBose_/status/1894121397108035912

The way he does this is not, as I was expecting, by using his wedding singer powers to prove he is the better man somehow, or even by "just telling her the boyfriend is cheating on her".

The historical question is, is communism a historical specific infection, that is spread top down by a clique that survived the last purge, a virus that survives and evolves into strains that mutate into strains immune to penicillin, deadlier and stronger, OR, is it an emergent dysfunction that appears organically under specific conditions, and spreads bottom up. Was woke invented by Obama or by Tumblr. This is the fundamental divide between serious thinkers. The first dedicate themselves to an obsessive search for the initial contact and inflection point, and writing a specific history about it. The latter knows what the fuck is up

Why is the assumption that "if" porn is bad, and women are right about it, that you have to do what women say? that doesnt follow at all. is it a good idea to do something bad, just to spite women? what if women are right about it, even if they are right for the wrong reasons? should we all defend pornography use because gender relations is a zero sum struggle, and every time women win men lose and wise versa? You lost the war you are fighting before this happened, because you see it as a power struggle between camps and not as a struggle towards the truth. being a voyeur is not "any semblance of normal male sexuality" and pornograpy is population control, and worrying about whether the girl camp is going to use this fact against you is betraying consern with low base things. why in the world does that matter. why do the woman have authority over you to belittle you over it? if it is so normal, then why does the cudgel work?

It's not war, it's politics. When you compromise with the opposition out of largesse what you get is is not reconsiliation, it's corruption and a uni party and an embedded beurocracy deep state

https://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/1888304942173036709

Being nice and merciful to the people who were caught with their pants down is not the same as being merciful to a people who lived through hell and the end of the world and the literal physical collapse of their society

There is a way to connect all the dots, the revolutionary impulse as sexual insecurity, sexual self control as the beginning of culture and civilization, modernity and the french revolution as cargo cult christianity skinsuit, the quote unquote decline of the west, history, first principles theology and philosophy, freud as an infection into modern mans psyche, basic psychology, shame and orientation in the world, family structures, father-child relationships, the christian insight that forgiveness is breaking cyclical history on a micro parental scale and on a macro civilization scale, as a psychological principle, but in modern pietist tradition (cargo cult) putting the cart before the horse and "forgiving" in theory while permitting in practice, when actual doctrine is doing it the other way around, and the value of forgiveness is not about permitting a psychopathic knife murderer to continue murdering, its about being detached from the action of stopping him and not investing yourself personally and emotionally in the act of restraining and punishing him, but I'm not quite there yet it's something like transcendental realism, or moral realism, or radical materialism, or just simply agape

When you've been down and out, no matter how good things get, some part of that never leaves you, and it's important to be conscient of that and take it into account when accessing yourself, so that it doesn't sneak up on you and make you self sabotage to over prepare for a crisis that isn't coming If the story you tell yourself about who you are becomes just all the good things and you don't account for this, you will exhibit nervous behaviors and rationalise it, miscrediting things, overreacting, blaming things in your new environment for what is old, old feelings

The older I get the more I realise the deep truth of what someone told me on the first day of my first real job at the construction site: "don't apologise/say you're not gonna do it wrong again, just don't do it wrong again" (Danish translation, language and idiom stuff). On the surface it sounds like some yoda bullshit about believing in yourself, but there is something fundamental there that is deep and true. It's about The difference between thinking and doing, intellect and will,

The only red pill, political, race or sex wise is this: you cannot avoid confrontation just by being nice and having good intentions, because you ultimately cannot control other people, and some of them want to hurt you for bad reasons, and you can't argue them out of it, you can only stop them with force, and force them not to. If the other declares war on you, you have to win the war, and force him to behave. And this is a universal law of human affairs, and you have been victimised in the past because you were naive, and you thought giving up would impress your antagonist, and now for the rest of your life you have the option of either accepting that humiliation, into your ego and self conception, that you have been victimised, or, you can double down on a forced nativité and live as an insane raped slave for the rest of your life, and be miserable and afraid and never feel a moment of peace "everyone is just doing what they think is best, all conflict is tragedy that could be prevented if both sides had access to the full set of information"
Nope lol sorry
Most common people in the world would torture you to death for nothing and your political class wants you dead

I think people are so addicted to novelty and the feeling of "fringe new ideas" that in all the excitement they forget that the "boring normal obviously fake" story they want to avoid by coming up with their own new fresh idea, is "a rouge element in the permanent unelected beurocracy conspired, nudged, and let happen, an attempted murder on a political enemy, by using impressionable programmable youths using advanced manipulation learned over 100 years of spycraft" "oh wow you believe the official story?"
well yeah. kinda

its kind of funny that the design philosophy for all technology went from "user input generates consistent output" to "user input is a suggestion that may or may not be respected" and like retweets and who you follow doesnt really do anything any more its kind of the technological adaptation of a dysfunctional social behavior that people, I think unknowingly, imprint into the new technology. it's institutionalized "so what you're saying is"

if you have an IQ above 110 it doesnt matter what your title is, your real job is babysitter you think you are smarter than me for reacting with Pavlovian response to every mention of the concept of IQ, and like every mention of it is supposed to be bragging? do you feel smarter than a dog?