The ideas of this post came from a series of discussions with neoreactionsafe and a post made by burritohunter. In burritohunter’s post he pointed analysed the methods used Walt Disney when he setup disneyland. But he started his message with Not many on TRP seem very knowledgeable of the historical shift that allowed the Blue Pill narrative to become a mainstream phenomenon which is a variant of the once upon a time message. I then pointed out that Disneyland in 2016 operated the same way as the Vatican operated in 1416. But we both missed the obvious.

Today we can find like minded people to talk about how Disneyland works.

The mere fact that burritohunter and I are talking about it shows how the bluepill indoctrination methods are actually losing power. But they want you to think they actually have more power then before and we are falling into thier trap. To prove that I am right, we can do a thought experiment. A thought experiment is when you setup scenarios and then analyse them. One of the things the bluepill wants is people to stop thinking, so by giving them more power then they have, we are actually giving them power. Instead of comparing 2016 Disneyland with 1416 Vatican we will compare 2016 China with 1966 China. The scenarios I will setup do not need to be 100% accurate to learn from.

Mr Wong in 1966, location Bejing China

Except for minor details, Mr Wong’s life would be quite similar to a peasant’s life in Europe hundreds of years earlier. Mr Wong is 18 years of age, for his entire life he has lived under the communist regime. The only people who are allowed to use telphones are trusted communist members. Everyday Mr Wong is told that things are getting better, infact they are even better then in imperialist capitalistic countries like the United States. Something doesn’t quite seem right to Mr Wong, he vaguely remembers when he was 14 he didn’t quite feel as hungry. He then asks around, the teachers and local party officals tell Mr Wong. You are mistaken, you where younger then, sometimes you forget things. If he starts to ask more questions, they tell him that he is mentally ill. Since he has no way to access outside information it is extremely easy to gaslight him.

Mr Wong Jr, location Bejing China

This is Mr Wong’s kid, Mr Wong Jr. China wants to catch up with the western world, to do this they have to allow free enterprise. Mr Wong Jr is an enterprising young man, he sets up a small workshop manufacturing cheap widgets which he then sells on Alibaba most of his customers are in foreign countries like USA and Europe. Wong Junior has noticed that the pollution problem in Beijing seems to be getting worse, he has problems breathing some days. When he asks around the communist party offical tells him Wong Junior you are mistaken there is actually less pollution.

Wong Junior to sell his widgets needs have a cellphone and a computer which he can access the internet with. The communist party has to allow him to have these things, otherwise he will not be able to sell widgets. If he can’t sell widgets then the Chinese communist party will not be able to get money for China to progress.

On a regular basis, American and European customers will call up Wong Junior to ask him about his widgets. Joe Junior rings up Wong Junior, Joe says “Hello could you please describe to me widget X”, Wong Junior replies “Widget X is one of our top of the line widgets it has all of the latest widget features”. Joe then asks “Where is your widget workshop located ?”. “Bejing Sir” replies Wong. Joe then says “Beautiful city I saw a documentary on Nat Geo, I would like to visit it. But I have severe asthma, would I have problems with the pollution ?”. Wong Jr was told by the Communist Party offical he should not talk about pollution since the problem is getting better. So he vaguely replies back to Joe “They tell me it is getting better”.

How the Chinese communist party painted itself into a corner

What just happened in the above scenario. Wong Junior suspected that there is a pollution problem, but he had no way to confirm his suspicions. From an outside source Wong Junior now has information saying that possibly there might be a pollution problem.

The Chinese Communist party has painted itself in a corner because even if they had the power to censor all telephone calls and internet messages, they can’t. If they did, Wong Junior would be unable to sell his widgets. With complete censorship 25% of the conversation would be missing, it would be impossible for him to sell.

A government has to maintain some semblence of credibility. If they don’t do this, the people will lose all trust in them. Multiply the above conversation between Wong Junior and Joe one million times. To maintain credibility, the Chinese Communist party has been forced to admit that there is a pollution problem in Beijing and they are now taking steps to clean it up. The Chinese government was even forced to admit that forced labour camps existed and allegedly they have shut them down. This could have been a result of a conversation where Wong Junior was asked by one of his potential customers does his workshop use forced labour.

The magical kingdom myth killed Darkenlightenment

Darkenlightenment has a lot of similar ideas to The Red Pill, but they differ in one important factor. They believe the myth about the magical kingdom that existed a long time ago, and they want to return to this kingdom. This then leads to them doing also sorts of rationalization (fancy word for justification or hamstering) which results in out and out lies. There will be a post on attempting to justify the Spanish Inquisition, which ever way you put it, driving out the smartest segment of you population in this case Jews is a really stupid thing to do. They will then claim, not that many Jews left, well where did the 250,000 Jews come from in Holland and Britain ?

Instead of working on self improvement and seeking the truth, they are too busy attempting to rationalize. This is caused because they are attempting to return to the Garden of Eden which unfortunately never existed.

All the red pill has to do is exist. Attraction versus promotion.

The red pill differs in one important factor, it does not per say have an ideology. All it is concerned about is the truth and how this truth can be effectively used. In other groups when what is the truth is being debated, the person who is losing the argument will always resort to morality. Since the red pill has decided that morality should not play a factor in determining the truth, this major problem has been eliminated.

As a result the system is self correcting, despite growing in size unlike other groups the bluepill has not taken over. This is because ideology and morality (which is a form of ideology) become the basis of the debate for the person losing the arugment. This is human nature, the red pill avoids this.

I then said all the red pill has to do is exist. Basically we end up with a larger version of what I described earlier. People who come to the redpill are seeing that the bluepill methods are not working. This is a form of attraction versus promotion. Per say the redpill does not have to do anything besides exist.

The system is self correcting because “truths” are debated instead of “ideology”. The measure of what is “true” is how effective it is for solving that particular problem.

The red pill can not have a leader

This is another important factor that we often discount. And it is one of TRP’s greatest strengths. Most groups run on an ideology, an ideology requires a leader. This is the weak point of other groups. If someone attempts to take over the redpill, they need an ideology. All ideologies are inherently at some level false. As a result the group will splinter, the truth seekers will form another group and the orignal group will turn into a bluepill group.

Humans differ from other animals in that we are able to change our environment with something called technology. Technology is always chaotic, because it is impossible to predict how it will be used. Just examine the history of the steam engine. Originally its inventor envisioned it as something used to pump water out of coal mines.

What has changed in the last 25 years is the ease of mass communication. In the past the elites controlled communication, in the roman empire a message could sent to Rome from any point of the empire in less then 6 days. But the only ones who could use this system where the elites. Today it is impossible to control communication like the past for the reasons I have specified and the elites now have to resort to psychological cames and myths. By believing a mythical land existed a long time ago, you are actually falling into their trap.

By living in the past or present we avoid reality

In my previous post, The pursuit of happiness myth which causes unhappiness, I stated that humans delude themselves to avoid the pain of facing reality. One of the ways we delude ourselves is by living in either the past or present. But this does not mean we shouldn’t learn from the past or plan for the future. Living in the past can take two forms which are indirectly related to each other. The first form is where we express regrets about mistakes we made. If only I knew what I know now and then took a certain course of action, my life would be different. The second form of living in the past is living in what we might consider better times. We desire stability, the past is stable, since we already know what the outcome is. Knowing the outcome means our expectations have already been met. The past can either be a few hours ago or centuries ago when my conman acquaintance and I were observing business people heading home from work, many of them were saying to themselves if only I had turned down that assignment from my boss if only I had asked for a raise etc.

The living in the future deals with expectation also. Some of the wage slaves are thinking, I only have to put up with this job for another ten years. When I retire, I will tell my boss what I really think of him. Our brain is a simulation machine, we take past experiences and knowledge and use this simulation machine to predict future events. Our simulation machine allows us to experience and feel situations and events which have not even happened when used correctly, it is an extremely useful. Einstein used his simulation machine to imagine what would happen if he could travel on a tramcar at the speed of light and shine a flashlight in different directions. He then imagined all sorts of scenarios, what happens if he shines the flashlight forward, backward, there is another tramcar traveling at the speed of light with a person shining a flashlight. Using these simulations he developed the theory of relativity. When used correctly, our simulation machine is beneficial, incorrectly used, it is harmful.

Like all computers, our simulation machine produces erroneous simulations when we feed it inputs which are not based on reality. When I was a teenager in high school, there was a pretty girl in one of my classes. I had never talked to her, yet I gave her positive attributes which were a figment of my imagination. She was witty, intelligent, understanding, caring etc. Over the following weeks, using my simulation machine, I created a virtual reality or fantasy. In my fantasy we met, we then had amazing conversations. Later we ended up getting married, we had a house with a white picket fence and kids. Looking back, I can see I was living a fantasy and I wasted a great deal of time and effort on this fantasy. A couple months later, I ended up talking to her. Since I was a shy teenager or maybe because she didn’t have any of the attributes which I am imagined, we never had the amazing conversations I imagined. I can not remember exactly what we said, all I remember was being disappointed. I would have saved a lot of time and disappointment if I had been living in the now.

Only by living in the now can you change the future

In the case of my teenage crush, I could have saved a lot of time and disappointment if I had decided a course of action in the present. This doesn’t mean taking action in the present moment but setting a course of action in the present. So I could have said to myself, next time I see this pretty girl, I will go and talk to her. After I have decided a plan of action, I then put my plan of action onto my mental shelf to be acted upon when the appropriate time presented itself. Instead, I fed my simulation machine data which was based on incorrect assumptions. Then I allowed my simulation machine to create a fantasy, the more elaborate my fantasy became, the more I would be inclined to delay taking action. Subconsciously, I realized that my fantasy would be destroyed, wanting to avoid pain prevented me from taking action in the now.

A conman knows that he should provide people with justifications for what they did in the past, historic revision. Or he should cater to their desires or fantasies which will take place in the future. For the majority of people, most of the conman’s work has been done for them, since they are already living in either the past or future, he just needs to fill in the blanks. How do we avoid this trap?

In my post, Get rid of unrealistic social expectations to alleviate loneliness, the method I described works because I am forcing myself to live in the now. In my example, after deciding to take a course of action, in this case getting your ass out of the house, by concentrating on each individual step as I am doing it, forces me to live in the now. As I put one foot in front of the other, I concentrated on that action, not a future action or a previous action. This then eliminates expectation, it means I have become outcome independent. Expectation means I am living in the future.

If you fail to live in the now, you are part of what my conman acquaintance called the walking dead, a zombie, a person who is not self-aware or awake.

Only by experiencing the now can you be truly awake

The point is that there’s not a good way to come into meditation or a bad way to come into meditation. It might feel preferable to show up feeling calm and spacious, but really meditation is about being awake and present to whatever is going on. You can’t critique your meditation in terms of good and bad. The only thing you can measure your meditation against is the question: “Was I present or not?” And even then, to say to yourself that you weren’t present is a result of the fact that you’ve been meditating and you recognized that fact. There’s some sense of awareness about what is actually happening. How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind

Contrary to popular belief, meditation isn’t a way to enter a trance-like state to escape reality, its purpose is to break out the trance-like state we are normally in, to become closer to reality. We enter trance-like states all the time but we don’t realize it. What did you eat for breakfast this morning? If you traveled to work or school this morning, what did you see? Most likely you can not remember, or there might be blank spots, this means you were at some point in time in a trance-like state. Meditation is a tool which is used to break out of this trance. Concentrating on putting one foot in front of the other is forcing yourself to enter the now.

Usually, when we are in these trances, we are either in the past or future. You might be doing a simple task like sweeping the floor, you find the task boring, you want to escape from doing the task. Your mind then wanders off into the past, maybe to an enjoyable moment you were having at a party. Or possibly, it jumps into the future, instead of concentrating on sweeping the floor, you are thinking about what you will eat for lunch after you sweep the floor. You consciously are no longer in the present, you have entered a trance-like state where you have in the future.

If you are unfamiliar with how the brain operates, you might find the idea of you going into trance-like states while conscious uncomfortable. When learning how to ride a bicycle, initially you consciously have to pedal the bike, as in make your legs go up and down. At the same time, you have to consciously balance yourself on the bike and steer it. After a while, this conscious activity gets moved to your subconscious part of your brain. This means, unless you consciously override your subconscious, you do not need to think about riding the bike. In a sense, you are in a trance, you are in a trance, your legs move up and down without you actually thinking about it.

Possibly you might be saying, I am out to lunch, how can you be in a trance while driving a car, eating breakfast etc.? Most people have seen YouTube video, [The Invisible Gorilla](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2MvoThe Monkey Business Illusion - YouTub). This is the reason we can not see the gorilla.

The problem is that we lack positive evidence for our lack of attention. That is the basis of the illusion of attention. We are aware only of the unexpected objects we do notice, not the ones we have missed. Consequently, all the evidence we have is for good perception of our world. It takes an experience like missing the chest-thumping gorilla, which is hard to explain away (and which we have little incentive to explain away), to show us how much of the world around us we must be missing. The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us

In the past, we believed human memory a series of still frames of a movie coupled with sound. These frames and sound bites were achieved somewhere in our subconsciousness. The reason why we believed this is because under hypnosis it appeared as if it is possible to retrieve these memories. Early experiments with hypnosis showed that people could remember events from the past with extreme detail which they were unable to do while in a conscious state. Due to our incorrect belief on how the human memory worked, it was assumed that these memories revealed in a hypnotic state where accurate.

Unfortunately, our memory doesn’t work like a video recorder, what actually happens is more complex. When we recall a memory, it is retrieved as an outline or framework, as we require more detail it is filled in. When asked, what did you eat for breakfast? Your brain creates an image of a plate full of food. If asked, what color was the tablecloth? The tablecloth does not exist in our memory till we are prompted. Neither the plate full of food or the tablecloth existed until we where prompted.

What if your table didn’t have a tablecloth that day? If your table normally has a tablecloth, there is the possibility that since you expect a tablecloth, your memory might generate one. This then brings up the question, when did this tablecloth exist? On days when your table had a tablecloth, is the tablecloth you are remembering from that day or another day? This is how false memories can be created.

Our vision works in a similar manner, most of what we see doesn’t per say actually exist. The invisible gorilla experiment clearly shows this. Our brains fill in what we expect to see, which means we are seeing an illusion which we tell ourselves is a reality. This shows that we are living a sequence of trance-like states, in most cases, we are living in either the past or the future. My conman acquaintance when he called most people the walking dead was mocking them, he was stating that they are zombies. The difference between him and others is he is aware that most of the time he is in a zombie state. The question then arises, how do we break out of this zombie state, how do we become awake?

Becoming awake or self-aware

At the time, I didn’t realize it but by breaking things into small steps, I was forcing myself to live in the present. By living in the present, I was inadvertently removing expectations. Expectations are what cause us to get an incorrect version of reality. As the invisible gorilla experiment shows, I wasn’t expecting to see a gorilla, therefore I didn’t see a gorilla.

Disappointment is caused by unfulfilled expectations. When I perform a series of actions, if I do not obtain the result I expect, it means that my perception of reality is incorrect. I, of course, enjoy deluding myself, so I will attempt to find explanations on why my perception of reality isn’t incorrect. While I am performing each individual step, if I thinking about future steps, this means I am not in the present. This can result in either self-sabotage, due to expecting negative results or over confidence.

Every method has limitations. In this case, this method is using reductionism, since it is breaking things into smaller steps. If the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the technique fails. If I disassemble an airplane into its individual components, I end up with piles of nuts and bolts. It does not increase my understanding on how airplanes fly. The technique which can cause me to ignore other influences, it also is dependent on what I am concentrating on for each step.

For the human brain, attention is essentially a zero-sum game: If we pay more attention to one place, object, or event, we necessarily pay less attention to others. Inattentional blindness is thus a necessary, if unfortunate, by-product of the normal operation of attention and perception. If we are right that inattentional blindness results from inherent limits on the capacity of visual attention, it might be impossible to reduce or eliminate it in general. In essence, trying to eliminate inattentional blindness would be equivalent to asking people to try flying by flapping their arms really rapidly. The structure of the human body doesn’t permit us to fly, just as the structure of the mind doesn’t permit us to consciously perceive everything around us. The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us

Essentially, true self-awareness or being awake is an impossibility. Awareness or conscious attention is a limited resource. We can only consciously track 5 to 7 variables at once, some neuroscientists believe that this number might be too high. Regardless it means I only have 5 to 7 video or audio sensors. If I focus these sensors on counting how many times the basketball is passed, it means I can not see the gorilla. If I am looking for the unexpected, it means I can not count the number of times the basketball is passed.

Even though being true awareness or awakening is an impossibility, just being aware that we can not be fully aware is an awakening. Knowing this, you can experiment with sensing different things in the present. This can be as simple as sitting in front of a fan and feeling the air blow on you or taking a walk and observing different things in the now. Possibly you might be thinking, you are not doing this right.

The only person you are competing against is yourself

Inherently we are always comparing, as a result, we are always competing. Conscious thought is human language, human language is analogy or metaphor. Every word we use has its roots in metaphor, analogy or comparison. That means our consciousness wants to compare ourselves to others and the question we want to know, are we doing this correctly? Are doing things the right way or the wrong way?

It is possible to judge the external actions of a person but we can only speculate on the internal workings of the person’s brain or conscious thought. Possibly a person’s the internal workings of a person’s consciousness might be deeply flawed but yet it could lead to positive results. In politically incorrect times, a star baseball player was asked what was his secret to successfully hitting the ball. He replied that is was due to him having a few shots of whiskey before the game. The reporters then asked how it improved his game. He explained that being half drunk made the baseball appear twice as big, which much easier to hit. Assuming the star baseball player was telling the truth, drinking would distort his perception of reality but due to the flawed inner workings of his mind, this distorted reality improved his game. This means positive external results doesn’t mean a better state of consciousness. The point I am making is since your consciousness is internal, there is nothing you can compare your consciousness against, except your previous self.

Initially, you might not like what you will find

In my post, [Cynic - a red pill person - someone who understands reality]http://acrackletsthelightin.info/2016/12/31/Cynic-a-redpill-person-accepts-reality/) talked about how the word cynic originally an ancient Greek school of thought which attempted to understand reality better. The term cynical now has negative connotations. It is a reflection on how we attempt to delude ourselves to escape reality. That buried deep within us is an animal nature similar to primates or lower animals like crocodiles scares many people. On some level, they worry they will be taken over by their animalistic tendencies. But when one gains greater awareness, one is able to control these tendencies.

Another factor that people find troubling when they find out their sense of reality is largely an illusion. This ranges from when I misplaced my keys last week to the entire fantasy I built with my teenage puppy love. In the case of the missing keys, they were sitting on the table. I had looked at the table several times, yet the previous times, I didn’t see them. For the teenage puppy love, if I am honest, I can see I created an entire fantasy. This fantasy could have been avoided if I was living in the now. But the more I invested in this fantasy, the more reluctant I was to take action which might destroy the fantasy. The fantasy had become more powerful than reality.

Try and catch yourself when you start living in the past or the future. We have grown so accustomed to doing it, that it has become natural. The act of living in the past or the future isn’t always harmful or bad. It becomes harmful when it is being used as a way to escape the present or now. As one becomes more self aware, we are able to see how we avoid reality. In my case, it was over twenty years ago when my conman acquaintance talked about two dimensional people, it is only now I am starting to become aware of what he meant. Then again, possibly I might be a slow learner.

Start acting in the now, right now send me bitcoin, my bitcoin address is 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If you like my posts, follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative.

What is happiness?

Happiness - a state of well-being and contentment.

Happiness is synonymous with contentment. Contentment can be defined as a sense of inner peace. That means without inner conflict. This internal state exists somewhere within us, a religious person might call it a soul. A neuroscientist would call it consciousness, which is created by all of the parts of the human brain acting as one. Whether you are a religious person or a neuroscientist, this soul or consciousness comes from within your brain. It is generated internally as opposed to externally.

By contrast, modern Western society teaches that contentment comes from external sources. People who state, I don’t want to be surrounded by negativity are saying external circumstances dictate their internal state. Advertising or marketing is an industry which sells products on the premise that purchasing a certain product will change your internal emotional state. Purchase a certain brand of beverage and it is implied that it will change your internal emotional state. Even more amazing, dishwashing liquid or chewing gum can change these internal emotional states. I was intrigued by an advertisement for a chewing gum, its advertisement claimed that chewing it can give one a sense of freedom. With my overactive imagination, I envisioned B1 stealth bombers being loaded with this chewing gum. Then these B1 stealth bombers would swoop down and drop this freedom chewing gum on middle eastern countries. Then there would be millions of happy Arabs chewing this gum with their new found sense of freedom.

In school, we were told repeatedly we should feel blessed for living in a free and prosperous society. Back then, Communism was the boogie man, they lived in a dark place where everyone allegedly was unhappy. Later when I went enjoyed a government paid tour of a war-torn country, I started to question modern Western values. First hand I saw a developed country which had been driven back 300 years. There was no electricity or running water, people were forced to return to a more primitive state. When I looked beyond the broken buildings and rubble, I asked myself, are these people less happy than Westerners? The answer I arrived at is no. That modern Western society has extremely high rates of youth suicide, reflects a discontented society. What has caused this discontentment?

When the American founding fathers talked about the pursuit of happiness, what did they mean? Pursuit means something which you are attempting to obtain. The American founding fathers were pragmatic, by pursuing this happiness, they didn’t mean one should avoid reality. Also by using the word pursuit, they knew that it wasn’t an achievable goal but it is something one should strive for. That contentment is achieved, not by actually achieving the state of happiness but by striving for it. Somehow the pursuit of happiness/contentment turned into an escape from reality.

The pursuit of happiness has become escaping reality to escape oneself

All living creature inherently want to move away from pain towards pleasure. What differentiates humans from other creatures is we have large frontal lobes where we have the potential to overcome these emotions which originate in our reptile brain. The definition of courage is not someone who is fearless but someone who is able to move through this fear to accomplish things.

Life is difficult because it is a series of problems, and the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one. Problems, depending on their nature, evoke in us many uncomfortable feelings: frustration, grief, sadness, loneliness, guilt, regret, anger, fear, anxiety, anguish or despair. These feelings are often as painful as any kind of physical suffering. Indeed, it is because of the pain that events or conflicts engender in us that we call them problems. Yet it is in this whole process of meeting and solving problems that life finds its meaning. Problems call forth our courage and wisdom; indeed, they create our courage and our wisdom. Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between success and failure. It is only because of problems ( struggles, challenges) that we grow mentally and spiritually.

The alternative – not to meet the demands of life on life’s terms – means we will end up losing more often than not. Most people attempt to skirt problems rather than meet them head-on. We attempt to get out of them rather than suffer through them. Indeed, the tendency to avoid problems and the emotional suffering inherent in them is the primary basis of all psychological illness. And since most of us have this tendency to a greater or lesser degree, most of us lack complete mental health. Those who are most healthy learn not to dread but actually to welcome problems. Although triumph isn’t guaranteed each time we face a problem in life, those who are wise are aware that it is only through the pain of confronting and resolving problems that we learn and grow.” The Road Less Traveled and Beyond: Spiritual Growth in an Age of Anxiety

The problems which M Scott Peck talks about can be external ones or internal ones. We inherently want to avoid addressing these problems we want to avoid pain. Ironically this desire to avoid pain results in greater problems developing which inevitably results in greater pain than the original pain we were trying to avoid. Often this avoidance of pain occurs subconsciously. Recently, I need to ask a favor from someone, when I had the opportunity to ask for the favor I instead procrastinated. This resulted in uncertainty and anxiety. When I finally stopped procrastinating and asked the person for the favor, knowing the answer, I was able to move on with my life. If I intentionally kept the answer as unknown, which procrastination does, in a sense, I am deceiving myself. I am avoiding the pain of possible rejection or disappointment.

This theme of having the courage to confront our problems isn’t unique idea. It is ironic that in our modern world, many practice meditation to indirectly escape from reality which isn’t its intended purpose.

We do not meditate in order to be comfortable. In other words, we don’t meditate in order to always, all the time, feel good. I imagine shockwaves are passing through you as you read this because so many people come to meditation to simply “feel better.” However, the purpose of meditation is not to feel bad, you’ll be glad to know. Rather, meditation gives us the opportunity to have an open, compassionate attentiveness to whatever is going on. The meditative space is like the big sky—spacious, vast enough to accommodate anything that arises. How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind

I see the purpose of meditation to be able to look at myself as I really am without my ego filtering things.

In meditation, you are moving closer and closer to yourself, and you begin to understand yourself so much more clearly. You begin to see clearly without a conceptual analysis because, with regular practice, you see what you do over and over and over and over again. You see that you replay the same tapes over and over and over in your mind. The name of the partner might be different, the employer might be different, but the themes are somewhat repetitious. Meditation helps us to clearly see ourselves and the habitual patterns that limit our life. You begin to see your opinions clearly. You see your judgments. You see your defense mechanisms. Meditation deepens your understanding of yourself. How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind

I am not an expert in meditation but we see it strips away the illusions of ourselves and the illusions of the world. This deeper understanding of ourselves as Freud puts it means to bring the subconscious to the surface. When our subconscious or true natures come to the surface, it can be terrifying for many since our illusions have been broken. Once these illusions have been broken, sometimes one can get insight, and what we see can be terrifying. And yet, when we are nonjudgmental and honest about ourselves, this terror disappears.

We attempt to avoid seeing these realities using two methods:

The first is by physically relocating themselves to avoid unpleasantness. An example of this is many cities are passing laws to remove homeless people out of public view. Even if the homeless person isn’t harassing you by begging, he scares you. The reason why he scares you is because, on some level, you realize it could be you. By hiding the homeless person, we hide our fears. As our modern society becomes more removed from reality, we attempt we attempt to relocate all sorts of unpleasant things. For example, how animals are raised and butchered for food. Our food comes in neat, sanitized packages, it comes with nice labels like range free eggs. This brings up images of chickens running around, happily laying eggs for us. This presumably makes me feel better about eating eggs.

The second way we attempt to avoid unpleasantness is by avoiding thoughts which allegedly cause unpleasant emotions. Earlier I talked about how I was feeling anxiety. Instead of probing and examining what causes this anxiety, society encourages us to avoid this unpleasantness with things like safe spaces. People proudly state, I intentionally avoid negativity. On a deeper level, these safe spaces attempt to isolate ourselves from the part of our brains which contain our animal natures. This doesn’t mean we should not act on our animal impulses but we should be honest and admit they are there.

To avoid these unpleasant emotions, people have switched to chemicals. Over ten percent of adults in western countries are using some sort of antidepressant. According to this article, How Antidepressants Work In The Brain, antidepressants work by somehow restructuring the neurotransmitters in the brain. I am not a medical expert but I interpret this to mean it blocks neurotransmitters which cause unpleasant feelings. This means we are avoiding issues. Ironically, with the combination of legal and illegal drugs, most western countries are more reliant on chemicals than when the British were selling opium to the Chinese. China attempted to eliminate opium addiction by contrast, in most western countries, I can walk into a doctor’s office and they will supply me with a script to get some chemicals.

Obviously, if opium or antidepressants have been prescribed correctly, they should be used. I am just pointing out that 10% plus of the adult population being dependent on some sort of chemical implies that underlying issues are not being addressed. If one is unhappy, avoid the pain, get some pills.

Examining one’s emotions does not mean one has to act on them

Emotions originate from the lower regions of the brain. People instinctively think that emotions are linked to external events. I might say, that man is making me angry. It is how I am interpreting the actions of the man which are causing to be angry. If I perceive the man is threatening my territory or boundaries, I will feel angry. If there is uncertainty or doubt in my life, I will feel anxiety or fear. These emotions are real, as in there is a chemical reaction in my brain causing them but are they logical?

If there is a large, vicious Doberman dog running towards me, it is logical that I should feel fear. If someone has actually wronged me, for example, I was ripped off by an online merchant, it is logical I feel anger. Sometimes the cause of the emotion might be more difficult to identify. Earlier, I talked about how I felt anxiety. First I had to identify that is what I was feeling, yes that is the funny feeling in my stomach, that is why I am having problems sleeping. Next, I had to identify what was causing this feeling. In this cause, I needed to ask someone for help, I was worried that the person would refuse to help me. Instinctively I preferred to be in a state of uncertainty as opposed to actual rejection. When I choose to take action and overcome my natural instincts, the anxiety disappeared.

With anger, first ask, is my perception correct. Possibly it might be incorrect. The next step is to then ask, is what can I do to rectify this emotion? Sometimes anger is caused by unrealistic expectations which result in disappointment. Did I set myself up? If the anger is caused by someone wronging me, I can ask, what type of action should I take? What will be the cost of this action?

Courage isn’t the absence of fear but taking action despite the fear

courage - mental or moral strength to venture, persevere and withstand danger, fear or difficulty.

The original definition of courage meant to be able to take action despite experiencing fear. The modern definition of courage has been redefined to fearlessness. The modern definition looks at a courageous person externally. Externally this person might appear to be fearless. In my opinion, this redefinition of courage is society wanting to avoid what are perceived as negative emotions. Instead of crediting the courageous person of being able to control himself despite feeling fear, claim he lacks fear. General Rommel when he decided to take part in the assassination attempt on Hitler knew what the consequences for himself and his family would be if it failed. Obviously he must have felt fear. He displayed courage when he decided to act despite his fear.

On the other hand, courage can also mean having restraint. When I was younger, I felt I needed to defend every argument against me or slight. When I examined this I realized that in some aspects I was acting upon insecurity, on how others perceived me, so in a roundabout way it could be viewed as cowardice. Again whether practicing restraint is cowardice or courage can only be determined by self-honesty. Recently I was complaining to someone about the inequality and sexism of violence against women laws, the person replied that there is nothing one can do about it. I retorted, yes there is lots we can do about it but we choose not act, that is why there is a problem in the first place. When I stated that, the person flinched as if I hit him. The point isn’t whether or not we should act on our beliefs but that we should be honest with ourselves when we fail to act.

It is problems and obstacles that give our lives meaning

Despite coming from two different backgrounds, one Christian and one Buddhist, this is the underlying theme of both M Scott Peck and Pema Chödrön, the common theme is most of our problems are caused by avoiding pain. This avoidance of pain is due to us avoiding confronting problems.

Earlier, when I was procrastinating on asking a friend for a favor this caused me to feel anxiety. This anxiety affected me both physically and mentally. The physical effects were a nervousness in my stomach the mental affects where thoughts in my head causing sleeplessness. Ironically, I didn’t realize that these effects were caused by my procrastination. It wasn’t till I started to explore what was causing these feelings that I determined what the cause was. In hindsight, it is obvious what caused my anxiety but at the time it wasn’t obvious since I am extremely good at lying to myself.

Here lies the paradox, we should attempt to pursue happiness or contentment but at the same time we should realize that the goal is unobtainable. A craftsman attempts to create a perfectly round table but it is an impossibility, the only perfect circles that exist are within our mind. But it is the craftsman attempting to create this impossibility which creates purpose within our lives. The lie created by many religions and modern society is similar, that it is possible for us to create this heaven on earth if we would only follow a set of impossible rules. And yet it is this false belief which at their core deny human nature which causes disappointment and emptiness. It is having the courage to overcome problems which give our life meaning.

Further Directions

When people ask me how I am, I often answer I am dreadfully unhappy. Their faces show concern, shock, confusion or revulsion. I then reply, don’t worry, I have accepted my unhappiness, therefore, I am content within my unhappiness. We live in the safest time in human history where even the poorest people compared to previous generations large amounts of material possessions. Paradoxically, in western countries, record numbers of people live with fear, depression, and anxiety. A simplistic explanation is that this is caused by a consumeristic culture. The belief that certain products or ideas can create positive emotions.

On a deeper level, the consumeristic culture is a consequence of a society which no longer values self-examination and self-honesty. Self examination reveals unpleasant truths about ourselves. The chewing gum which promised freedom isn’t bad, it is my belief that this chewing gum can make me experience freedom which is harmful. The pursuit of happiness isn’t harmful, it is the belief that this state can be actually achieved which is harmful. The belief that constant happiness can actually be achieved originated in the drug induced culture of the 1960s, drug induced means living in a fantasy. Yet to avoid reality, are minds are perfectly capable of doing that without narcotics. Science is unlocking the mysteries of the human mind yet paradoxically we choose to delude ourselves possibly more than in the past. The challenge is finding the courage to question your own beliefs or thoughts which might be delusions and realizing the pursuit of happiness is an unachievable goal.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best

Assume your business will fail, that means when starting up, invest as little as possible and keep expenses and obligations as small as possible. Ideally, you should do all the work yourself, of you need to get outside help, make sure it is done under contract. If possible start the business in your home, later if the business starts making money if you need to expand, rent a place. If you need to rent a place, make sure that you can break out of the rental agreement. If you are working, keep your day job and test your business during your spare time. If you are unemployed, you can experiment with your business while looking for work.

spend an antifragile approach because if you need to bail out of your business, you have minimized how much it will cost you. The logic is only 20% of businesses will survive the first year, if your business is going to fail you bail early. Bailing doesn’t mean always means abandoning the idea, if the idea appears viable, stop operations and restrategize. The problems will result in failure are the problems which you could predict. You ordered 100 widgets from China, you discovered that the marketing cost per widget is greater than you expected. You then need to figure out how to lower marketing costs or abandon the project. That means everyone you know will be getting a widget for Christmas. Put a label on the widget where to order them from, if people like their Christmas widget presents, maybe they will order more from you.

Assuming only 20% of businesses survive, then the solution is to start more businesses after a failure happens. To be able to do this, it means you have to be able to survive each business failure. Run away to live and fight another day. initially, your business doesn’t have to be antifragile, just you have to be. The majority of great generals were defeated because they got into a battle where they were unable to withdraw their forces without substantial losses. This is another reason why you do not want a business partner. Most people have a sunk cost fallacy coupled with pride or ego. Your partner might pressure you to continue on, even if he agrees to cease operations, it will cause bad relations between you. Except for a damaged ego, losing a battle isn’t bad, providing you preserve most of your resources, it will be a learning experience. What you want to avoid is getting yourself into a catastrophic event.

The do everything yourself philosophy doesn’t mean that later on, you will not delegate. Delegation is an important part of expanding your business. One of the reasons I dislike automobiles is that I am at the mercy of the mechanic. If he tells me I need a new transmission, how do I know he is telling the truth? For this reason, running a business which relies heavily on automobiles isn’t a good idea for me. A friend of mine has a van service, 15 years ago, he bought one used Mercedes van he then expanded it to a fleet of over twenty vans. He always tells me the tricks his employees attempt, like claiming they changed the oil, meanwhile they take the oil home or sell it. He isn’t a licensed mechanic but he is able to repair all his own vehicles. If he didn’t have this ability, he would be at the mercy of the mechanics.

Satisfy people’s needs and wants

If you go camping or on military exercises, you learn that a person’s needs are ?. Enough food to eat for the day, clothes to cover your body and a warm dry place to sleep at night. If you have the time and ability, you can eat quite well for just a couple of dollar a day. If you live in a semi-tropical or tropical climate, for sleeping all you need is enough space for you to lie down and a light blanket. why supplying actual needs isn’t profitable. The world price of rice ranges from $0.40 to $0.60 per kilo, is enough for a day. Buy $2 per day of meat and vegetables, your family can eat extremely well. The reason why commodities are cheap is because they are satisfying needs not wants. The smaller your living accommodations, the fewer expenses you have. There is always a news article, people in some developing nation are living on $3 to $5 per day, this is what the articles doesn’t tell you.

I often joke that squatters in Manila have a better phone and electronic gadgets then I do. Often they have the latest iPhone X, a DVD player, and a large TV set. One of the funniest things I saw was a man who crammed a large screen projection TV into a one room house. To watch the TV, he then built an overhang on the house and sat under the overhang. They then would sit outside the house to watch the TV inside. Granted he probably bought the projection TV second-hand or surplus but he had spent a lot on the TV. Profitable small shops besides carrying staples carry what are essentially luxury items, for women, the big one is whitening soaps and lotions. Squatters are not lazy when given the opportunity to work, they are extremely hard workers. The problem is they are stuck in the sidewalk mode of wealth building. I am not against foreign aid, the problem is the poor are fed a steady mental diet of telenovelas and most foreign aid workers indirectly preach that they are victims.

Squatters spend large amounts of money on baptisms, weddings, and funerals, in many cases an equivalent of 6 months wages. These are examples of satisfying a desire or want, the desire usually is to impress their friends and other people. The point I am making is your job isn’t to satisfy people’s needs but satisfy their wants and desires in a legal way which doesn’t break your moral code. Often the link between the product or service you provide and the desire or want you to fulfill isn’t obvious.

I always ask business owners what they sell and why their customers buy from them, and the answers are often insightful in more ways than one. Many people answer the question directly—“We sell widgets, and people buy them because they need a widget”—but once in a while, I hear a more astute response.
“We’re not selling horse rides,” Barbara said emphatically. “We’re offering freedom. Our work helps our guests escape, even if just for a moment in time, and be someone they may have never even considered before.”
The difference is crucial. Most people who visit the V6 Ranch have day jobs and a limited number of vacation days. Why do they choose to visit a working ranch in a tiny town instead of jetting off to lie on a beach in Hawaii? The answer lies in the story and messaging behind John and Barbara’s offer. Helping their clients “escape and be someone else” is far more valuable than offering horse rides. Above all else, the V6 Ranch is selling happiness. The $100 Startup: Reinvent the Way You Make a Living, Do What You Love, and Create a New Future

The V6 Ranch doesn’t sell horse rides, they sell the idea of freedom and escape. Working on the ranch is identified with freedom and escape. How desires are fulfilled are often illogical. Most products sold fulfill a want and desire which might not be obvious. Whether it is a woman buying whitening soap or a woman buying a designer purse, a desire is being fulfilled. A designer purse satisfies the need of something to carry around your possessions, the designer purse satisfies some sort of want inside the person. Men are not exempt from this, they also buy products that satisfy wants inside them. The key is satisfying these wants. So how do you go about satisfying these wants and making money?

How to satisfy people’s wants and make money doing it?

Here are the six steps you need to take:

1. Decide on your product or service.
2. Set up a website, even a very basic one (you can get a free one from WordPress.org).
3. Develop an offer (an offer is distinct from a product or service; see Chapter 7 for help).
4. Ensure you have a way to get paid (get a free PayPal account to start).
5. Announce your offer to the world (see Chapter 9 for more on this).
6. Learn from steps 1 through 5, then repeat.
   Almost all micro business building follows this sequence of events. Of course, we’ll be discussing specifics as we go along, but it’s always better to start from where you are than to wait for everything to be perfect. The $100 Startup: Reinvent the Way You Make a Living, Do What You Love, and Create a New Future

The six steps are self-explanatory. The details will, of course, change depending on your business. A hot dog vendor in a western country that accepts some sort of electronic payment might be a viable idea. Smartphones enable you to accept credit card payments without a merchant account. If enough of your customers use a credit card, later you can use a merchant account.

No battle plan, survives contact with the enemy. - Helmuth von Moltke

As you are proceeding with your plan, ensure there is flexibility built into it. Expect that things will not go according to plan but at the same time look for opportunities to exploit. The most important part of your plan is identifying your product or service.

Deciding your product or service

Here you decide a want, then you figure out if you have the skills necessary to satisfy the want. If you lack all the necessary skills, is it possible to learn these skills? If you can not learn the skills you lack, speaking from experience, you should not go into this venture. The problem is you will need to hire other people, this will increase your overhead and you will become dependent on this. The people you hire, since you do not know how their part of the job should be done, they can slack off or worse yet steal from you. If you attempt to call them on it, they are in a position of power, never allow this to happen. Also if you know how everything operates, if a person decides to quit, worse case you can take that position till a replacement is hired. It makes it easier to train new people and showing your employees that you know all parts of the business gains respect. When problems happen, it will make it easier for you to find solutions.

One you have identified a want and figured out how you are going to solve it, crunch the numbers. If it costs you $5 to purchase widgets, you can sell the widgets for $10 but your costs to sell the widgets are $6 your business will fail. Seems common sense yet I have seen it happen countless times. A person I knew opened a cyber cafe but he paid too much for the computers, he lacked enough capital to buy enough computers, even if he managed to run the cyber cafe at 100% capacity, he would not be able to make a living wage. This doesn’t mean a cyber cafe is a bad business to get into, you have to crunch the numbers. Successful cyber cafes in developing nations are often run by people who are computer repairmen. Since labor is cheaper in developing nations, it is a common practice to fix electronics instead of throwing them away. Often they will buy broken computers and then cannibalize them. His primary business is repairing computers, his secondary business is essentially renting out the computers he can not sell. Since his cost per computer is much lower, he can profit. If the numbers do not crunch, don’t enter the business.

Even with large corporations like Proctor and Gamble, only 20% of their new product launches are successful. Think about that for a bit. This corporation spends millions of dollars on consumer research while developing the product, they get constant consumer feedback. Then they spend millions of dollars marketing this new product they developed and 80% of the time it fails. What can we learn from this? Essentially Proctor and Gamble doesn’t know what it is doing. They are not unique, human resource department in companies spends millions of dollars determining which employees they should hire. Providing each new employee has the basic skills required for the job, choosing resumes randomly is just as effective. Basically, we can determine they don’t know what they are doing. Procter and Gamble’s first successful product was Ivory Soap, an accident. When making soap, they accidentally overcooked a batch of soap. Instead of throwing the soap away, someone decided to use it, they noticed the soap floated. They then marketed it as the soap that floats.

So how do you find out if your product will be successful? By going out and trying to sell it. If you are unable to sell it, you can try switching to a different demographic and reframing how you sell your product. The key is every time you switch, spend as little as possible. As an exercise, you can look at other successful business and see how they got started. Talk to business owners, if they are not busy, they are happy to talk to you. Here is an example of identifying a need and fulfilling it.

Office workers like to snack while working

My former boss who I worked for when I was younger, founded a business based on this desire. Office workers like to eat snacks while they are working. At the time, I didn’t appreciate his brilliance but with knowledge and hindsight, I can the principles at work. Within an office, there is a limited amount of snacks available, snackers also like to pretend they are eating healthy. For his products he specialized in two types of snacks, healthy ones like dried fruit, trail mix, granola etc, the second type were candy, jelly beans, chocolate covered raisins etc. His marketing model was simple, talk to the gatekeeper of an office, possibly bribe her with a free snack. Drop off a simple flyer with all the products he sold, then have the gatekeeper arrange that he could go into the office lunch room during break time, with all his products. Most office workers would buy a healthy snack like dried fruit to appease their conscience. Conscience appeased, they would then buy a bag of jelly beans etc. Attached to all of his products was a label stating to arrange for another salesperson to come by call __. Once he has a foothold in an office, the products sold themselves. Gatekeepers talk to other gatekeepers, before long, the majority of the office building would be ordering his products.

Initially, when starting out his business, he bought dried fruits and candy in bulk, 50-pound boxes. The initial investment was small, 20 boxes of bulk fruits and candy, empty plastic bags, a bag sealer, a scale and a machine to make labels. At the time, a 50lb box of jelly beans ran $20, he would then repackage them into half-pound bags and sell for $1.50 each. For packaging and storing the materials, initially, he just used a spare bedroom in his house. He has an antifragile business, his initial costs are fixed while he has the potential for infinite gain. They key is, he is able to reach the consumer directly, without having to pay for the rental of retail space. Also since he initially packaged and sold the products himself, when he later hired additional employees and salespersons, he knew what their expected productivity is. Eventually, he broke the city into regions, each region had a salesperson. If he thought the salesperson wasn’t selling as much as he should, he would go out with the salesperson to see the situation on the ground. A side benefit, he would be able to talk to customers and get direct feedback.

The hardest part the owner faced was testing his idea. The only way to test an idea is to go out and test it. He filled his basket full of the snacks he made, then approached his first gatekeeper. Excuse me, Ma’am, would you or any of your coworkers be interested in some of our snacks. Here Ma’am, why don’t you take a look at them? Oh? Are you uncertain about the quality? Why don’t you try some Ma’am? A free sample, in fact, why don’t you hand out some to your coworkers? Here one of the biggest obstacles was the gatekeeper receptionist, to overcome this problem he ensured his salespersons where dressed appropriately for an office environment and where polite to the gatekeeper. If the lobby of the office building contained a bulletin board, he ensured the salespersons would pin a tasteful flyer on it. He started the company before the Internet, people still used things called pagers. It was a device which could only receive phone number, you then found this thing called a pay phone and called the number back. I am sure if he started the company today, he would be using social media etc to look for new clients.

Once he had proven there was a market and he could reach it, he continued the same antifragile philosophy. Fixed risk with a large gain. So he was always ordering test samples of new products, usually 250 pounds worth. He would then repackage and attempt to sell it. If it would not sell, he would say oh well, we will set it aside, maybe I will be able to think of something to do with it. When it came to production, example a packing machine. He would ensure he could afford the loss of the cost of the machine if it didn’t work out. Here again, it was learned by doing, we got a new machine, we figured out how to use it when it arrived. Often the machine didn’t do what it promised.

He would come liquidation centers, place where they sell items from stores that have gone out of business or sometimes products are sent there which can’t be sold. What he mainly was looking for where something cheap which candy could be put in. Example, he found some clear plastic piggy banks in the shape of a dollar sign. He then took them and filled them full of candy. Since he bought the entire lot, he was able to negotiate an extremely cheap price. If it was something heart shaped, he always bought that since it was suitable for valentines day for men to buy for their girlfriends. At least 80% plus of his ideas failed, granted he sometimes would figure out how to remake the failures into successes. So the sample candy that didn’t sell, he would attempt to mix it with other types of candy, attempt different packaging etc.

As he managed to move more product, he was able to negotiate better deals with suppliers. He then negotiated with foreign suppliers to bring in unique types of snacks and candies. To scale his business he franchised into other cities. Since he was purchasing in large volumes, in some cases directly from candy manufacturers, he was able to get discounts. For his franchises they would order in advance, hence the product was already sold before he ordered it. When the containers of product arrived, he would schedule that trucks which delivered to his franchises arrived at the same time. As we unloaded the containers, we would slap new shipping labels onto the boxes and reload into the waiting trucks. He marked up approximately 10%, the boxes didn’t even sit in his warehouse. His franchises even if they contacted they suppliers directly could not get as good of a price, since they lacked the volume.

As you can see, in hindsight, my former boss started a successful business with an initial monetary investment of maybe $500 to $1,000. The success of his business was mainly due to an antifragile approach. Ensure losses are fixed with the potential for huge gains. He had more failures than successes but since his gains were larger than his losses he came out ahead. This is all great information you say, where do I get ideas from?

Looking to fulfill desires or needs

In Nassim Nicholas Taleb book, Antifragile, he states the longer a technology has existed, the more likely it is going to exist in the future. The best example of this is cooking, humans have been cooking food since they discovered how to use fire, it is safe to presume that they will continue cooking food in the future. The problem is, we are all attracted to new things, the best example of this is technology. Facebook relies on new technology, the idea of facebook itself isn’t new, MySpace, Friendster, AOL Groups etc are all similar ideas. New technology becomes obsolete quickly. Today the programming language of choice seems to be NodeJS, 15 years ago it was PHP, 25 years ago it was Perl. As the IT bubble showed, new technology is extremely risky, sucks, and it is extremely volatile. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use new technology but it should be to augment your business as opposed to being your business.

One of my first startups I had was developing a program which handled inventory for a specific type of business. I learned a lot doing it, I also learned how to handle customer relations etc. The failure was it was an extremely limited niche, I could not scale. When it came to looking for similar contracts, I was difficult to expand. Eventually, I gave the business to the partner I had. I made money from this program but in hindsight, I can see why the business was failed from the start. The business itself was reliant on these specific type of businesses, there was no room for growth.

How do you find needs? By looking around, listening to people and attempting to identify a niche. Within this niche, how can you deliver your product or service cheaper or more effectively than the competition. In my previous example, people at work like to eat snacks and candy. Using a fixed amount of risk, my former boss was able to satisfy this demand. Since he came directly to their offices, it made things easier for the office workers. Since he eliminated the need for renting a commercial space, even though initially he was buying the bulk candy and dried fruits at a higher price than his competitors, he was able to offer his products at a competitive price. A book like The $100 Startup: Reinvent the Way You Make a Living, Do What You Love, and Create a New Future. The book is useful in that it shows how many people set up businesses that satisfied needs using a small investment, the title lies, in some cases the initial investment was above $100. In every case, the solution involved solving a need that was present by looking at things in a different way. On the other hand, the book doesn’t show all the examples which failed, it makes things look too easy.

You have looked around, identified a need or desire. What do you do next?

Make a move

The problem is most people talk about ideas but they never do anything to bring these ideas to fruition. If you have an idea, start researching right now, get on the internet, start looking for ways to make it happen. Ideas by themselves are worthless, the idea isn’t worth anything till it is implemented. If your product/idea requires suppliers, start contacting suppliers to calculate costs, do as much research as you can. If you lack the required skills, start researching on how you can acquire these skills.

Your business will require some sort of website presence. Figure out ways to get this web presence, this could range from a WordPress or google blog, where you buy a custom domain to setting up your own web server on a DigitalOcean droplet. One person criticized me for asking for donations when my DigitalOcean droplet only costs $5 per month. Yes, it only costs $5 per a month because I know how to set up my own web server. For the blog itself, I use hexojs, which is a static blog generator, there are options available like Jekyll. How did I learn how to set up my own web server? Ages ago, I rented a cheap VPS, learned how to ssh into it, and learned by doing. I am not advocating that you learn how to setup a web server from a Linux/Unix command prompt, the point is to learn by doing. Maybe my solution isn’t optimal but it gets the job done.

You are probably going to say, you don’t have time etc. Nowadays, there are cheap smartphones or tablets, you can access the internet from anywhere. When you are riding the bus or train, read a book or website on your tablet. If you need to stand in line at the bank, grocery etc, read on your tablet. If you read five minutes here and five minutes there, you probably can gain at least one hour a day. On your tablet, you have a minioffice which fits in your pocket, it has a word processor on it, spread sheet, graphics editing program etc. What do most people use this amazing device for? Posting selfies of themselves on social media or other rubbish.

After you have crunched the numbers, if it appears viable, calculate the minimum investment you need. The idea behind Antifragile, is to keep risk fixed, while potential profit is theoretically unlimited. Expect that you will lose your initial investment, then eventually you will have to make the leap. Ideally, you should be working while you do this, that way if you lose it will not be a catastrophic event. Even if you fail, in the process you will have gained skills which will increase the chances of your next venture. For example, things like learning how to make a web presence can be used in your next venture. If you attempted to get web traffic by buying facebook or other social media traffic, this knowledge can be use again. For $100, you can learn how to target facebook traffic and make bids. You don’t need to spend a lot, learn by doing.

Further directions

Learn by doing. An antifragile approach is potential loss should be fixed while potential gains should be unlimited. Also, your plans should be more objective oriented as opposed to procedural oriented. This allows more flexibility. It is better to cut out early before the losses become catastrophic. Using a poker analogy, it isn’t how many hands of poker you win, it is how much money you win. And no, I didn’t always follow my own advice, but at least everytime I learned.

I need research money to investigate the economic viability of openning a girly bar. Help contribute to my research by sending me bitcoin, here is my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

An idea or object doesn’t exist in our consciousness till a word is created for it. You might experience the effects of this idea or object, you might subconsciously know it is there but it doesn’t exist till it has a name. An example of this is gravity until Sir Issac Newton invented the term gravity it didn’t exist in our consciousness. Gravity is something which affects every living being but people didn’t know the effects of gravity till Newton invented a term for it. Once a term has been invented for something, it seems obvious. Once a term for gravity was invented, we could do all sorts of things, calculate how far cannonballs would fly out of cannons to launching spacecraft.

Someone recommended on Reddit that the book, The Millionaire Fastlane was a good book to read. Despite its hokey title and cover, I decided to read it. The book is poorly written, rambles on in places, it feels like he does this to create enough material to justify a book. But it does have many good ideas which I will cover in this post coupled with my own experiences. Half of the book is where he describes the three roads to wealth. The book brought about awareness of ideas which I did not consciously know existed. Lets look at the three paths to wealth.

Poorness - the sidewalk

This describes a great deal of the population, they live from paycheque from paycheque, they have zero savings, they are usually in debt. They will spend their money or go into debt to spend their money on glamorous things that have no value. They are of the opinion that getting wealthy is largely a matter of luck or there must be some secret. Usually, they fall victim to every Multilevel Marketing Scam out there and would probably send me $1000 for my sure fire method to gain wealth.

The people on this path always need the latest iPhone X, then they will be boasting on how it has a new type of headphone jack. Of course, to buy this new iPhone X, they used credit. Banks and stores love these types of people. Many retail shops make more money on providing credit than actually selling the item. The retail shop can borrow the money at close to the prime rate, they then lend out the money at 15% for 2 years. As an added bonus, the retail shop has a guaranteed income for the two years. There is nothing wrong with buying the new iPhone X or flashy clothes, providing you are spending money you have. The new iPhone X does not create wealth. With your old iPhone, you to call people and send SMS just as well as the new iPhone X.

Of course, if you ask the person on this road, did they read a book or a blog. They will tell you they don’t have money to buy books or time to read a blog. They have no interest in attempting to better their situation. Their priorities are messed up, lots of money for iPhone X, no money for important things. Substitute iPhone X for a designer purse, clothes, watch, automobile etc. Instead of looking at functionality, they are looking at impressing people with fancy things. The next road is the one which your school guidance counselor recommended and possibly your parents. My parents always pointed out the importance of saving money and security, this is the road they recommended. Not to say, my parents, where stupid, no one told them differently.

Mediocrity–The Slowlane

This is the 1950’s dream, go to college or university, get a degree then work for a good company until 65 and retire. Your teachers and guidance counselors recommended the same thing because they are stuck on this road. The premise is you save X dollar a month, the company you work for offers a good pension by 65 you should be set. The 1950’s companies no longer exist, due to globalization, the security is an illusion. Even the military in many countries is no longer a secure option. The military is outsourcing and they are cutting pensions. Inevitably if you are graduating school, this will be the lane you will have to start in but as soon as possible, look for opportunities to switch to a faster lane.

Personally, if you have the opportunity, get a higher education. Knowledge is always useful, just be aware of the limitations. When you are working in the slow lane, the skills you learn are what is good for the company, not what is good for you. This skills you learn are ones which are applicable to company’s policies. If you work for Starbucks making coffee, you learn how to make coffee in a way that is best for Starbucks. If you get a job elsewhere, these skills are non-transferable. Except for certain types of jobs, like sales, this is usually the case. Often the best salesmen started out selling used cars or insurance, selling/marketing is a transferable skill.

Working for someone else, you essentially exchanging your time for money. Money earned equals your intrinsic value multiplied by hours worked. To earn more money, you either work more hours or increase your intrinsic value. For many jobs your intrinsic value is essentially locked, even if you are the best teacher in the country or the best coffee maker at Starbucks, you will still earn the same amount of money. The best you can hope for is some plaque at the Christmas party. There are exceptions to this, usually sales and people who are good at playing company politics. If you are a good salesman, you are in a bargaining position. If you are good at company politics, maybe you could work your way up the corporate ladder. Usually, the company works using implied promises which often use implied security. The company wants as few employees as possible with intrinsic value so they are not in a bargaining position.

The slow lane isn’t a bad lane for everyone, providing you can get a career which has a high intrinsic value. A heart surgeon, good plastic surgeon etc are careers with a high intrinsic value. If you are good at this profession, people do not care what your political values or beliefs are, just as look as you can save their life or make them look good. I saw some cream made of the placenta, or basically after birth. Allegedly, this cream rejuvenates the skin and makes you look 20 years younger. Anyone who is willing to rub afterbirth all over themselves probably isn’t too worried about using a plastic surgeon who is politically incorrect. For normal people like myself, I lack the ability or skills to get this type of career. So what is the other option?

The fast lane

The amount of wealth you have is dependent on your disposable income. A person who makes $2,000 a month but has $1,000 a month expense has a greater disposable income than a person who makes $10,000 a month but has $9,000 a month expense. The second important factor is how many hours per a week you are working. If you need to work 100 hours a week, this will not give you much time for leisure. As you probably figured out, the fast lane involves starting your own business. Conventional wisdom states that starting your own business is risky, 80% of new businesses fail within 5 years. I will address this in my next post. Lets look at the advantages of starting your own business.

You are in control of more variables

In the slow lane, you could only control two variables, the time you worked and your intrinsic value. This meant you didn’t have much bargaining power when it came to earning more money. You could either work more hours or attempt to increase your intrinsic value. With your own business, you control a greater number of variables. The more variables you control, the better your bargaining position. If you decide to sell hamburgers, you control an infinite amount of variables. For an exercise, let’s look at the variables you control.

• price - you decide how much you want to sell the burgers for. You could sell cheaper than McD and offer a lower quality burger or more expensive and a higher quality burger.
• the burger itself - this ranges from the size, and type of bun, the size, and type of meat used inside the burger. What type of dressings go inside the burger.
• where you will sell the burgers - the physical locations where you plan to sell the burgers. This could be a certain physical location to selling on-line.
• type of establishment used to sell burgers - this can range from a vendor’s cart to selling the burgers in a five-star establishment.
• your suppliers - this ranges from the physical location of the supplier to what you want to buy. For example, you could decide to buy wheat directly from a farmer and grind it yourself into flour and make into buns. The same with the meat, buy cows directly from a farmer to using premade hamburger patties.

Honestly, I do not know much about burgers except for eating them. I know lots of other people like to eat burgers which indicate there is a market for burgers. Since you can change an infinite number of variables, you can decide what part of the market you want to cater to. Also, the is the possibly of combining burgers with another product. Certain types of products have more variables than others. This is why farmers who produce things like rice, wheat, sugar cane etc do not make much profit. There are fewer variables which can be changed. All sugar is sucrose, whether it comes from sugar cane or sugar beets doesn’t matter. You can only compete on price. It was just a mental exercise, I strongly advice, do not open a burger place unless you know about burgers.

The skills you learn will benefit you

Even if you setup a simple burger stand, you will learn many skills which benefit you and can be reused if your burger stand fails or you decide to set up another venture. These are skills which you will not learn working from someone else. To set up a burger stand, you will need to get a business license, food permits etc. You will need to learn basic accounting skills, how to do inventory, file business taxes etc. Each of these skills can be applied to other ventures. By contrast, when you work for someone else, most of the skills you learn benefit your employer as opposed to you.

It is always the unexpected problems which will cause you to fail. You might argue that you should have expected these problems, if you could have predicted them, they would not be unexpected. You will learn how to find information and apply it to solving these types of problems, this is something you won’t learn working for someone else. Common unexpected problems are usually accounting and taxes, the bookkeeper you hired wasn’t filing properly, you then need to go down to the tax department and negotiate. It is always lack of information, which is the small details, which screw you up. You then need to figure out a solution.

The secret is in figuring out how to scale your business

The difference between your average burger stand and McDonalds is McDonalds has figured out how to scale. How to replicate thousands of burger shops that provide the same experience for their customers everywhere. Most people when they set up a business are contractors, essentially they are employees who are exchanging time for money. Initially, when you start your business, you will be exchanging time for money. Unfortunately, most businesses never get past this point. Before your business can scale, you need a successful business to start with. You then need to develop a system so your business can scale. This system is what differentiates Starbucks, McDonalds etc from a normal coffee shop or burger stand. It is this possibly which gives you the ability to increase your wealth greatly.

The secret is reoccurring income

If you scale your business using a franchise model, the reoccurring income comes selling products to the people who bought your franchise. This is a reoccurring income. You are able to do this because you can control more variable as I discussed earlier. Amazon originally started out as an on-line vendor selling books. They then allowed other sellers to use their platform to sell their products, this is a reoccurring income with a limited added expense to themselves. This is a form of reoccurring income.

There are more obvious methods of generating reoccurring income, of course, it comes with greater difficulty. Creating a book, video etc is a form of reoccurring income. Once the book has been created, if people like the book, you can potentially sell copies of the book in the future. The cost of creating the book is fixed while their potential returns on the book are infinite. Of course creating a book which people will buy is extremely difficult, I am just using it as an example. I have given reasons why you should start your own business, it is good to look at reasons why people don’t start their own business.

There is no magic bullet, There is no magic bullet

Most people are willing to put in the effort but they want guaranteed results. They also do not want to think too much. On one of my previous posts The manosphere is in the process of forging a new male identity a reader made these comments:

These long theory posts tell me nothing about approaching, sexual strategy and the like. They are filled with generalizations and they fail to address sexual strategy.
Do you (weight) lift? Approach? I don’t get these posts.
I am asking you if you approach, if you lift or if you just theorize.
Yeah but it is just a bunch of massive generalizations that tell us nothing about sexual strategy for men.

I quoted the readers comments since he does have a valid point. Possibly he is a younger male reader, the parts of his young male brain that regulate sexual desire are three times as large as a female. He wants to know how he can get laid. I am not politically correct, when I was his age, that is all I could think of. In fairness, he is willing to put in the effort but he wants a magic system, I thought the same thing when I was his age. Here are the facts.

The less she has been drinking, the more likely he is to experience about 150 risks of rejection between eye contact and intercourse. And, of course, the 150 risks of rejection are more likely to be experienced if the woman is one of the 40 percents who says “no” when she means “yes.” Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

Whether or not the figure of 150 is accurate is irrelevant. The point is on average, the man has to approach the woman many times and most of the time he will be rejected. The reader wants a magic bullet or system, like what he learned in school. The teacher gives you a math problem, 3 times X plus 22 equals 155. The teach previously showed you a method to solve similar problems. You then use this method to solve for X. If you work for someone else, your boss will give you similar problems. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work when for most problems in the real world.

How is the problem of our young male reader getting laid similar to running a business? In both cases there are rules or laws in what you are not allowed to do, there are not rules or laws on what you should do. So our younger reader getting laid, the are laws he should not rape the woman and in some jurisdictions, he should not resort to prostitution. Other primates have similar rules, male chimpanzees that are caught raping female chimpanzees are usually beaten up by a gang of angry female chimpanzees. So even if you are a male chimpanzee, it is advisable to follow the rules, unless you want your head smashed in with a rock.

Atleast our young reader has clued in that the better his product is, the less likely he will be rejected when he approaches women for sex. So he is asking about weight lifting, obviously, a man who is fit will be less likely to get rejected then one who is four hundred pounds. Tall men are less likely to be rejected then, short men. This is the reality its The way things are, and the way they ought to be, most people need shit to escape reality, life is not fair, get over it. When you are starting out your business, you are running at a disadvantage, you are the guy who is five feet tall. For practical purposes, you can not change your height but you can change other variables. What variables can or should you change?

There are no fixed answers. The only way to figure out is by trial and error. That means approaching women, getting rejected and then learning from your errors. Many times the variables you can change are not obvious, for example, if our young reader is five feet tall, he could increase his chances of success by moving to a place where the average height is four and a half feet tall, that is a variable he could change. Then he would be a tall man. This was the purpose behind my post Finding better solutions by thinking inside the box, a method of trying to figure out what variables you can change.

Whether you are starting a business or learning how to get laid, expect lots of failure and rejection. It is part of the learning process. My next post will be on how to limit the costs of this failure and rejection. There is no magic bullet, I repeat again, there is no magic bullet. Your failures will be something you have to suffer alone and learn from.

You are going to have to do this by yourself

One of the biggest mistakes one can make is getting a business partner. People usually have the wrong motives when they get a business partner, they want to avoid failure by themselves. What usually happens is when things go wrong, instead of fixing problems, each partner will attempt to transfer blame. There will also be disagreements about how the work should be split. Finally, there will be disagreements about the directions the business will take.

An extreme example is small business cooperatives, example, a group of carpenters get together to open a furniture manufacturing business. Each of the carpenters is a craftsman and talented, yet the cooperative often fails or doesn’t reach its full potential. One of the carpenters’ researches and finds out there is a market for religious icon tables. Instead of being able to right away making a religious icon table, he will spend most of his time convincing the other carpenters in the coop it is a good idea. If the idea fails, the rest of the carpenters will say what a stupid idea it was. The one advantage a small business has is its ability to change direction quickly, with a business partner you lose this advantage. The more business partners you have, the more you will lose this advantage. Note, there is a difference between a business partner and an investor.

Human beings are herd animals, similar to cows or sheep. When a wolf approaches, all the sheep huddle together. Humans like to think they are smarter then sheep, one of the most difficult jobs of an infantry Sergeant is training recruits not to cluster together. Modern weapons like hand grenades, mortar rounds, and artillery shells are proximity weapons. A hand grenade has an effective casualty radius of 15 yards, that means if an infantry squad of 8 men is huddled in a circle of with a radius 5 yards, one grenade kills them all. This is driven into the recruit’s head repeatedly keep a 10-yard spacing, even in training exercises, the moment he comes under fire, he instinctively moves closer to his buddies. Even with trained soldiers, if you are tired, in a dangerous situation, you instinctively want to get close to your buddies. If possible, avoid making decisions when tired, your primitive brain starts to take over then. The job of the Sergant is to ensure your primitive brain isn’t running things, in this case

The Sergeant has to ensure proper spacing is kept.

So expect lots of sleepless nights trying to figure out problems, by yourself, like how to pay suppliers, how to increase sales etc. This is something you will have to face alone. This doesn’t mean you should not ask others for advice, just remember you will be ultimately responsible for the decision of using this advice. You are by yourself, you have to accept that. Of course, if you are successful, expect lots of people saying they always believed in you, you where lucky etc.

You are not going to have your dream job

The Gambino family back in Italy didn’t say, let’s all migrate to New York City and get our dream job monopolizing the garbage collection of New York City. Even in the criminal world, there are jobs which others do not want to do. With this family, they go into elimination, removal, and cleanup of bodies. It’s not glamorous like owning a night club selling illegal alcoholic beverages. To dispose of these bodies, this mafia family figured out a garbage cart and later a garbage truck was useful.

As a secondary benefit, they decided to use the garbage cart to help people dispose of their garbage. This mafia family identified a need, people have garage they want to dispose of, this garbage truck when it isn’t being used to dispose of bodies it can be used to dispose of garbage. After a while, their business of disposing of garbage was more profitable than making people disappear. Making people disappear is also a high-risk occupation, the is the potential of death, incarceration etc. Eventually, they had a whole fleet of garbage trucks and they got out of the body removal, cleanup, and disposal business.

I am not advocating one should do criminal activities, the point is, your business needs to satisfy the needs of your potential consumers. The type of business you open is dependent on your abilities. For the Gambino family who migrated from Italy, their skills were limited. Lack of education, inability to speak English etc. limited their business opportunities but they identified a need. Then using their limited skills, they satisfied their customer’s needs.

When I did on-line marketing years ago, a Catholic priest asked me what I did. It was difficult to question to answer, since more people didn’t know what on-line marketing was at the time. I then turned to the priest and said, Father, I sell people useless stuff they do not need. The priest then asked how do I do this? I told him, Father I satisfy people’s wants by using the Internet and selling them useless garbage. The Catholic priest then broke out laughing and said, you are one of the most honest people I met in a long time.

Most people are inherently stuck in the sidewalk road, they believe that material things can satisfy their wants. Your job is to satisfy people’s wants with the best possible product or service at the best possible price. Myself, my needs are fairly small, enough food every day, a bed to sleep in and a roof over my head. My needs and wants are not the same as the needs and wants of my consumers. Your business needs to satisfy the needs and wants of your consumers, not your needs and wants.

Further directions

There are no magic bullets, I repeat again, there are no magic bullets. Look around and start identifying needs or wants of people and how you can satisfy them. Be prepared for lots of failure and disappointment in trying to satisfy these needs and wants. The only way you can learn how to do this is by experience. Experience only comes from learning how to overcome failure.

Before you run out and start your business, wait till my next post. It will deal with how to start up your business and minimize the catastrophic effects of failure. I am an expert in failure, failure itself isn’t bad, providing you learn from it. The key is to avoid catastrophic failure, which means if you get yourself in sticky situations figuring a way how to extract yourself with a minimum of damage. In this post, I gave the reasons why one should not have a business partner, I learned that the hard way. Income tax and accounting problems, again I learned that the hard way.

With the income tax problem, I thought my accountant and business partner where filing the taxes correctly. To my shock, I found out several years later, they where not, I received a summons from the tax department. I then right away went to them, I told them ignorance of the law is not an excuse but I believed I everything was being filed correctly. When the tax department saw I was willing to cooperate 100%, we where able to work out a deal where I would pay them what I owed with a minimum of fines. I was extremely fortunate. Ultimately, I was responsible, I should have learned to the procedures work and ensured they where being followed correctly. Point is, learn from my mistakes.

I need research money to investigate the economic viability of openning a girly bar. Help contribute to my research by sending me bitcoin, here is my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

What is a narcissist?

Narcissistic personality disorder(NPD) is often associated with bipolar disorder. In both cases, it can appear as if you are dealing with two different personalities. With the narcissist, the person can be extremely charming and personable then they will switch and start transferring blame onto their victims. The best descriptions of a narcissist are by M Scott Peck, the Christian American psychiatrist.

Rather than blissfully lacking a sense of morality, like the sociopath, they are continually engaged in sweeping the evidence of their evil under the rug of their own consciousness. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil

The difference between a sociopath/psychopath and a narcissist is the narcissist appears to base their decisions on morality or popular opinion. James H. Fallon the researcher who studied psychopaths, was able to get the psychopath to described the reasoning behind their decisions. If there are no legal repercussions, the psychopath was more than willing explain his reasoning. Their reasoning was extremely logical, it just lacked a moral basis. On the other hand, the narcissist even if confronted with the truth, will deny. If the narcissist can not escape the truth, they will attempt to deflect.

Narcissist sees themselves as perfect

The sociopath, unlike the narcissist, can disconnect from their ego. With the narcissist, they start to believe the lies which they have used to create an alter-ego.

The evil are pathologically attached to the status quo of their personalities, which in their narcissism they consciously regard as perfect. I think it is quite possible that the evil may perceive even a small degree of change in their beloved selves as representing total annihilation. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil

Within the narcissist, there are two egos, the real ego, and the alter-ego the narcissist uses to hide their real ego. Unlike M Scott Peck, I do not believe in demonic possession but you can see how it would explain things. If you viewed the alter-ego as a demonic possession, this ego has taken over the narcissist. This is why when confronting the narcissist with the truth, they can become dangerous, essentially you are threatening their alter-ego with distruction.

The narcissist projects their ego onto the world

There are boundaries to the individual soul. And in our dealings with each other, we generally respect these boundaries. It is characteristic of—and a prerequisite for—mental health that our own ego boundaries should be clear and that we should clearly recognize the boundaries of others. We must know where we end and others begin. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil

The narcissist sees other people as part of themselves. Essentially the narcissist projects their ego over everyone else. If a narcissist is having an affair, they will accuse the other person of having an affair. This projection allows the narcissist to avoid self-examination, it also distracts from the issue that the narcissist is having an affair.

Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world’s fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad.

They project their own evil onto the world. They never think of themselves as evil; on the other hand, they consequently see much evil in others…Evil, then, is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people I label as evil are chronic scapegoaters….The evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil

M Scott Peck‘s description of a narcissist differs from conventional descriptions which state that the narcissist has a fragile ego. The false ego which he calls evil has dominated the narcissist. They can never accept responsibility for their own actions, they will always attempt to transfer blame to others. This is why conventional therapy for narcissists fails. For therapy to work, the person needs to accept responsibility for their actions. The narcissist can never accept responsibility because it will destroy their false ego which will result in their own destruction.

Why the female narcissist is rarely discovered

The most effective liars are ones who believe their own lies. The female narcissist relies on gas-lighting their victims, as in making their victims doubt their own sense of reality. She benefits from playing the victim, in the process she scapegoats other people.

What, pray tell, is female power and male powerlessness? For starters, from the male perspective, many women have male-paralyzing beauty power, sexual power, verbal skills, and victim power, even as men are paralyzed by their biological instinct to protect women. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

If a man appears to be a victim, he loses power and status. By contrast, a woman who appears to be a victim gains power and status. This is why female narcissists are more likely to remain undiscovered. The female narcissist doesn’t mind being the victim providing in the process she appears to be a hero. Munchausen syndrome by proxy describes parents who harm their children to gain attention and sympathy. An extreme example of this was a mother who would slowly poison her own children to death over a period of months. When she would lose control over the child, one of her sons was getting married, she would poison the child. While slowly killing her son, she pretended to be the heroic caregiver to her son.

The cases that usually go undetected, the narcissistic mother makes the child self-doubt themselves, often she indirectly sabotages them. The sabotage often takes the guise of being caring. Initially, the narcissistic mother will be caring, thoughtful and giving gifts to her child. Then when the child doesn’t do exactly as she wants, she will stop being caring and lash out. If the child becomes angry, the mother then uses that as an excuse to seek help for her child. If the mother goes to therapy with her child, she will always twist it so she is the giving mother and the child is ungrateful. If the child attempts to show otherwise, under a guise of love, she will twist the truth so it appears the child is lying.

The narcissist is an expert at scapegoating. So with the child, she might make the father the scapegoat. Then with her husband, she will then make the child the scapegoat. In both cases, she will play the victim. For both the child and the husband she might appear to be the victim. So with the husband, she tells him that she can not handle the child, he steals and lies. She then might get the husband to punish the child. She then tells the child that she is the one trying to protect him from his father. If chaos erupts, the narcissistic mother enjoys that, since she will be the center of attention.

This cycle repeats itself continuously. The mother is ever attentive and caring for a period of time. Then she will find an excuse to cause conflict and chaos which appearing to be caring. Possibly she might even break down, claim things are all her fault but things will be different in the future. This is why narcissistic personality disorder can appear to be similar to bipolar disorder, it is like you are dealing with two different people. This cycle constantly repeats itself, this causes the victim to be constantly off balance.

Why daughters of single mothers are more likely to be narcissistic

The reason why the female narcissist often goes undetected is because men and women resolve conflicts differently.

Not all is perfectly calm during the juvenile pause. Little girls don’t usually exhibit aggression via rough-and-tumble play, wrestling, and punching the way little boys do. Girls may have, on average, better social skills, empathy, and emotional intelligence than boys—but don’t be fooled. This doesn’t mean that girls’ brains aren’t wired to use everything in their power to get what they want, and they can turn into little tyrants to accomplish their goals. What are those goals as dictated by the little girl’s brain? To forge connection, to create community, and to organize and orchestrate a girl’s world so that she’s at the center of it. This is where the female brain’s aggression plays out—it protects what’s important to it, which is always, inevitably, relationship. But aggression can push others away, and that would undermine the goal of the female brain. So a girl walks a fine line between making sure she’s at the center of her world of relationships and risking pushing those relationships away. The Female Brain

Young girls inherently want to be the center of their social circle. This differs from young boys who inherently want to control things. As children, we grow out of these behaviors. But as I showed in my post The Female Brain - a manipulation machine the female obtains her objectives differently. Inherently men want to be right, even if it doesn’t directly benefit them. By contrast, women do not mind being wrong, providing they achieve their objectives. Therefore a woman doesn’t mind being a victim, providing she obtains her objectives. With the female narcissist, she has no qualms about pretending to be wrong or playing the victim. This is why she is less likely to be discovered compared to the male narcissist. Without a father present, a young girl has a greater tendency to become a narcissist.

The female inherently gets power by proxy, this is why female narcissist is more likely to go undetected. History is full of women who ruled by proxy, Empress Dowager Cixi effectively ruled China by proxy for 47 years from 1861 until 1908. Ruling by proxy isn’t limited to women, if something goes wrong, the person or organization can avoid responsibility. Religion is an example of ruling by proxy, in feudal Europe, the pope had a tremendous amount of influence but no direct power. The ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, many of the victims were Muslims, it was done by Christian soldiers blessed by priests. Afterward, the Catholic church claimed they didn’t know what was happening, they deny responsibility. Meanwhile, you can find videos of Catholic priests blessing soldiers before they went to do God’s work. Muslim soldiers got blessed also before doing God’s work by their respective clergy unfortunately for them, their God didn’t provide them with as many numbers and as good of weapons.

The two characteristics of children raised by single dads that most surprised me are, first, that they are more likely to be assertive, but less likely to be aggressive, and, even more surprising, that they are more likely to be empathetic.
Apparently, even though moms are themselves more empathetic, giving empathy to a child teaches a child how to receive empathy, but not give it. Dads more often require the child to think of others’ needs by enforcing consequences if the child doesn’t, which makes it in the child’s self-interest to think of others’ needs.
These outcomes occur even though one- and two-year-old children of divorce with developmental disabilities are fifteen times more likely to be given to fathers to raise and even though children who are raised by moms and have problems with drinking, drugs, depression, delinquency, and disobedience are most likely to be given to their dads to “take over” in early teenage years. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

Daughters raised by single mothers would get used to receiving empathy but not giving any. Since women prioritize social connections one can assume that a single mother would make excuses for her daughter’s bad behavior. On the other hand, the father will be more concerned about teaching the child the consequences of their actions. One of M Scott Peck‘s reoccurring themes in all his books is accepting responsibility for their actions. With social media, young women can get all the male validation they want. There are some indicators that it increases narcissistic tendencies.

Detecting a female narcissist

Since I distinguish between evil people and ordinary criminals, I also obviously make the distinction between evil as a personality characteristic and evil deeds. In other words, evil deeds do not an evil person make. Otherwise, we should all be evil, because we all do evil things.

Detecting a female narcissist for a man is difficult. To paraphrase M Scott Peck, the difference between a narcissist and a regular person is how they handle errors. The majority of people realize they have committed a wrong by contrast a narcissist hides their wrongs. Most people underestimate the effort and determination that narcissists put into hiding their wrongs. Unless you deal with the narcissist directly, it can be impossible to detect them, on the surface they can appear to upstanding members of the community etc.

A key component of a narcissist is they can be extremely charming. Part of being charming appearing to have the same values and desires as the other person. The woman has the advantage since they are better at reading other people than men. The charming female narcissist knows how to stroke the man’s ego. This then sets the man off guard. Her ultimate goal is to entrap the man psychologically and other ways. Often she might intentionally allow the man to get his way to cater to the man’s ego.

The female narcissist’s tools are projection, scapegoating, gas-lighting and deflection. Projection is combined with scapegoating. She will find a suitable scapegoat, then project her evil intentions onto that target. Under the guise of caring, she will than might warn you about the scapegoat. This deflects from her shortcomings and causes chaos and confusion. She enjoys drama and chaos, providing it deflects from her and gives her the opportunity to be the hero. She is a master of cause a problem then fix it. This then causes you to mistrust others. The mistake most victims realize is they underestimate the length and efforts to which the narcissist will go. Unlike normal criminals, a narcissist isn’t lazy.

The female narcissist is constantly probing for weakness

The fable of Samson and Delilah in the Bible is representative of the female narcissist. She will constantly probe for weakness. She does this by being a temptress and then often allowing the victim to win beta traps. I talked about beta traps in http://acrackletsthelightin.info/2017/01/13/Breaking-frames-to-escape-beta-traps/, allowing your victim to win a beta trap is counter intuitive. The female narcissist knows it does not matter how many battles she wins but ultimately who wins the war. Allowing her victim to win a beta trap boosts his ego and allows her to probe for weakness. Once Delilah discovered Samson’s weakness, she destroyed him. To detect the female narcissist, it is important to keep an outside frame of reference.

You must keep an outside frame of reference

The female narcissist attempts to cut off the victim from people who offer an outside frame of reference. She uses scapegoating and deflection under the guise of caring. Repeatedly on my blog, I talk about the importance of framing. Linguists have proven language is essentially framing. The sentence: The car was traveling fast in a school zone, inherently involves framing. The word fast implies the car was traveling faster than other cars normally travel in school zones. Compared to a comet, all cars travel show. A comet compared to the speed of light is traveling slowly.

The female narcissist attempts to cut you off from people who do not support her reference frame. This serves two purposes, first the victim becomes more dependent on her, the second is her reality essentially becomes your reality. Once the female narcissist has achieved this, she essentially controls the victim.

If you suspect, do not confront the female narcissist

The biggest mistake victims make is when they suspect something, they immediately confront the narcissist. Most people when confronted will usually admit responsibility, by contrast, the narcissist will deflect. Worse yet, the narcissist will feel threatened. The female narcissist unlike the male narcissist if her deflections do not work, will not lash out. Instead it will cause her to try and cover up her tracks and then attempt to entrap her victim. Her methods are usually indirect ones.

Usually, she will attempt to set the victim up. For example, she will play the victim to other people. So she will scapegoat her victim to others, tell them he is violent, prone to rage fits while playing the martyr. While doing this, she will repeatedly provoke the victim, if he lashes nail him using violence against women laws for example.

One of the weaknesses of the narcissist is they over estimate their abilities. If you play along, they female narcissist will start to get careless, while she is doing this attempt to figure out ways to extradite yourself from her trap. Eventually, overwhelming evidence will show her true nature.

Escaping the narcissist

Unlike M Scott Peck, I have not seen any evidence of supernatural entities. Regardless his description of narcissists is valuable. More importantly, he shows there is no practical cure for narcissism. All psychological therapy involves the patient accepting they have a problem and then becoming willing to take action. As M Scott Peck has shown, accepting responsibility for the narcissist ultimately results in the destruction of their alter-ego. The narcissist sees this as self-destruction.

Once you have escaped the narcissist, she possibly might attempt to lure you back. She will promise she has changed, things will be different now, do not fall into this trap. The goal of the narcissist is the total destruction of their victims, this is needed to feed their alter-ego. A narcissist is more dangerous than a sociopath since the narcissist needs to protect and feed their alter-ego. By contrast, the psychopath if they see the victim can no longer is useful, they just discard the victim. Destroying the victim is illogical from a psychopath’s perspective, it is wasted effort. Once you have escaped the narcissist, they will be baffled that their charm no longer works, in this case, they can become extremely hostile.

One of the mistakes people make is they assume they are too intelligent to fall for this. Water always wears down a rock, do not underestimate the patience of a female narcissist. The book [Napoleon a life], draws on never released personal correspondence of Napoleon. Napoleon rivals Julius Caesar both militarily and on the civil structures, he created. He set up civil structures that exist to this day and created modern France. Whether or not Josephine was a narcissist is unknown but everyone agrees she was extremely charming. Despite her constant betrayal, she was one of the few people who could bend Napoleon’s will. On a deeper level, Napoleon became dependent on Josephine for the social contacts she created for him.

The point is few men have a mind rivaling Napoleon’s mind. He could open and close sections of his mind and could see the smallest details while seeing the big picture. During a lull in a battle, he could write correspondence dealing with mundane problems like the motto of a regiment. On the other hand, he could write a letter dealing with how to set up a constitution for Italy. Yet, he became dependent on Josephine. The female narcissist is like water on a rock, eventually, she will manage to wear the rock down.

Further directions

There is a lot of literature on gas-lighting, scapegoating, projection, deflection etc. That is why I didn’t discuss these methods in detail. Once the victim manages to escape the narcissist, the narcissist will then move on and attempt to create a new life. Possibly due to social media and the increased amount of women raised by single mothers, female narcissism might be on the rise. On the other hand, modern technology and awareness might make it easier to detect female narcissists.

It wasn’t until the discovery of forensic science that it was proven women murder their husbands and children. This initially shocked people including the police investigating the crimes. Most of the time, poison was the weapon of choice for women. Until forensic science, it was almost impossible to detect murder by poison. Munchausen syndrome by proxy, where parents but primarily women, intentionally harm their children for personal gain, was unknown till the 1950’s but it is only recently it has become accepted.

Karla Homolka the Canadian Serial Killer with her husband raped and killed three girls. Karla Homolka claimed her husband was the instigator of the crimes, as a result she got a reduced sentence and has since been released from prison. Later after the plea bargain, to the shock of both the general population and psychiatrists, videotapes showed Karla Homolka was the instigator. Initially, it was believed that Karla Homolka was a unique case but similar cases have been discovered. Without modern technology, these crimes would have gone undetected.

The prevalent view used to be that narcissists suffered from low self-esteem. M Scott Peck in his book People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil was one of the first mainstream psychiatrists to propose the underlying causes are different. This is why, despite its religious undertones, the book has been studied by even non-religious psychiatric researchers.

Hopefully you have found this post helpful, if you have, send me bitcoin at 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philippines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Originally gender identity was defined by the environment

Gender roles in early society where determined by environment. Whether the society is a hunter-gatherer society or an agricultural one, the primary role of men was to provide food and protect. The primary role of women was to prepare this food, produce children and look after children. Before modern technology, this involved a lot of work for both men and women. Women needed to be able to fetch water, firewood, prepare the foodelsewhereetc. For the preparation of food, this involves more than cooking. To make bread, the woman would need to separate the wheat from the chaff, then she would need to grind the wheat into flour, then eventually she could make bread. She also produced clothes, this entailed taking a fiber, like wool, spinning it into a thread, this thread would be woven into cloth which would be made into clothes.

Physical strength and the fact women produce and nurse babies and determined these gender roles. In an early society, without machines, men are better at hunting or agricultural because they are stronger. Men were producers. Women could do jobs where physical strength wasn’t as important, their role was refining what men produced. Feminists will to argue otherwise, they will cite examples like the women hunters of the Philippines. The Philippines differs from other areas in that there are no predators which attack humans. The Filipino female hunters are an exception as opposed to the rule. If women carrying around babies while hunting is an optimal solution, all societies would have adopted it.

In the cases where women did produce as much food as men, men were still required for protectors. I cited this book before, Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, it shows early societies were extremely violent. In early societies, 25% of males would die due to violence. When women did produce as much food as men, men were required to protect this territory. All primates, except Bonobo monkeys, have high rates of male violence. The Bonobo monkey again is an exception to the rule because of their environment. They exist in an environment where due to geography they are protected and have no natural predators.

Early men and women’s roles were determined by the environment, they were too busy surviving, to ponder what it means to be a man or a woman. This then brings into question, what was the relationship between men and women in early societies.

Initially the relationship between and women was one of mutual survival

To illustrate a point, I have simplified things. In traditional societies, men and women were dependent on each other. Men produced things and provided protection, Women then refined the things men produced to make food and clothes, coupled with this women produced children. As I showed in my post, Electricity, Steam, and cotton are responsible for female rights, not feminists these gender roles started to break down with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution allowed a division of labor, this meant that men and women were no longer as economically dependent on each other.

Women, since they were no longer as economically dependent on men, could demand equal rights. This was the birth of woman’s suffrage which later would be known as feminism. When people think of feminism, they think it involves only woman’s rights. What , is feminism also involved women thinking about what is their identity besides being a baby producing machine who looks after the house. They asked questions like, what does it mean to be a woman, how women feel emotionally and react to things differently than men?

Women’s identity has evolved while men are still stuck in the role of provider and protector

The conservative expects women to receive special protection via social custom. The liberal expects women to receive special protection via government programs. The conservative assumes most women want the traditional female roles, and the traditional female role requires men to protect women. The liberal assumes men’s old roles were power and privilege designed to serve men rather than to be men’s way of protecting women, so the liberal feels women need protection to compensate for the male power structure. Both conservative and liberal therefore conclude that men should protect women and no one should protect men. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

fantasies up the role of men regardless whether the man has a liberal or conservative viewpoint. The only difference between liberal and conservative is whether the man pays directly. If the man is liberal, he pays indirectly through increased taxes, increased chances he will get falsely accused of rape etc. In both cases whether the man is expected to be a protector and a provider. The man’s identity is linked directly to how well he can provide and protect.

Woman’s awakening was caused by the economic changes caused by the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, men’s awakening is being caused since it is no longer possible to hide the reality of sexual relationships between men and women. The reality is, men, desire physical sex more than women, on the other hand, the woman still wants a man who is able to be a protector and a provider. The conservative wants to turn back things to before the Industrial Revolution unless society totally breaks down, this isn’t possible. Instinctively people know this, probably this is why apocalypse fiction is popular, it caters to this fantasy of returning to traditional gender models.

How a male identity is developing

As a result of the inattention to male powerlessness and female power, men are as ignorant about their own powerlessness and female power as women in the 1950s were about their own powerlessness and male power. And as a result, men today are psychologically about where women were in the 1950s. The last half century has not been a battle of the sexes, but a war in which only one side has shown up. Men have put their heads in the sand and hoped the bullets would miss. The less sense this makes now, the more you need genuine men’s studies. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

I was talking to a single mother, she has two sons, she is raising them to be perfect gentlemen. Men that will know how to treat women properly. Meanwhile, if a woman has a daughter she will raise them to be strong, independent women. The message this mother is sending is the purpose of her sons is to help women become strong and independent. That her sons need women for their own self-fulfillment. MGTOW and the red pill are addressing this issue in that they are saying men do not need women for their own happiness.

Feminists are saying that they do not need men. Yet when men say they do not need women, they are sexist, they hate women. This in itself is a good starting point, it will force women to become independent. Women are saying they want a man who is emotionally supportive, yet the reverse does not hold true. Women are more aware of what their own psychological needs are. They then are demanding that men meet these psychological and emotional needs, yet they can not provide the same for men.

Why women can not emotionally support men?

And women develop support systems. Women’s traditional support systems support women to be vulnerable; men’s traditional support systems support men to be vulnerable.
This creates a paradox: The support men get to be invulnerable makes them more vulnerable; the support women get to be vulnerable makes them less vulnerable. It is just one example of how women’s strength is their facade of weakness and men’s weakness is their facade of strength. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

The accusation of feminists is most history is men’s history. No, most history is men that succeeded, men who fail are forgotten. If the men who have failed are remembered, it usually is this is what this man did wrong, don’t be stupid like him. Ultimately the skills which men used to succeed where ones which evolved from protecting women. Most of the male heroes were war heroes, this was ultimately in the defense of society and women benefited from it.

This is another aspect of why men suffer more from The Soul Mate Myth than women. Inherently, want a partner to share their emotional burden. But if they share their weakness or problems with a woman, the woman loses attraction. By contrast, a man doesn’t find a woman who is a victim to be unattractive, on the contrary, it caters to many men’s fantasies of being the hero and rescuing the woman. Coupled with this is men want to find solutions while women want to talk about emotions.

If I could impart one lesson to women that I learned in writing this book, it would be that understanding the biology of the male brain helps us relate better to the male reality. Much of the conflict that exists between men and women is fueled by unrealistic expectations that stem from failing to grasp each other’s innate differences. To men, I would say I hope that shedding light on the male brain’s tendencies and its physiological responses to hormones will clarify the basis for your natural urges and the way you think, feel, and communicate. My belief is that this information can provide men with a sense of relief at finally being understood. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Modern society has created unrealistic expectations for both men and women with their relationships with the opposite sex. In The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think it describes a woman who is upset with her husband for being overly competitive. But due to evolution, it was these qualities which attracted her to him in the first place. Two hundred years ago, it wouldn’t have been a problem since both of them would have been too tired at the end of the day to fight. Or possibly, the man might have spent his time in the local tavern.

These unrealistic expectations cause a lot of unhappiness, the woman expects a partner who is emotionally available for her. On the other hand, she can not be emotionally available for him. This creates animosity within the relationship.

When men speak out they are silenced

Women and Feminists say men should express themselves more. What they mean is, men should say things which follow the woman’s versions of reality. If men speak out what they really feel, they are silenced.

Other than talk radio, are there outlets for men’s feelings? The Internet originally held out hope. And men began speaking up, especially the nontechie men on America Online, who created forums such as the “Men’s Equal Rights” folder. Quite quickly the men’s forums on AOL were shut down. Censored. Is it fair to suggest that if this censorship happened to any other group on AOL it would have made the front pages? Yes. When the NewYork Times discovered AOL had suspended the heated debate between two opposing discussion groups on Ireland, the suspension made a three-column headline on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. And AOL’s censorship of men? Ignored by all the major media. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

The book is outdated, AOL no longer has a virtual monopoly on the Internet for the average user. But it illustrates a point. Feminists are allowed to criticize men but the reverse does not hold true. Any criticism, even if it is legitimate, is deflected by feminists as hatred. Yes, many men are angry because they are tired of not having their concerns heard. What feminists want is men to agree with them.

It isn’t until the last ten years that men have been able to use the Internet to speak out. The opposition they are facing is ironically similar to what early feminists faced. From the outside, feminism appears to have a solid front, internally feminism is divided. A similar situation exists with the manosphere movements. It is also similar in that most of the manosphere realizes that the traditional role for men is no longer valid. What this new role will be, the manosphere is still trying to figure out. We are at least fifty years behind feminists but thanks to the Internet we can catch up fast.

Forging a new male identity

The red pill and MGTOW both originated from the fact that due male and female relationships are no longer balanced. This is from both a legal and social perspective. The violence against women laws, for example, are biased towards women. The legal system assumes the man is the primary instigator of violence. Socially, the man is expected to ask the woman out, pay for most things on dates etc. The man still is stuck in the protector role. Despite affirmative action, combat roles in the military, police, and security are male domains. Military drafts in the military are limited to men, calls to expand this legislation to women have been blocked. The common themes for both groups are:

• Men are no longer need women in their traditional role. Thanks to supermarkets, cookbooks and household appliances, men can buy and cook their own food, they are also able to wash their own clothes etc. Ironically, this was the biggest complaint of feminists that men can not do these things. Now that most men can do these things, they find out they don’t need women.
• Men are no longer emotionally dependent on women. Growing up, a male would spend most of his time with his mother. To a large degree, getting married meant emotionally replacing his mother with a wife. As I showed in The dangerous soulmate myth, men are finding out they can get better emotional support else where. Society implies that a man’s life is meaningless without a woman, many men are finding out otherwise.
• men should refuse to be the provider and protector of women. Linked to the soulmate myth is the myth that men should behave like a gentleman and they will be rewarded. I was speaking with a single mother who had several sons. She stated that she is raising her sons to become gentlemen and respect women. The feminist definition of respect is that an opinion of a woman should be accepted, even if it is without merit. Men are now refusing to fit into these roles, this doesn’t mean they abuse women but the woman has to be able to back up her opinions.
• they are no longer ashamed to be men. Mainstream TV and movies often portray men and fathers as bumbling idiots. That the man should be ashamed just for being male, men in these groups are refusing to accept this stereotype.

The biggest question that these groups are attempting to answer is what does it mean to be a man?. There are some men who naively believe that they can roll back the clock and return to traditional gender roles, this isn’t possible. There are other men who are saying a new male identity has to be forged.

The manosphere is forcing feminists to react

People who want rights without responsibilities are like adolescents who want the rights to the car without the responsibilities for the payments, the gas, the insurance, or the repairs. A person who talks more about women’s rights than responsibilities is not an adult feminist, but an adolescent feminist. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

We have a paradox, the majority of women want to get married:

Of the respondents, 85.1 percent said that they’d like to be married by age 30. Specifically, 46.5 percent said they’d like to get married between age 25 and 27; 20.9 percent said they’d like to tie the knot between 28-30; and 17.1 percent want to walk down the aisle by their 25th birthdays. Survey: Most College Women Want to Be Married by 30

While the majority of men no longer want to get married:

Fewer young men in the US want to get married than ever, while the desire for marriage is rising among young women, according to the Pew Research Center.
Pew recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore

I randomly pulled these statistics from two websites to show that women still want to get married while men no longer want to get married. Instead of addressing the issue, feminists resort to men should man up or other shaming tactics. Or the resort to men who are critical of laws which give women an unfair advantage hate women. They then manosphere groups as spreading hate against women instead of addressing the issues, that marriage or relationships no longer are worthwhile for men.

There have been some accusations that the manosphere is similar to feminism. When it comes to developing a male identity and redefining male roles it shares a lot in common with early feminism. This in the long term will have a beneficial effect for feminism, they will be forced to accept more responsibilities to go with their increased rights. Indirectly this beneficial for feminism.

Further directions

The book Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate isn’t worth reading. Much of the information within the book is outdated, there is more accurate information available on MGTOW and Red Pill and men’s rights websites. The reason why I cited the book is because he poses the question What does it mean to be a man?. Linked to this he asks the question How are male and female relationships supposed to function?. Both his critics and supporters didn’t identify those two key points.

As he showed, in the past, mainstream media due to feminist pressure could suppress these issues. The author never envisioned the Internet where it is harder to suppress information. The red pill and MGTOW compared to feminism, are extremely young groups. On the other hand, when it comes to forging a male identity, they have achieved a lot more than feminism did in the same period of time. Personally, I never addressed the issue of what does it mean to be a man?, in the past, I had always taken the role of protector and provider. I am now asking myself, what does it mean to be a man in a modern world?

Send me bitcoin because I am too lazy to make up a reason why you should send me bitcoin.
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Originally gender identity was defined by the environment

Gender roles in early society where determined by environment. Whether the society is a hunter-gatherer society or an agricultural one, the primary role of men was to provide food and protect. The primary role of women was to prepare this food, produce children and look after children. Before modern technology, this involved a lot of work for both men and women. Women needed to be able to fetch water, firewood, prepare the foodelsewhereetc. For the preparation of food, this involves more than cooking. To make bread, the woman would need to separate the wheat from the chaff, then she would need to grind the wheat into flour, then eventually she could make bread. She also produced clothes, this entailed taking a fiber, like wool, spinning it into a thread, this thread would be woven into cloth which would be made into clothes.

Physical strength and the fact women produce and nurse babies and determined these gender roles. In an early society, without machines, men are better at hunting or agricultural because they are stronger. Men were producers. Women could do jobs where physical strength wasn’t as important, their role was refining what men produced. Feminists will to argue otherwise, they will cite examples like the women hunters of the Philippines. The Philippines differs from other areas in that there are no predators which attack humans. The Filipino female hunters are an exception as opposed to the rule. If women carrying around babies while hunting is an optimal solution, all societies would have adopted it.

In the cases where women did produce as much food as men, men were still required for protectors. I cited this book before, Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, it shows early societies were extremely violent. In early societies, 25% of males would die due to violence. When women did produce as much food as men, men were required to protect this territory. All primates, except Bonobo monkeys, have high rates of male violence. The Bonobo monkey again is an exception to the rule because of their environment. They exist in an environment where due to geography they are protected and have no natural predators.

Early men and women’s roles were determined by the environment, they were too busy surviving, to ponder what it means to be a man or a woman. This then brings into question, what was the relationship between men and women in early societies.

Initially the relationship between and women was one of mutual survival

To illustrate a point, I have simplified things. In traditional societies, men and women were dependent on each other. Men produced things and provided protection, Women then refined the things men produced to make food and clothes, coupled with this women produced children. As I showed in my post, Electricity, Steam, and cotton are responsible for female rights, not feminists these gender roles started to break down with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution allowed a division of labor, this meant that men and women were no longer as economically dependent on each other.

Women, since they were no longer as economically dependent on men, could demand equal rights. This was the birth of woman’s suffrage which later would be known as feminism. When people think of feminism, they think it involves only woman’s rights. What , is feminism also involved women thinking about what is their identity besides being a baby producing machine who looks after the house. They asked questions like, what does it mean to be a woman, how women feel emotionally and react to things differently than men?

Women’s identity has evolved while men are still stuck in the role of provider and protector

The conservative expects women to receive special protection via social custom. The liberal expects women to receive special protection via government programs. The conservative assumes most women want the traditional female roles, and the traditional female role requires men to protect women. The liberal assumes men’s old roles were power and privilege designed to serve men rather than to be men’s way of protecting women, so the liberal feels women need protection to compensate for the male power structure. Both conservative and liberal therefore conclude that men should protect women and no one should protect men. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

fantasies up the role of men regardless whether the man has a liberal or conservative viewpoint. The only difference between liberal and conservative is whether the man pays directly. If the man is liberal, he pays indirectly through increased taxes, increased chances he will get falsely accused of rape etc. In both cases whether the man is expected to be a protector and a provider. The man’s identity is linked directly to how well he can provide and protect.

Woman’s awakening was caused by the economic changes caused by the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, men’s awakening is being caused since it is no longer possible to hide the reality of sexual relationships between men and women. The reality is, men, desire physical sex more than women, on the other hand, the woman still wants a man who is able to be a protector and a provider. The conservative wants to turn back things to before the Industrial Revolution unless society totally breaks down, this isn’t possible. Instinctively people know this, probably this is why apocalypse fiction is popular, it caters to this fantasy of returning to traditional gender models.

How a male identity is developing

As a result of the inattention to male powerlessness and female power, men are as ignorant about their own powerlessness and female power as women in the 1950s were about their own powerlessness and male power. And as a result, men today are psychologically about where women were in the 1950s. The last half century has not been a battle of the sexes, but a war in which only one side has shown up. Men have put their heads in the sand and hoped the bullets would miss. The less sense this makes now, the more you need genuine men’s studies. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

I was talking to a single mother, she has two sons, she is raising them to be perfect gentlemen. Men that will know how to treat women properly. Meanwhile, if a woman has a daughter she will raise them to be strong, independent women. The message this mother is sending is the purpose of her sons is to help women become strong and independent. That her sons need women for their own self-fulfillment. MGTOW and the red pill are addressing this issue in that they are saying men do not need women for their own happiness.

Feminists are saying that they do not need men. Yet when men say they do not need women, they are sexist, they hate women. This in itself is a good starting point, it will force women to become independent. Women are saying they want a man who is emotionally supportive, yet the reverse does not hold true. Women are more aware of what their own psychological needs are. They then are demanding that men meet these psychological and emotional needs, yet they can not provide the same for men.

Why women can not emotionally support men?

And women develop support systems. Women’s traditional support systems support women to be vulnerable; men’s traditional support systems support men to be vulnerable.
This creates a paradox: The support men get to be invulnerable makes them more vulnerable; the support women get to be vulnerable makes them less vulnerable. It is just one example of how women’s strength is their facade of weakness and men’s weakness is their facade of strength. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

The accusation of feminists is most history is men’s history. No, most history is men that succeeded, men who fail are forgotten. If the men who have failed are remembered, it usually is this is what this man did wrong, don’t be stupid like him. Ultimately the skills which men used to succeed where ones which evolved from protecting women. Most of the male heroes were war heroes, this was ultimately in the defense of society and women benefited from it.

This is another aspect of why men suffer more from The Soul Mate Myth than women. Inherently, want a partner to share their emotional burden. But if they share their weakness or problems with a woman, the woman loses attraction. By contrast, a man doesn’t find a woman who is a victim to be unattractive, on the contrary, it caters to many men’s fantasies of being the hero and rescuing the woman. Coupled with this is men want to find solutions while women want to talk about emotions.

If I could impart one lesson to women that I learned in writing this book, it would be that understanding the biology of the male brain helps us relate better to the male reality. Much of the conflict that exists between men and women is fueled by unrealistic expectations that stem from failing to grasp each other’s innate differences. To men, I would say I hope that shedding light on the male brain’s tendencies and its physiological responses to hormones will clarify the basis for your natural urges and the way you think, feel, and communicate. My belief is that this information can provide men with a sense of relief at finally being understood. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Modern society has created unrealistic expectations for both men and women with their relationships with the opposite sex. In The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think it describes a woman who is upset with her husband for being overly competitive. But due to evolution, it was these qualities which attracted her to him in the first place. Two hundred years ago, it wouldn’t have been a problem since both of them would have been too tired at the end of the day to fight. Or possibly, the man might have spent his time in the local tavern.

These unrealistic expectations cause a lot of unhappiness, the woman expects a partner who is emotionally available for her. On the other hand, she can not be emotionally available for him. This creates animosity within the relationship.

When men speak out they are silenced

Women and Feminists say men should express themselves more. What they mean is, men should say things which follow the woman’s versions of reality. If men speak out what they really feel, they are silenced.

Other than talk radio, are there outlets for men’s feelings? The Internet originally held out hope. And men began speaking up, especially the nontechie men on America Online, who created forums such as the “Men’s Equal Rights” folder. Quite quickly the men’s forums on AOL were shut down. Censored. Is it fair to suggest that if this censorship happened to any other group on AOL it would have made the front pages? Yes. When the NewYork Times discovered AOL had suspended the heated debate between two opposing discussion groups on Ireland, the suspension made a three-column headline on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. And AOL’s censorship of men? Ignored by all the major media. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

The book is outdated, AOL no longer has a virtual monopoly on the Internet for the average user. But it illustrates a point. Feminists are allowed to criticize men but the reverse does not hold true. Any criticism, even if it is legitimate, is deflected by feminists as hatred. Yes, many men are angry because they are tired of not having their concerns heard. What feminists want is men to agree with them.

It isn’t until the last ten years that men have been able to use the Internet to speak out. The opposition they are facing is ironically similar to what early feminists faced. From the outside, feminism appears to have a solid front, internally feminism is divided. A similar situation exists with the manosphere movements. It is also similar in that most of the manosphere realizes that the traditional role for men is no longer valid. What this new role will be, the manosphere is still trying to figure out. We are at least fifty years behind feminists but thanks to the Internet we can catch up fast.

Forging a new male identity

The red pill and MGTOW both originated from the fact that due male and female relationships are no longer balanced. This is from both a legal and social perspective. The violence against women laws, for example, are biased towards women. The legal system assumes the man is the primary instigator of violence. Socially, the man is expected to ask the woman out, pay for most things on dates etc. The man still is stuck in the protector role. Despite affirmative action, combat roles in the military, police, and security are male domains. Military drafts in the military are limited to men, calls to expand this legislation to women have been blocked. The common themes for both groups are:

• Men are no longer need women in their traditional role. Thanks to supermarkets, cookbooks and household appliances, men can buy and cook their own food, they are also able to wash their own clothes etc. Ironically, this was the biggest complaint of feminists that men can not do these things. Now that most men can do these things, they find out they don’t need women.
• Men are no longer emotionally dependent on women. Growing up, a male would spend most of his time with his mother. To a large degree, getting married meant emotionally replacing his mother with a wife. As I showed in The dangerous soulmate myth, men are finding out they can get better emotional support else where. Society implies that a man’s life is meaningless without a woman, many men are finding out otherwise.
• men should refuse to be the provider and protector of women. Linked to the soulmate myth is the myth that men should behave like a gentleman and they will be rewarded. I was speaking with a single mother who had several sons. She stated that she is raising her sons to become gentlemen and respect women. The feminist definition of respect is that an opinion of a woman should be accepted, even if it is without merit. Men are now refusing to fit into these roles, this doesn’t mean they abuse women but the woman has to be able to back up her opinions.
• they are no longer ashamed to be men. Mainstream TV and movies often portray men and fathers as bumbling idiots. That the man should be ashamed just for being male, men in these groups are refusing to accept this stereotype.

The biggest question that these groups are attempting to answer is what does it mean to be a man?. There are some men who naively believe that they can roll back the clock and return to traditional gender roles, this isn’t possible. There are other men who are saying a new male identity has to be forged.

The manosphere is forcing feminists to react

People who want rights without responsibilities are like adolescents who want the rights to the car without the responsibilities for the payments, the gas, the insurance, or the repairs. A person who talks more about women’s rights than responsibilities is not an adult feminist, but an adolescent feminist. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

We have a paradox, the majority of women want to get married:

Of the respondents, 85.1 percent said that they’d like to be married by age 30. Specifically, 46.5 percent said they’d like to get married between age 25 and 27; 20.9 percent said they’d like to tie the knot between 28-30; and 17.1 percent want to walk down the aisle by their 25th birthdays. Survey: Most College Women Want to Be Married by 30

While the majority of men no longer want to get married:

Fewer young men in the US want to get married than ever, while the desire for marriage is rising among young women, according to the Pew Research Center.
Pew recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore

I randomly pulled these statistics from two websites to show that women still want to get married while men no longer want to get married. Instead of addressing the issue, feminists resort to men should man up or other shaming tactics. Or the resort to men who are critical of laws which give women an unfair advantage hate women. They then manosphere groups as spreading hate against women instead of addressing the issues, that marriage or relationships no longer are worthwhile for men.

There have been some accusations that the manosphere is similar to feminism. When it comes to developing a male identity and redefining male roles it shares a lot in common with early feminism. This in the long term will have a beneficial effect for feminism, they will be forced to accept more responsibilities to go with their increased rights. Indirectly this beneficial for feminism.

Further directions

The book Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate isn’t worth reading. Much of the information within the book is outdated, there is more accurate information available on MGTOW and Red Pill and men’s rights websites. The reason why I cited the book is because he poses the question What does it mean to be a man?. Linked to this he asks the question How are male and female relationships supposed to function?. Both his critics and supporters didn’t identify those two key points.

As he showed, in the past, mainstream media due to feminist pressure could suppress these issues. The author never envisioned the Internet where it is harder to suppress information. The red pill and MGTOW compared to feminism, are extremely young groups. On the other hand, when it comes to forging a male identity, they have achieved a lot more than feminism did in the same period of time. Personally, I never addressed the issue of what does it mean to be a man?, in the past, I had always taken the role of protector and provider. I am now asking myself, what does it mean to be a man in a modern world?

Send me bitcoin because I am too lazy to make up a reason why you should send me bitcoin.
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

An SJW’s feelings are more valid than yours

A woman who is a psychiatrist and counselor posted on her social media account after Trump was elected. She stated that after Trump got elected, she has been having nightmares that she will be raped. She then added, her feelings are valid, they are not to be questioned. All of her female patients replied that they are also terrified of being raped due to Trump being elected. I then asked, are your fears valid? Just because Trump has been elected, doesn’t mean that laws have changed. Now that Trump has been elected, if the police see a woman being raped in the street, they will just walk by?

She replied back, her feelings are real, I shouldn’t doubt that her feeling actually exists. I then replied back that I feel her feelings are not based on reality. Her counter argument was that I don’t understand how a woman is more vulnerable than a man, she is in fear of being raped. Here we are having a debate about whose feelings are more valid. Her feelings because she is a woman are more important than mine. Whether or not more women have increased because Donald Trump was elected are not an issue. On the other hand, maybe fewer men have been raped due to Trump getting elected.

Questioning her feelings resulted in her blocking me. I had driven her into her safe space along with all her patients, effectively silencing her. The problem isn’t moderate liberals, it is extreme liberals silencing opposition by with irrationality.

The SJW defines what a safe-space is

Technically I could be defined as a visible minority, members of visible minorities who are demanding extra rights I find offensive. As I showed in How Limousine Liberals perverted the Left the Progressive have redefined they principles of Liberalism. The founding fathers of American where Liberal in that they argued for Truth, Justice, and Equality before the law. They were Liberal in that it went against the prevailing thought of the time. But their justification was the Magna Carta which dates back to 1215, this was the foundation of the modern western legal system.

Yes, the Magna Carta was initially limited equal rights to a small subset of society but the document itself was used to expand rights to other members of society. The American Constitution was based on the ideas of the Magna Carta. The American constitution expanded equal rights to all white men of society, later this same constitution was used to expand equal rights to everyone. The British Empire was not perfect but these principles were used to pass the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was a start to banning slavery throughout the empire. People forget that it was white men who fought to pass these laws.

The SJW creates victims, I described how this works in Creating Learned Helplessness - Don’t blame the victim. If you are saying women, blacks or other visible minorities need special privileges, indirectly you are saying these groups are inferior. This is a form of racism which is extremely dangerous. But if I state this in an SJW safe-space, I am the racist and I am making the other members of the safe-space feel unsafe. But if I state that it makes me feel unsafe, my feeling or opinions are invalid.

I feel it is unsafe because it causes animosity and resentment between groups. Until the 1950s, there was extreme racism against Jews, Asians, and Blacks. Mordecai Richler a child of an immigrant Jewish Family grew up in the 1940s to 1950s Montreal. The Catholic Priests would regularly give sermons how Jews killed Jesus which would incite Catholic children to throw rocks at Jews. He describes this racism in his fictional book The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. Despite this racism, Duddy Kravitz works harder. There was similar racism against Asians.

Asians and Jews didn’t get subverted like blacks did by the Limousine Liberal. They argued for equal rights but not for special privileges. By working hard, Eastern Asians and Jews on some levels managed to surpass whites. The irony now is some Asians and Jews want to profit in the race grievance industry which is causing animosity. They are now regressing. This, in my opinion, is unsafe and dangerous. Since I feel visible minorities demanding extra privileges causes animosity and hatred, does that mean it shouldn’t be allowed in the safe space? According to SJW logic, my opinion is hateful, therefore I should not be allowed in the safe space. The SJW defines what is allowed in the safe space and it isn’t dependent on logic only emotions.

When the SJW can’t silence opposing opinions they run away

Earlier I cited the article Study: Liberals Three Times More Likely Than Conservatives to ‘Unfriend’ on Social Media Over Politics. It stated:

Nearly one-quarter (24%) of Democrats say they blocked, unfriended, or stopped following someone on social media after the election because of their political posts on social media. Fewer than one in ten Republicans (9%) and independents (9%) report eliminating people from their social media circle. Political liberals are also far more likely than conservatives to say they removed someone from their social media circle due to what they shared online (28% vs. 8%, respectively). Eleven percent of moderates say they blocked, unfollowed, or unfriended someone due to what they posted online…Only five percent of Americans say they are planning on spending less time with certain family members because of their political views. Democrats, however, are five times more likely than Republicans to say they are trying to avoid certain family members due to their political views (10% vs. 2%, respectively). The pattern among political independents mirrors the general population.

The SJW is passive aggressive and they project their feelings and emotions onto others. If you make a statement which differs from their concept of reality, they will call you bitter, angry etc. They are thinking how they would feel if they had that version of reality. Their solution is to avoid alternative belief systems. By causing an SJW to unfriend you or block you, you are driving them into their safe space.

Driving the SJW into their safe space means you are silencing them

The SJW usually works by misrepresenting or re-framing the truth. An example of this is the Violence Against Women laws. The SJW and hardcore feminist will frame it as men beat women. Men beating women is unquestionably wrong. Therefore anyone who opposes Violence Against Women laws wants to beat women. The hardcore feminist denies the fact that women abuse men. The law itself is sexist because it mentions gender.

People who want rights without responsibilities are like adolescents who want the rights to the car without the responsibilities for the payments, the gas, the insurance, or the repairs. A person who talks more about women’s rights than responsibilities is not an adult feminist, but an adolescent feminist. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate

The hardcore feminist or SJW wants extra privileges without responsibilities. If we go back to the original principles of the United States, Truth, Justice, and Equality before the law. Even if women are more likely to rape and abuse women, the question is do they have equality before the law? The fact is, hard-core feminists have intentionally suppressed facts like this How male victims of domestic abuse often end up getting arrested themselves. Even in countries where Islamic law exists, there is evidence to show that men there are just as often victims of domestic abuse.

You will not change the opinion of a radical feminist but you are fighting over the views of the moderates. Once the moderate has seen the facts, there is a possibility he might change his opinion. If you have already driven the SJW into their safe space, this means they can not counter your arguments with lies or shaming tactics.

How to drive the SJW into their safe space?

So don’t wait for anyone else to do anything. Talk to a few friends. Kick around a few ideas. Send a few emails. Create a few Twitter memes and see if the spark happens to catch anyone’s interest. Don’t expect your target to come tumbling down, just start the process. Whether you succeed or not – and remember, #GamerGate has had far more abortive ops and ineffective failures than successes—the point is that you have taken a stand and you have struck a blow. And because you have done so, someone else will do so as well. It’s impossible to know which one action will turn out to be effective, just as it’s impossible to know which straw will be the one to snap the camel’s back. But you do know this: the only action that is completely ineffective is the one that is never taken.
Because SJWs are primarily dependent upon other people’s money, that is a weak point that should always be your first target. Dig to discover where they are obtaining their money, then focus your efforts on the funding source to cut off the flow of funds to them. Sometimes this will require political pressure, as many SJW institutions receive state, local, or federal government funds. Sometimes private pressure and a persuasive word in the ear of the relevant executive will suffice. But regardless, remember that every journey requires an initial step, and no one can take that first step except you. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

A Vox Day states, from their comments on social media, most SJW appear to be suffering from a mental illness where they are easily triggered. According to their social media accounts, they often are on some sort of antidepressant etc. Probably they are on these medications since they have problems facing reality. Just posting memes on your social media account can cause the SJW to block you. This then serves a second purpose, SJW depends on appearing to be the voice of the majority. If you post a meme, if other people like it or share it, that breaks this illusion.

No one likes to look like a fool, this includes politicians, business leaders etc. Even if you do not vote, it can still have a profound effect. All leaders, even in dictatorships are worried about status. For decades, China denied having forced labor camps or what they called re-education through labor. As China’s trade with the outside world increased, some of the products of these camps thought being exported. Some of the prisoners started to write on the products, this product has been created with forced labor. Finally, China has admitted that these forced labor camps exist and now they, amazingly enough, have officially abolished them. China abolishes its labour camps and releases prisoners

Possibly these labor camps still exist in China but they no longer can detain as many people. The point is even the elite of dictatorship regimes need to worry about self-image.

Further directions

You can create your own memes and see what happens. It just takes a few minutes, post the meme online see how far it goes. Experiment with it, have fun. You read an article on the internet, make a meme from it, see what happens. Major social media sites are caught in a bind. If they start to censor too much, they will start to lose users. Loss of users means loss of revenue. Feminists and Progressives have fifty plus year more experience fighting. This doesn’t mean the battle is lost, it just means we need to catch up and develop better tactics.

Thank you for your donations. If you like my posts you me donations to my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.


The psychology of the social justice warrior

The Social Justice Warrior (SJW) needs to maintain the narrative that they are a victim. Being a victim them entitles them to special privileges or large amounts of government money. They need to maintain this illusion or their source of money or special privileges will be lost. To prevent this from happening, any opinion which questions their narrative must be silenced. The SJW rarely fights directly, instead, they pretend to be the victim and then encourage white knights to attack the person who questions their narrative. White knights are usually men who feel guilty for the allegedly special status they have. They inherently want to rescue the person who is the victim to gain virtue.

The SJW relies mainly on emotion as opposed to logic when a black lives matter mob goes on a looting and burning rampage, they are reacting to emotion as opposed to logic. Emotion originates from our animal brains, with mobs it causes them to behave like a pack of wild dogs. The tactics used by the SJW are similar to those used by an organization like the Spanish Inquisition or Salem witch trials. Accuse someone of witchcraft, then once the fury of the mob is aroused, turn the person over to a governing body. The people cheering as the witch was burned as individuals probably would never have done this unless they were part of a mob.

Have you noticed the unchanged pattern of outrage that manifests from the black community whenever a black life is taken by a white person, especially a white cop? Also, have you noticed that the same culture-vultures arrive without hesitation to gluttonously feast during these incidents? They figuratively pick apart the black body until it’s a carcass — leaving nothing for bacteria to decompose. These opportunists are arsonists dressed as first responders, and their mission is to start racial infernos. In other words, they racialize not harmonize.

Undoubtedly, you’ve noticed this trend — even if you’re a bleeding-heart liberal.

One must understand that these “call to action” reactions are not spontaneous; they’re calculated maneuvers promoted by an ever-present Race Grievance Industry — an industry whose only product is victimhood… and it’s manufactured without pause.

The Race Grievance Industry’s sole purpose is to profit from racial strife under the guise of pursuing racial peace. Its modus operandi is rooted in a lie that refuses to die: blacks are permanent victims of racism and no amount of effort will overcome it. The lie is rinsed and repeated in different ways, but the message remains unchanged — America is a racist labyrinth specifically designed to stifle black advancement. Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry

Whether it third wave feminists, the race grievance industry or limousine liberals, in general, the message remains the same. In Taleeb Starkes’s America is a racist labyrinth specifically designed to stifle black advancement replace the words racist with patriarchal and black with women, you now have a description of third wave feminism. To explain why black or women advancement allegedly hasn’t happened they invent justifications like micro-aggressions.

microaggression - a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

Microaggressions are brilliant invention ask a person with a Hispanic name and who looks Hispanic, are you good at cooking tacos? This question is a microaggression, it means subconsciously I hate Hispanics, my hatred is buried so deep that I don’t even know I hate Hispanics. This is what causes Hispanics to fail. Meanwhile, a member of the victim class is allowed to make blanket statements by allegedly entitled classes. The point behind this is logic doesn’t work.

As the book Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry shows, Obama who is half black is black because he pushes the Race Grievance Industry message. Obama’s father was a member of the Kenyan elite, he attended elite schools, the ancestors of his father probably sold black slaves to slave traders. Meanwhile Condellesa Rice, despite growing up under Jim Crow laws, is the descendant of black American Slaves, she isn’t really black since she doesn’t push the Race Grievance Industry message.

White policeman kills a black gangster who has an illegal gun and a criminal record, the black gangster is a victim of racism. Black lies matter immediately organize a looting and pillaging protest. A young black school girl who gets killed in the crossfire of two drug-dealing black gangs fighting, this isn’t important, since it doesn’t match the agenda of the race grievance industry. The book Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry shows countless examples of innocent black people getting killed by other blacks, to the point where it got repetitive. Instead of attacking the root cause which is black criminals, black lies matter blames white people. In exchange certain groups profit. The point is using logic doesn’t work when talking to SJW or defending yourself. Now that you have an understanding of the psychology of an SJW, what type of people do they attack?

The SJW attacks people they perceive as weak and vulnerable.

At the start of this post, I stated that anyone can be a victim of an SJW attack. If you think that doing all the correct things protects you, it doesn’t. Their rationale is similar to the secret police in Eastern European countries. In my post Breaking out of the machine I talked about the Good Soldier Svejk. In one of the early chapters of the book, he is sitting in a pub having a beer with a secret policeman. The pub owner did all the right things to avoid being entrapped by the secret police, he even hung a portrait of Emperor King behind the bar. Svejk then points out to the secret policeman that there are fly spots on the emperor’s portrait. Fly spots are actually excrement from flies, this is a sign that the bar owner secretly despises the emperor or else why would he let flies shit on his picture? The pub owner is then arrested by the secret police and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The point is, the SJW like the secret police can find any excuse for an offense. Fortunately, unlike Eastern European countries of the past, we enjoy a fairly good justice system.

Normal people assume that SJWs are inclined to take on their ideological opponents, people like me. But the truth is that although they certainly don’t like those they invariably label “right-wing extremists”, for the most part, they leave us alone because we are impervious to their influence. Oh, they will certainly complain about us, take advantage of any tactical missteps on our part, and block us on Twitter, but they very seldom make the sort of concerted effort that one saw in the hounding of Brandon Eich or the metaphorical stoning of Dr. James Watson because they know their efforts will largely be futile.
Instead, they prey on the naïve and the unsuspecting. They prey on the moderates, the middle-grounders, and the fence-sitters. They prey on people like you: good, decent individuals who try to treat everyone fairly and who can’t even imagine having done anything that anyone could possibly find objectionable.
Why? Because soft targets are always easier to destroy than hard ones. It’s much easier to put pressure on someone who works for a university or a large corporation because the attacking SJW knows that he can count on the support of fellow SJWs in the faculty or the Human Resources department. The bigger the organization, the more likely there is a code of conduct containing nebulous terms that the SJW can claim were violated in some way, shape, or form.
And perhaps most importantly, a target who is psychologically unprepared for being attacked is much more likely to throw up his hands and run away. Look at the list of people above. Aside from the police officer, do any of them strike you as even being right of political center, much less a right-wing extremist? In particular, observe that Watson, Eich, and Hunt all resigned. They were not psychologically ready to deal with the social pressure that is the chief weapon in the SJW arsenal and all three of them rapidly crumbled before it. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Vox Day is saying that SJWs never attack strong targets like extremists, instead they attack soft targets, like moderates and fence-sitters. The rational is similar to Stalin’s purges during the great terror during the 1930s in the Soviet Union. The purpose is to prevent people from publically supported people who openly oppose their view. The SJW like Stalin realizes the importance of removing opposing opinions. Like Stalin, they will regularly purge their own members. Ghomeshi a popular CBC radio regularly supported the SJW beliefs. Later he was charged with sexual harassment of women, even though the charges were dropped, he was dismissed from the CBC. Even though he was found innocent in a court of law, for the SJW thought police this doesn’t matter. No one is safe including their own members.

The SJW attack unsuspecting and what they perceive weak targets because they rely upon intimidating the victim. Unlike Stalin, the SJW do not have actual legal power, they require other systems to do their dirty work for them. Also as part of their tactics, they require their scapegoat to apologize and admit guilt. This requires a weak target who can be panicked. If a victim of an SJW attack, the first thing to do is remain calm, don’t panic.

What do to if you are a victim of an SJW attack

If you are a victim of an SJW attack these are the steps which you need to take. You can be a victim of an SJW attack anywhere, it might be a comment which you made on social media, an SJW who wants to get revenge on you. If you are in a dispute with an SJW, if they are guilty they will immediately scream racism, sexism etc. Unfortunately, since the SJW is always crying wolf, people who are real victims of rape, racism, sexism etc are no longer taken seriously.

1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.
2. Don’t try to reason with them.
3. Do not apologize.
4. Accept your fate.
5. Document their every word and action
6. Do not resign
7. Make the rubble bounce.
8. Start nothing, finish everything.
   from SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

These are the basic steps on how to deal with an SJW attack. I will elaborate on them based on my experience. In the Philippines there are Filipinos who join Facebook groups, they have two goals, the first is to attempt to put a positive spin on the negative parts of Filipino culture the second is to silence opponents. To silence opponents they use racism coupled with white guilt. Except for a three-year occupation by the Japanese during WW2, from 1898 to 1946 the Philippines was a US territory. To be able to fight off an SJW attack, one must know how their opponent thinks.

Know as much about your opponent as possible

Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories. Sun Tzu

During the 2016 American election campaign, Trump accused Mexico and other countries of exporting labor to the USA. In 2015, Mexican remittances from Mexicans working abroad was $24.8 billion up 4.75% from 2014 or 1.8% of the GDP. With the Philippines, in 2015, remittances from Filipinos working abroad was $26.92 billion up 6.2% from 2014 or 8.5% of the GDP. These are official figures, they do not count money taken back in the form of cash when the immigrant goes to his country on vacation etc. In both countries, their economies rely heavily on remittances, in Mexico remittances bring in more revenue than oil.

The second claim of Trump is that the exportation of labor means they have no incentive to fix their own problems. They are exporting their problems to other countries. Some Filipinos are starting to realize this, they are lobbying the Filipino government to remove foreign investment restrictions etc. Instead of blaming their problems on foreigners and playing the victim, start addressing problems. As I showed in my post Filipino paradox - extremely honest but extremely dishonest, Filipinos due to their culture do not like addressing problems. But there are some Filipinos who are speaking out and saying the culture has to change.

The book Migrants for Export: How the Philippine State Brokers Labor to the World shows how the Filipino government lobbies other governments like USA, Canada, Australia etc to lower immigration requirements. It also shows how the Filipino immigrant or overseas worker is indoctrinated to send back remittances to the Philippines. The book was originally a university thesis and was written by a Filipino American. Meanwhile, the Filipino government denies rights to foreigners here, any criticism by a foreigner of the Philippines is illegal.

The Filipino never lets the American forget about the alleged exploitation that occurred during this time. Compared to other colonizers of the era, by 1902, Filipinos were allowed to elect representatives. As the economic paper The Philippine Economic Mystery the quality of life for the Filipino increased by every measure under the Americans. The Americans even implemented land reform, confiscating the Catholic Church’s land to be distributed among the people. The Americans constructed roads, railways, build hospitals to wipe out disease, build schools and universities. The quality of life for the Filipino improved in every measure and by 1946 the Philippines had the second best economy in Asia. The paper then shows the economic decline started in 1946 and the reason is culture. Ironically, the biggest perpetrators of the American exploitation myth are Filipino universities established by Americans.

How the Filipino SJW attacks

The goal of the SJW is to silence all opposition to their opinions by using guilt, shaming tactics, threats or legal measures. The Filipino SJW looks for slights or criticisms. In some cases, they are even comical. Jimmy Sieczka made a comical youtube video entitled 20 reasons I dislike the Philippines earlier he had made a youtube video entitled 20 reasons I like the Philippines. Some Filipinos took offense to the video 20 reasons I dislike the Philippines, some people demanded he should be declared persona non grata. The accusation was so ridiculous that many Filipinos came to his defense Does Jimmy deserve persona non grata?.

A Thai national in the Philippines on a social media post called Filipinos, Pignoys. He then was shamed on social media, there were calls for him to be deported, Thai who called Pinoys ‘pignoys’ fired from job. Later after his apology, he was forced into an agreement he should be voluntarily deported. Meanwhile, there is no outcry when Filipinos call all foreigner pedophiles and sex perverts. The is no outcry when Filipinos lie about history to make other countries look bad. The Filipino SJWs then started commenting how great they stood up to foreigners. This is coming from a country which is dependent on remittances and foreign aid.

How the attack on me went down

Filipino SJWs infiltrate Filipino Expat groups on Facebook. The purpose is two-fold, the first is to make excuses for negative aspects of Filipino culture. The second is to provoke arguments with foreigners who talk about the negative aspect of Filipino culture. They then attempt to get expats with liberal leanings to support them. As one Filipino SJW said, he enjoys watching foreigners fight among themselves. If the Filipino SJW can’t win with logic, they resort to name calling and generalizations about foreigners.

I got into an argument with a couple of Filipino SJW, it was shortly after the Thai was deported. I suspect that they were the ones for getting the Thai deported or possibly they got the idea from the group that got the Thai deported. I complained about a certain aspect of Filipino culture. The Filipino SJW standard comeback is foreigners should be ever so grateful to be in the Philippines. The next comment is if you don’t like it here, leave. I replied, get your 660,000 pieces of Filipino garbage out of Canada, each one costs the Canadian government $6,000 per year and I will leave. Canada does not need Filipino garbage. They then denied that Filipino immigrants do not cost Canada that much I cited this report Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report.

When the SJW loses they resort to threats, this case was no exception. They then threatened to report me to immigration. I told them, that is proof why we should not allow Filipino garbage in Canada. Filipino garbage in Canada complains about racism, they are allowed to publically state their complaints while Canadians in the Philippines have zero rights. Approximately 30 minutes later, I spotted a meme with my photo on it, the statements I had made on facebook calling Filipinos garbage. The meme was stated that I should not be allowed to stay in the Philippines. Unknowingly I then followed these steps.

1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

I was angry as opposed to scared. I then recognized that they were attempting to do the same thing to me as what happened to the Thai. By posting into different Filipino groups, they were attempting to incite Filipinos. I realized once I am under attack, there was nothing anyone else can do. They were meanwhile continuing to post to more Filipino groups.

2. Don’t try to reason with them.

In this case, it was a social media attack. It is difficult to identify your attacker. Inherently most people have a sense of fairness. An SJW doesn’t, they are out for blood. Any reasoning is a waste of time.

3. Do not apologize.

The SJW needs someone else to do their dirty work for them. Apologizing is an admission of guilt. Under normal circumstances, in a court or law for example, if the apology is genuine, it can result in a reduced sentence etc. In every SJW attack, when the person apologized, this was used as an admission of guilt. This was then used against the person. In the case of the Filipino SJW, he wants the foreigner to feel ever so grateful for Filipinos allowing in their country to spend money.

4. Accept your fate.

Since this was happening on social media, things were moving a lot quicker. Approximately 30 minutes had passed since the meme about me started to appear. I then realized that there was a good chance that if they got a large enough crowd against me, immigration might take action. I possibly might be deported. Therefore I came to the conclusion since I might get deported I had nothing to lose. The best defense is an offense.

5. Document their every word and action

I then started to take screen shots of the message exchange that had happened in the facebook group. My thinking is they might delete some of the messages etc. That way, if charges were laid against me, I would have the defense I was provoked. In the case of the Thai national, I don’t know what caused him to state Filipinos where Pignoys. He had no defense.

6. Do not resign

Vox Day, in this case, is talking about if they are attacking your employment. In my case, I would have forced them to put charges against me, and take it to court. Make their job as difficult as possible. SJW do not have direct power themselves. Possibly people might secretly agree with you but because of their jobs or positions, they can not publicly agree with you. In the case of the Thai, he agreed to apologize and then he agreed to allow himself to be deported.

7. Make the rubble bounce.

Whether you survive the attempted purge or whether you don’t, it’s very important to observe who has defined himself as an ally, an enemy, or a neutral party during the process. The choices people make will pleasantly surprise you about as often as they disappoint you. Once everyone’s choices have been made clear, your task is simple. Target the enemy at every opportunity. Hit them wherever they show themselves vulnerable. Play as dirty as your conscience will permit. Undermine them, sabotage them, and discredit them. Be ruthless and show them absolutely no mercy. This is not the time for Christian forgiveness because these are people who have not repented, these are people who are trying to destroy you and are quite willing to harm your family and your children in the process. Take them down and take them out without hesitation. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

The only rules are whatever you do, it should be legal. All moral considerations fly out the window. The SJW will use any means to attack you. Ideally, you need to attack him in a way which causes potential financial damage and shame.

The flaw of the moderate is thinking if you treat the other person fairly, they will treat you fairly. In the case of the SJW, they are after special privileges from governments but they do not want to provide anything in return. In this case, moderates can actually be your worse enemy. Since the SJW relies on sympathy and emotion instead of facts, the moderate will tell you to follow the rules while he allows the SJW to break the rules. Moderates will make statements like don’t provoke them, if you treat them nicely, they will treat you nicely etc. Moderate are nice people but they are naive.

Things will then split into allies, neutral and enemies. The people that are neutral, possibly they might secretly support you but they are scared of possible repercussions if they speak out. Leave them alone. With allies, take whatever allies you can get. With gamergate, Vox Day is an Evangelical Christian. One of his allies was Roosh who Vox Day described as a hedonistic playboy. Having allies will spread out the SJW attacks but come to your allies aid if possible.

The weakness of the Filipino SJW is the Philippines relies heavily on remittances from USA, Canada, Australia etc. So in my case, I took the meme against me and made it into a new meme. I put on it, Filipino idea of equality is Filipino Canadians parasite off the Canadian government $6000 per a year each, while Canadian veteran in the Philippines should have zero right. Do you want Filipinos in your country?. I then started posting as fast as I could to as many Filipino groups as possible. The response ranged from people making excuses for the behavior to agreeing with me. They then started to debate among themselves.

Do you think that sounds too harsh? That’s probably because you haven’t had the experience of SJWs intentionally trying to end your career yet. It’s remarkable of how your perception of what is fair and what is not will change once you’ve seen what the SJWs are willing to do. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Honestly, I feel for Filipinos and other people who are forced to migrate to other countries to feed their families. The problem is, certain people, do not want to address the problems. There are Filipino Americans etc who are saying Filipinos in the USA should stop playing the victim etc. On the other hand, there are Filipino Americans who profit from encouraging migration. But in this case, I am playing for life and death.

As Vox Day said, sometimes you will be surprised at how easily the SJW will break. An hour later a few people messaged me, they asked to see urls of the meme against me. To my surprise, they the people who had put them up had started to delete them. I suspect that one of the people behind the attack was a Filipino American when he saw his employment might be in danger, he started to delete the meme. I then started to delete mine.

8. Start nothing, finish everything.

The mistake of the Thai national is that he randomly posted an offensive remark on social media without any provocation. In my case, I was responding to an attack on my ideas. Should I have called Filipinos garbage? Honestly no, but in my opinion, sometimes if you speak nicely, no one listens. But if possible keep things on a more civil tone. Surprisingly quite a few Filipinos private messaged me, they agreed with me but because of their employment or positions, they can not speak out.

Always be prepared to take it as far as necessary. The SJW wants blood, he wants to show what happens when people speak out. So in my case, I was willing to risk being charged and possibly deported. If I am deported, I would be willing to continue the fight.

The SJW always wants to incite violence or threats, don’t fall into that trap. They can use it for legal action against you. If you avoid this trap, often they then resort to direct threats, you, then you can use that to shame them. The SJW caters to morality hence use their own actions to shame them. Economic pressure through influence is stronger.

The importance of being antifragile.

In this case, there are two types of antifragile, financially and mentally. For people that work for corporations, educational institutions, the government etc. The SJW will always target your employment to put pressure on them to fire you. Within the organization, they will attempt to make you resign. They do not want to actually terminate you because of possible legal action or being forced to pay severance. In this case, refuse to resign, force them to terminate you. Do not make the SJW job easy for him.

To handle these things, one must be antifragile mentally. This means being able to handle the pressure of conflict. Some people are not able to handle open conflict. It’s understandable.

The SJW thought police are not all powerful

In the past, the SJW was able to achieve a lot because they went unchallenged. The reason why they could go unchallenged is because of a monopoly of information. Social media and the Internet has changed this. Today it is harder to keep secrets. Most of you probably are too young to remember the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. China was starting to open up to the west, so there were some foreign journalists there. Originally the reports coming out of China were vague, there is some sort of protest in China. If I remember correctly, it wasn’t until several days later that photographs of the protests started to appear on western news media. It didn’t become evident what was happening to the rest of the world until a week later. Possibly these photographs were smuggled out of China, it was easier for Chinese authorities to shut off communication with the rest of the world.

By contrast today, even in a totalitarian regime like China, thanks to the Internet and Smart Phones it is getting difficult to hide things. A person can take a photograph or video, 30 seconds later it’s on the Internet. China itself is caught in a bind, they need to trade with the west, if they cut off the Internet, they can not longer trade with western countries. People within China have a disposable income, that means they can vote with their wallets. This indirectly can affect government policy.

Further directions

Vox Day’s book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police talks about his experiences with gamergate. Honestly, I found that part of the book boring, I skimmed over that part. As he says, the SJW have gone unchallenged since they 1990s, as a result it is assumed they are unbeatable. He has good ideas but they need to be developed and he admits that. As he said, better tactics need to be developed, in my opinion, we need to use the SJW tactics but improve on them. At the time, I didn’t see the importance of gamergate but it shows to a degree the SJW can be beaten.

Emma Sulkowicz, commonly known as Mattress Girl used extreme shaming tactics against her accuser. He refused to give in to these shaming tactics. It would not call it a victory but he wasn’t harmed as badly as other’s who gave in. Since he never gave in, some mainstream news media sites started criticizing Emma Sulkowicz. This casts doubt on all SJW. If he had marched like a willing lamb to the slaughter, he would be worse off. I will expand on my ideas in future posts.

Thank you for your donations. If you like my posts you me donations to my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.


The psychology of the social justice warrior

The Social Justice Warrior (SJW) needs to maintain the narrative that they are a victim. Being a victim them entitles them to special privileges or large amounts of government money. They need to maintain this illusion or their source of money or special privileges will be lost. To prevent this from happening, any opinion which questions their narrative must be silenced. The SJW rarely fights directly, instead, they pretend to be the victim and then encourage white knights to attack the person who questions their narrative. White knights are usually men who feel guilty for the allegedly special status they have. They inherently want to rescue the person who is the victim to gain virtue.

The SJW relies mainly on emotion as opposed to logic when a black lives matter mob goes on a looting and burning rampage, they are reacting to emotion as opposed to logic. Emotion originates from our animal brains, with mobs it causes them to behave like a pack of wild dogs. The tactics used by the SJW are similar to those used by an organization like the Spanish Inquisition or Salem witch trials. Accuse someone of witchcraft, then once the fury of the mob is aroused, turn the person over to a governing body. The people cheering as the witch was burned as individuals probably would never have done this unless they were part of a mob.

Have you noticed the unchanged pattern of outrage that manifests from the black community whenever a black life is taken by a white person, especially a white cop? Also, have you noticed that the same culture-vultures arrive without hesitation to gluttonously feast during these incidents? They figuratively pick apart the black body until it’s a carcass — leaving nothing for bacteria to decompose. These opportunists are arsonists dressed as first responders, and their mission is to start racial infernos. In other words, they racialize not harmonize.

Undoubtedly, you’ve noticed this trend — even if you’re a bleeding-heart liberal.

One must understand that these “call to action” reactions are not spontaneous; they’re calculated maneuvers promoted by an ever-present Race Grievance Industry — an industry whose only product is victimhood… and it’s manufactured without pause.

The Race Grievance Industry’s sole purpose is to profit from racial strife under the guise of pursuing racial peace. Its modus operandi is rooted in a lie that refuses to die: blacks are permanent victims of racism and no amount of effort will overcome it. The lie is rinsed and repeated in different ways, but the message remains unchanged — America is a racist labyrinth specifically designed to stifle black advancement. Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry

Whether it third wave feminists, the race grievance industry or limousine liberals, in general, the message remains the same. In Taleeb Starkes’s America is a racist labyrinth specifically designed to stifle black advancement replace the words racist with patriarchal and black with women, you now have a description of third wave feminism. To explain why black or women advancement allegedly hasn’t happened they invent justifications like micro-aggressions.

microaggression - a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

Microaggressions are brilliant invention ask a person with a Hispanic name and who looks Hispanic, are you good at cooking tacos? This question is a microaggression, it means subconsciously I hate Hispanics, my hatred is buried so deep that I don’t even know I hate Hispanics. This is what causes Hispanics to fail. Meanwhile, a member of the victim class is allowed to make blanket statements by allegedly entitled classes. The point behind this is logic doesn’t work.

As the book Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry shows, Obama who is half black is black because he pushes the Race Grievance Industry message. Obama’s father was a member of the Kenyan elite, he attended elite schools, the ancestors of his father probably sold black slaves to slave traders. Meanwhile Condellesa Rice, despite growing up under Jim Crow laws, is the descendant of black American Slaves, she isn’t really black since she doesn’t push the Race Grievance Industry message.

White policeman kills a black gangster who has an illegal gun and a criminal record, the black gangster is a victim of racism. Black lies matter immediately organize a looting and pillaging protest. A young black school girl who gets killed in the crossfire of two drug-dealing black gangs fighting, this isn’t important, since it doesn’t match the agenda of the race grievance industry. The book Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry shows countless examples of innocent black people getting killed by other blacks, to the point where it got repetitive. Instead of attacking the root cause which is black criminals, black lies matter blames white people. In exchange certain groups profit. The point is using logic doesn’t work when talking to SJW or defending yourself. Now that you have an understanding of the psychology of an SJW, what type of people do they attack?

The SJW attacks people they perceive as weak and vulnerable.

At the start of this post, I stated that anyone can be a victim of an SJW attack. If you think that doing all the correct things protects you, it doesn’t. Their rationale is similar to the secret police in Eastern European countries. In my post Breaking out of the machine I talked about the Good Soldier Svejk. In one of the early chapters of the book, he is sitting in a pub having a beer with a secret policeman. The pub owner did all the right things to avoid being entrapped by the secret police, he even hung a portrait of Emperor King behind the bar. Svejk then points out to the secret policeman that there are fly spots on the emperor’s portrait. Fly spots are actually excrement from flies, this is a sign that the bar owner secretly despises the emperor or else why would he let flies shit on his picture? The pub owner is then arrested by the secret police and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The point is, the SJW like the secret police can find any excuse for an offense. Fortunately, unlike Eastern European countries of the past, we enjoy a fairly good justice system.

Normal people assume that SJWs are inclined to take on their ideological opponents, people like me. But the truth is that although they certainly don’t like those they invariably label “right-wing extremists”, for the most part, they leave us alone because we are impervious to their influence. Oh, they will certainly complain about us, take advantage of any tactical missteps on our part, and block us on Twitter, but they very seldom make the sort of concerted effort that one saw in the hounding of Brandon Eich or the metaphorical stoning of Dr. James Watson because they know their efforts will largely be futile.
Instead, they prey on the naïve and the unsuspecting. They prey on the moderates, the middle-grounders, and the fence-sitters. They prey on people like you: good, decent individuals who try to treat everyone fairly and who can’t even imagine having done anything that anyone could possibly find objectionable.
Why? Because soft targets are always easier to destroy than hard ones. It’s much easier to put pressure on someone who works for a university or a large corporation because the attacking SJW knows that he can count on the support of fellow SJWs in the faculty or the Human Resources department. The bigger the organization, the more likely there is a code of conduct containing nebulous terms that the SJW can claim were violated in some way, shape, or form.
And perhaps most importantly, a target who is psychologically unprepared for being attacked is much more likely to throw up his hands and run away. Look at the list of people above. Aside from the police officer, do any of them strike you as even being right of political center, much less a right-wing extremist? In particular, observe that Watson, Eich, and Hunt all resigned. They were not psychologically ready to deal with the social pressure that is the chief weapon in the SJW arsenal and all three of them rapidly crumbled before it. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Vox Day is saying that SJWs never attack strong targets like extremists, instead they attack soft targets, like moderates and fence-sitters. The rational is similar to Stalin’s purges during the great terror during the 1930s in the Soviet Union. The purpose is to prevent people from publically supported people who openly oppose their view. The SJW like Stalin realizes the importance of removing opposing opinions. Like Stalin, they will regularly purge their own members. Ghomeshi a popular CBC radio regularly supported the SJW beliefs. Later he was charged with sexual harassment of women, even though the charges were dropped, he was dismissed from the CBC. Even though he was found innocent in a court of law, for the SJW thought police this doesn’t matter. No one is safe including their own members.

The SJW attack unsuspecting and what they perceive weak targets because they rely upon intimidating the victim. Unlike Stalin, the SJW do not have actual legal power, they require other systems to do their dirty work for them. Also as part of their tactics, they require their scapegoat to apologize and admit guilt. This requires a weak target who can be panicked. If a victim of an SJW attack, the first thing to do is remain calm, don’t panic.

What do to if you are a victim of an SJW attack

If you are a victim of an SJW attack these are the steps which you need to take. You can be a victim of an SJW attack anywhere, it might be a comment which you made on social media, an SJW who wants to get revenge on you. If you are in a dispute with an SJW, if they are guilty they will immediately scream racism, sexism etc. Unfortunately, since the SJW is always crying wolf, people who are real victims of rape, racism, sexism etc are no longer taken seriously.

1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.
2. Don’t try to reason with them.
3. Do not apologize.
4. Accept your fate.
5. Document their every word and action
6. Do not resign
7. Make the rubble bounce.
8. Start nothing, finish everything.
   from SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

These are the basic steps on how to deal with an SJW attack. I will elaborate on them based on my experience. In the Philippines there are Filipinos who join Facebook groups, they have two goals, the first is to attempt to put a positive spin on the negative parts of Filipino culture the second is to silence opponents. To silence opponents they use racism coupled with white guilt. Except for a three-year occupation by the Japanese during WW2, from 1898 to 1946 the Philippines was a US territory. To be able to fight off an SJW attack, one must know how their opponent thinks.

Know as much about your opponent as possible

Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories. Sun Tzu

During the 2016 American election campaign, Trump accused Mexico and other countries of exporting labor to the USA. In 2015, Mexican remittances from Mexicans working abroad was $24.8 billion up 4.75% from 2014 or 1.8% of the GDP. With the Philippines, in 2015, remittances from Filipinos working abroad was $26.92 billion up 6.2% from 2014 or 8.5% of the GDP. These are official figures, they do not count money taken back in the form of cash when the immigrant goes to his country on vacation etc. In both countries, their economies rely heavily on remittances, in Mexico remittances bring in more revenue than oil.

The second claim of Trump is that the exportation of labor means they have no incentive to fix their own problems. They are exporting their problems to other countries. Some Filipinos are starting to realize this, they are lobbying the Filipino government to remove foreign investment restrictions etc. Instead of blaming their problems on foreigners and playing the victim, start addressing problems. As I showed in my post Filipino paradox - extremely honest but extremely dishonest, Filipinos due to their culture do not like addressing problems. But there are some Filipinos who are speaking out and saying the culture has to change.

The book Migrants for Export: How the Philippine State Brokers Labor to the World shows how the Filipino government lobbies other governments like USA, Canada, Australia etc to lower immigration requirements. It also shows how the Filipino immigrant or overseas worker is indoctrinated to send back remittances to the Philippines. The book was originally a university thesis and was written by a Filipino American. Meanwhile, the Filipino government denies rights to foreigners here, any criticism by a foreigner of the Philippines is illegal.

The Filipino never lets the American forget about the alleged exploitation that occurred during this time. Compared to other colonizers of the era, by 1902, Filipinos were allowed to elect representatives. As the economic paper The Philippine Economic Mystery the quality of life for the Filipino increased by every measure under the Americans. The Americans even implemented land reform, confiscating the Catholic Church’s land to be distributed among the people. The Americans constructed roads, railways, build hospitals to wipe out disease, build schools and universities. The quality of life for the Filipino improved in every measure and by 1946 the Philippines had the second best economy in Asia. The paper then shows the economic decline started in 1946 and the reason is culture. Ironically, the biggest perpetrators of the American exploitation myth are Filipino universities established by Americans.

How the Filipino SJW attacks

The goal of the SJW is to silence all opposition to their opinions by using guilt, shaming tactics, threats or legal measures. The Filipino SJW looks for slights or criticisms. In some cases, they are even comical. Jimmy Sieczka made a comical youtube video entitled 20 reasons I dislike the Philippines earlier he had made a youtube video entitled 20 reasons I like the Philippines. Some Filipinos took offense to the video 20 reasons I dislike the Philippines, some people demanded he should be declared persona non grata. The accusation was so ridiculous that many Filipinos came to his defense Does Jimmy deserve persona non grata?.

A Thai national in the Philippines on a social media post called Filipinos, Pignoys. He then was shamed on social media, there were calls for him to be deported, Thai who called Pinoys ‘pignoys’ fired from job. Later after his apology, he was forced into an agreement he should be voluntarily deported. Meanwhile, there is no outcry when Filipinos call all foreigner pedophiles and sex perverts. The is no outcry when Filipinos lie about history to make other countries look bad. The Filipino SJWs then started commenting how great they stood up to foreigners. This is coming from a country which is dependent on remittances and foreign aid.

How the attack on me went down

Filipino SJWs infiltrate Filipino Expat groups on Facebook. The purpose is two-fold, the first is to make excuses for negative aspects of Filipino culture. The second is to provoke arguments with foreigners who talk about the negative aspect of Filipino culture. They then attempt to get expats with liberal leanings to support them. As one Filipino SJW said, he enjoys watching foreigners fight among themselves. If the Filipino SJW can’t win with logic, they resort to name calling and generalizations about foreigners.

I got into an argument with a couple of Filipino SJW, it was shortly after the Thai was deported. I suspect that they were the ones for getting the Thai deported or possibly they got the idea from the group that got the Thai deported. I complained about a certain aspect of Filipino culture. The Filipino SJW standard comeback is foreigners should be ever so grateful to be in the Philippines. The next comment is if you don’t like it here, leave. I replied, get your 660,000 pieces of Filipino garbage out of Canada, each one costs the Canadian government $6,000 per year and I will leave. Canada does not need Filipino garbage. They then denied that Filipino immigrants do not cost Canada that much I cited this report Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report.

When the SJW loses they resort to threats, this case was no exception. They then threatened to report me to immigration. I told them, that is proof why we should not allow Filipino garbage in Canada. Filipino garbage in Canada complains about racism, they are allowed to publically state their complaints while Canadians in the Philippines have zero rights. Approximately 30 minutes later, I spotted a meme with my photo on it, the statements I had made on facebook calling Filipinos garbage. The meme was stated that I should not be allowed to stay in the Philippines. Unknowingly I then followed these steps.

1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

I was angry as opposed to scared. I then recognized that they were attempting to do the same thing to me as what happened to the Thai. By posting into different Filipino groups, they were attempting to incite Filipinos. I realized once I am under attack, there was nothing anyone else can do. They were meanwhile continuing to post to more Filipino groups.

2. Don’t try to reason with them.

In this case, it was a social media attack. It is difficult to identify your attacker. Inherently most people have a sense of fairness. An SJW doesn’t, they are out for blood. Any reasoning is a waste of time.

3. Do not apologize.

The SJW needs someone else to do their dirty work for them. Apologizing is an admission of guilt. Under normal circumstances, in a court or law for example, if the apology is genuine, it can result in a reduced sentence etc. In every SJW attack, when the person apologized, this was used as an admission of guilt. This was then used against the person. In the case of the Filipino SJW, he wants the foreigner to feel ever so grateful for Filipinos allowing in their country to spend money.

4. Accept your fate.

Since this was happening on social media, things were moving a lot quicker. Approximately 30 minutes had passed since the meme about me started to appear. I then realized that there was a good chance that if they got a large enough crowd against me, immigration might take action. I possibly might be deported. Therefore I came to the conclusion since I might get deported I had nothing to lose. The best defense is an offense.

5. Document their every word and action

I then started to take screen shots of the message exchange that had happened in the facebook group. My thinking is they might delete some of the messages etc. That way, if charges were laid against me, I would have the defense I was provoked. In the case of the Thai national, I don’t know what caused him to state Filipinos where Pignoys. He had no defense.

6. Do not resign

Vox Day, in this case, is talking about if they are attacking your employment. In my case, I would have forced them to put charges against me, and take it to court. Make their job as difficult as possible. SJW do not have direct power themselves. Possibly people might secretly agree with you but because of their jobs or positions, they can not publicly agree with you. In the case of the Thai, he agreed to apologize and then he agreed to allow himself to be deported.

7. Make the rubble bounce.

Whether you survive the attempted purge or whether you don’t, it’s very important to observe who has defined himself as an ally, an enemy, or a neutral party during the process. The choices people make will pleasantly surprise you about as often as they disappoint you. Once everyone’s choices have been made clear, your task is simple. Target the enemy at every opportunity. Hit them wherever they show themselves vulnerable. Play as dirty as your conscience will permit. Undermine them, sabotage them, and discredit them. Be ruthless and show them absolutely no mercy. This is not the time for Christian forgiveness because these are people who have not repented, these are people who are trying to destroy you and are quite willing to harm your family and your children in the process. Take them down and take them out without hesitation. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

The only rules are whatever you do, it should be legal. All moral considerations fly out the window. The SJW will use any means to attack you. Ideally, you need to attack him in a way which causes potential financial damage and shame.

The flaw of the moderate is thinking if you treat the other person fairly, they will treat you fairly. In the case of the SJW, they are after special privileges from governments but they do not want to provide anything in return. In this case, moderates can actually be your worse enemy. Since the SJW relies on sympathy and emotion instead of facts, the moderate will tell you to follow the rules while he allows the SJW to break the rules. Moderates will make statements like don’t provoke them, if you treat them nicely, they will treat you nicely etc. Moderate are nice people but they are naive.

Things will then split into allies, neutral and enemies. The people that are neutral, possibly they might secretly support you but they are scared of possible repercussions if they speak out. Leave them alone. With allies, take whatever allies you can get. With gamergate, Vox Day is an Evangelical Christian. One of his allies was Roosh who Vox Day described as a hedonistic playboy. Having allies will spread out the SJW attacks but come to your allies aid if possible.

The weakness of the Filipino SJW is the Philippines relies heavily on remittances from USA, Canada, Australia etc. So in my case, I took the meme against me and made it into a new meme. I put on it, Filipino idea of equality is Filipino Canadians parasite off the Canadian government $6000 per a year each, while Canadian veteran in the Philippines should have zero right. Do you want Filipinos in your country?. I then started posting as fast as I could to as many Filipino groups as possible. The response ranged from people making excuses for the behavior to agreeing with me. They then started to debate among themselves.

Do you think that sounds too harsh? That’s probably because you haven’t had the experience of SJWs intentionally trying to end your career yet. It’s remarkable of how your perception of what is fair and what is not will change once you’ve seen what the SJWs are willing to do. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Honestly, I feel for Filipinos and other people who are forced to migrate to other countries to feed their families. The problem is, certain people, do not want to address the problems. There are Filipino Americans etc who are saying Filipinos in the USA should stop playing the victim etc. On the other hand, there are Filipino Americans who profit from encouraging migration. But in this case, I am playing for life and death.

As Vox Day said, sometimes you will be surprised at how easily the SJW will break. An hour later a few people messaged me, they asked to see urls of the meme against me. To my surprise, they the people who had put them up had started to delete them. I suspect that one of the people behind the attack was a Filipino American when he saw his employment might be in danger, he started to delete the meme. I then started to delete mine.

8. Start nothing, finish everything.

The mistake of the Thai national is that he randomly posted an offensive remark on social media without any provocation. In my case, I was responding to an attack on my ideas. Should I have called Filipinos garbage? Honestly no, but in my opinion, sometimes if you speak nicely, no one listens. But if possible keep things on a more civil tone. Surprisingly quite a few Filipinos private messaged me, they agreed with me but because of their employment or positions, they can not speak out.

Always be prepared to take it as far as necessary. The SJW wants blood, he wants to show what happens when people speak out. So in my case, I was willing to risk being charged and possibly deported. If I am deported, I would be willing to continue the fight.

The SJW always wants to incite violence or threats, don’t fall into that trap. They can use it for legal action against you. If you avoid this trap, often they then resort to direct threats, you, then you can use that to shame them. The SJW caters to morality hence use their own actions to shame them. Economic pressure through influence is stronger.

The importance of being antifragile.

In this case, there are two types of antifragile, financially and mentally. For people that work for corporations, educational institutions, the government etc. The SJW will always target your employment to put pressure on them to fire you. Within the organization, they will attempt to make you resign. They do not want to actually terminate you because of possible legal action or being forced to pay severance. In this case, refuse to resign, force them to terminate you. Do not make the SJW job easy for him.

To handle these things, one must be antifragile mentally. This means being able to handle the pressure of conflict. Some people are not able to handle open conflict. It’s understandable.

The SJW thought police are not all powerful

In the past, the SJW was able to achieve a lot because they went unchallenged. The reason why they could go unchallenged is because of a monopoly of information. Social media and the Internet has changed this. Today it is harder to keep secrets. Most of you probably are too young to remember the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. China was starting to open up to the west, so there were some foreign journalists there. Originally the reports coming out of China were vague, there is some sort of protest in China. If I remember correctly, it wasn’t until several days later that photographs of the protests started to appear on western news media. It didn’t become evident what was happening to the rest of the world until a week later. Possibly these photographs were smuggled out of China, it was easier for Chinese authorities to shut off communication with the rest of the world.

By contrast today, even in a totalitarian regime like China, thanks to the Internet and Smart Phones it is getting difficult to hide things. A person can take a photograph or video, 30 seconds later it’s on the Internet. China itself is caught in a bind, they need to trade with the west, if they cut off the Internet, they can not longer trade with western countries. People within China have a disposable income, that means they can vote with their wallets. This indirectly can affect government policy.

Further directions

Vox Day’s book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police talks about his experiences with gamergate. Honestly, I found that part of the book boring, I skimmed over that part. As he says, the SJW have gone unchallenged since they 1990s, as a result it is assumed they are unbeatable. He has good ideas but they need to be developed and he admits that. As he said, better tactics need to be developed, in my opinion, we need to use the SJW tactics but improve on them. At the time, I didn’t see the importance of gamergate but it shows to a degree the SJW can be beaten.

Emma Sulkowicz, commonly known as Mattress Girl used extreme shaming tactics against her accuser. He refused to give in to these shaming tactics. It would not call it a victory but he wasn’t harmed as badly as other’s who gave in. Since he never gave in, some mainstream news media sites started criticizing Emma Sulkowicz. This casts doubt on all SJW. If he had marched like a willing lamb to the slaughter, he would be worse off. I will expand on my ideas in future posts.

Thank you for your donations. If you like my posts you me donations to my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Identifying frames

In Influence to change actions, not beliefs I talked about the brain’s interpreter. The interpreter subconsciously fits events or arguments into a frame.

Our understanding of the world is part of the world—a physical part of the world. Our conceptual framings exist in physical neural circuitry in our brains, largely below the level of conscious awareness, and they define and limit how we understand the world, and so they affect our actions in the world. The world is thus, in many ways, a reflection of how we frame it and act on those frames, creating a world in significant part framed by our actions. Accordingly, the frame-inherent world, structured by our framed actions, reinforces those frames and recreates those frames in others as they are born, grow, and mature in such a world.
This phenomenon is called reflexivity. The world reflects our understandings through our actions, and our understandings reflect the world shaped by the frame-informed actions of ourselves and others.
To function effectively in the world it helps to be aware of reflexivity. It helps to be aware of what frames have shaped and are still shaping reality if you are going to intervene to make the world a better place. The ALL NEW Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

As an exercise, let us examine the basic behind the Violence against women laws and how it is framed. The motivation behind nations implementing these laws comes from the UN. The UN has stated:

“violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women” and that “violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.” UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women

and

Violence against women and girls is a problem of pandemic proportions. At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime with the abuser usually someone known to her. Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence

This then is justification to implement sexist domestic violence laws where the man is guilty until proven innocent. In jurisdictions where these laws have been implemented, if a man commits violence or abuse against a woman, the punishments are more severe then if a woman commits the same acts of violence or abuse against the man. From the two definitions, we see that the two statements have been framed as gender-based violence. This means the intent is more important than the actual violence. If a man punches a woman, this is a more serious crime than if the woman shoots him in the face with a gun. The reason is according to the mandate, men inherently want to dominate women.

Inherently we want to enter the other person’s frame and dispute the facts. If you argue has there been historically a disproportionate amount of violence against women, you have entered their frame. They will come back that historical records showing violence against women do not exist since history was written by men. If you argue whether or not violence against women has reached pandemic proportions, again you have entered their frame. So what do we do?

In my previous post, Alpha males act - Beta males react, I stated an alpha controls the situation versus the beta reacts to the situation. Another way is whoever is alpha is causing the beta to react. The way to do this is to reframe the situation.

Breaking out of your opponents frame.

To win one must adopt the tactics of the enemy and then improve on them. On the banks of the Volga river in what is now, Russia lived groups of Slavic people. Every few years the Mongols or Tartars would come and demand tribute, if the Slavs refused to pay tribute, the Mongols would plunder and burn their communities. The Mongols where the best light horse warriors of the time, if the Slavs attempted to fight, the Mongols resorted to hit and run tactics. The Slavs eventually clued in, the only way they could beat the Mongols was by adopting their tactics. To counter this, the Slavs learned how to ride better than the Mongols and improved upon Mongol tactics. Mongols and Tartars found out their tactics were no longer effective and decided to leave the Slavs alone. These Slavic people later became known as Cossacks, famous for their ability to fight on horseback and eventually they drove back the Mongols and Tartars.

When it comes to framing and reframing, George Lakoff the Progressive shill is the best. He is paid to advise how to come up with better tactics to push a Progressive agenda under the guise of helping the common man. I find it helpful to look at frames at the ground on which you will fight. If you fight on the ground the enemy chooses or his terms, you will lose.

Every word, like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears, tusks, and a trunk, live naturally in jungles, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame. …

This gives us a basic principle of framing: When you are arguing against the other side, do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame—and it won’t be the frame you want. …

That is what framing is about. Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas. The ALL NEW Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

In the case for Violence Against Women laws, the ground which the Progressives and Feminists want you to fight on this ground. First, there exists a patriarchy, this male organization has existed since the beginning of time, its purpose is to systematically abuse exploit women. Second, women are abused or exploited more than men as a result of this evil cabal. If you attempt to debate the existence of this patriarchy cabal, you will lose, since history has been written by men. If you cite sources which show men suffer just as much or more than women, the argument will be these sources have been created by the patriarchal cabal. Fighting on this ground inevitably means at best a stalemate, which means you have failed to achieve your objective.

Usually, I choose to fight on, equal rights and protection before the law, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” I then state, using your argument, if there is a violent dispute between a black man and a white man, the police should automatically arrest the black man. In fact, if there is a dispute between an East Asian man and a white man, the police should arrest the white man. In court the East Asian’s testimony should take priority over the white man and the white man’s testimony should take priority over the black man’s. Statistics show, East Asian men, per capita, commit the fewest violent crimes, this means the white man probably is lying. If possible phrase this in a humorous manner.

By framing it in this manner, I have forced the Progressive to fight against racist stereotypes. The Progressive is caught in a paradox, on one hand, they are against racial stereotypes but they have no problem with sexist stereotypes. Their counter will be that I am making racial assumptions, I stick to my frame, state it doesn’t matter, blacks and whites commit more violence than East Asians. All that matters is violent men are removed from society. The Progressive will argue that you are being racist, point out they are using the same argument. All men belong to a patriarchal cabal and want to exploit women. The Progressive is now treading on dangerous ground if they state not all men are like that, then I will throw back, why does the law assume they are?

The Progressive will inherently attempt to draw you back into their frame or switch to a new frame. You must either keep your frame or generate a new frame to counter their frame. George Lakoff is an expert when it comes to framing, reframing, and metaphor. His weakness is that he doesn’t talk about frames colliding.

When two frames collide the strongest will prevail

Whether we are conscious of it or not we are always framing and reframing situations and ideas. You then have two frames, your frame, and your opponents frame.

When frames come together, the first thing they do is collide. And this isn’t a friendly competition—it’s a death match. Frames don’t merge. They don’t blend. And they don’t intermingle. They collide, and the stronger frame absorbs the weaker.

Only one frame will dominate after the exchange, and the other frames will be subordinate to the winner. This is what happens below the surface of every business meeting you attend, every sales call you make, and every person-to-person business communication you have.

The moment your frame makes contact with the frame of the person you are calling on, they clash, battle, and grapple for dominance. If your frame wins, you will enjoy frame control, where your ideas are accepted (and followed) by the others. But if your frame loses, though, you will be at the mercy of your customer, and your success will depend on that customer’s charity. Pitch Anything: An Innovative Method for Presenting, Persuading, and Winning the Deal

Oren Klaff author of Pitch Anything: An Innovative Method for Presenting, Persuading, and Winning the Deal describes frames as two objects which are on a collision course, the stronger frame prevails. I prefer a military analogy, it is like the opening battle scene in the movie Gladiator. The smaller but organized Roman legion is formed up waiting to meet the larger but disorganized Germanic horde.

The Roman legion’s formation is their frame, the legionaries shields are locked together, while they are waiting for the Germanic horde, the Centurions are ensuring frame is maintained. You can see the Centurions calmly walking in front of the formation, telling the legionaries to stay calm, stay steady. If one of the legionaries panics and breaks range, the formation will be broken, the horde will then be able to exploit this hole. Within the ranks, there are veteran legionaries who are telling jokes to try and calm the younger ones.

As the Germanic horde closes, the legionaries can hear the shrieks of the barbarians, their purpose is to try and cause panic and break the Roman formation. In the case of my frame against the feminist, she will be shrieking “you are a misogynist pig”,”you can’t get laid”,”you are angry” etc. The Centurions like their modern counterparts the Sergeant Major, carry large sticks. The centurion strikes legionaries who are reacting to these shrieks and drive them back into formation to maintain frame. When the Germanic horde starts to close in, the commander orders the Roman artillery to start firing. A Roman legion usually had 500 to 1000 catapults and ballistae, combined they could fire over 2000 projectiles a minute. The purpose is more psychological, to break the enemies frame. So with the feminist, I will reply, whether or not hate women is irrelevant, let us stick to the facts.

The Roman legion collides with the Germanic horde, the barbarians are unable to break Roman’s frame the result is death and destruction for the Germanic horde. When it comes to situation frames, two things usually happen. The biggest criticism Steven Pinker, another expert of the mind, has of George Lakoff, is that Lakoff implies frames have mystical abilities when it comes to influence. People never go against their own self-interests, regardless of the facts. Hardcore feminists or Progressives usually have a financial incentive to back their opinions. They work for government agencies, human resources, NGOs etc where they financially profit. Admitting they are wrong would be equivalent to you admitting to a police officer you were speeding, it won’t happen. In an attempt to counter your frame, they will start to make irrational statements, possibly resort to threats and then eventually refuse to talk to you. This is not a lose, the have been forced to reveal their true nature.

For people who do not financially gain from violence against women laws, you will have a different outcome. Initially, they will maintain the standard frame, women are an oppressed group etc. If you maintain your frame and redirect them with it is about equality before the law often they will break their frame. In one case, a single mother admitted I was right, the law is sexist. I later found out, she runs a successful business and is self-supporting. She then admitted the reason why she goes along with the feminist narrative is because she fears being accused of betraying other women.

Understanding beta traps

Beta traps are similar to what is often called shit tests. Shit tests are defined as a way to judge your frame. By incorporating shit tests as part of beta traps it expands our definition.

Because they occupy a coveted rank, alphas have to constantly fight to maintain and protect their position. As top dog, their rank is under constant threat, and alphas protect themselves by asserting their authority over their employees and coworkers. They ask subordinates to run their errands, bring them coffee, and deal with matters that are disinteresting to them or are deemed to be below their rank. These are the nicer forms of dominant turf-protecting behaviors; many who hold alpha rank behave in far worse ways.

To shield themselves from people of higher social rank who visit them in their work environment, they erect a protective ring of social barriers intended to deflect and demote any threatening alphas.

A beta trap is a subtle but effective social ritual that puts you in the low-status position and works to keep you there, beneath the decision maker you have come to visit, for the entire duration of the social interaction. Most business environments are surrounded by a moat of beta traps that you already recognize and know: the reception desk, the lobby, the conference room, and any public meeting space in or near the office. Pitch Anything: An Innovative Method for Presenting, Persuading, and Winning the Deal

The difference between an American culture and other cultures is in an American culture the beta traps are covert. A beta trap is designed to guide your behavior in a predictable manner where you are subordinate. American culture enjoys living under the illusion social status or position doesn’t matter. By contrast, in Filipino culture and other Asian cultures, it is considered rude to question elders. When addressing an elder, one must end a statement with the word po which designates the person is a higher position than you. A person who greets an elder like an uncle or godfather, it is common that they will bless the elder. Blessing means bringing the elders hand to your forehead, it is common even if the person is middle aged.

In Asian cultures, when making major life decisions, it is customary to ask the elder for advice. If you don’t ask the elder for advice, even if they are clueless in that area, they will be insulted. An insulted elder means they will complain to your parents, complain to the rest of the community etc. Eventually, people will start to ask you, why are you so disrespectful to your grandfather? How can you be so ungrateful? Eventually due to peer pressure you will be forced to conform. Social status in both American and Asian cultures matters but in an Asian culture it is more formalized.

Regardless, social protocols, whether open or covert are designed to subordinate you to the person with a higher status. The key is to recognize a beta trap. Once you have recognized the beta trap, then you need to see if you can reframe the situation to break out of it. Breaking the frame means acting in a manner which surprises the other person.

The psychology behind breaking frames.

I had a personal problem, I was wandering around trying to think of a solution. All of a sudden, two guys stepped out then said, give us all your money. Startled, I replied back without thinking, I don’t have any. They asked, what do you mean? I looked around and then realized I had strayed into a poorer district of the city. Again without really thinking about it, I replied, look stupid, if I had any money, do you think I would be wandering around in this part of town? The two large guys then started laughing, I started laughing also. I then said goodbye and walked away. A few moments later, it dawned on me that possibly they might have wanted to mug me. The possible mugging failed because I had unintentionally broken their frame, and then took control.

When you do a certain action, subconsciously you expect a certain reaction. Most of these actions and reactions occur subconsciously, an example of this is walking. You decide to walk in a certain direction, without consciously thinking about it, you place one foot in front of the other. If you trip on a crack on the sidewalk, this interrupts this automated process, you then become aware of walking. Your frame has been broken, whatever you were currently thinking about has been forgotten, you might feel shock or surprise and then you will become aware that you have tripped. Frames are broken when the unexpected happens.

In the case of my two muggers, they expected me to feel panic, possibly reach for my wallet, run away etc. When I didn’t react the way they expected, I stated I don’t have any money, it surprised them. When a frame has been broken, move it to humor. When I sarcastically stated, if I had any money, why would I be wandering around this part of town?, possibly they realized they should move to a better part of town to mug people. Probably they were laughing at themselves, I then joined in the laughter. I imagine it’s hard to mug someone when both the muggers and potential victim are laughing. I then said goodbye, their natural reaction was to say goodbye, then I walked away. By breaking their frame, I was able to take control of the situation, granted it was unintentional.

Beta traps or shit tests are a way to break your frame. In my earlier debate with the feminists, when she throws out I am a misogynist pig, it is a beta trap. She expects that I will be offended, maybe I will apologize. Her accusations that I am angry, again the expectation Is I will attempt to defend my anger, deny being angry etc. If I fail to react, if your opponent has a weak frame, it can break it. With a strong opponent, it is a given that they will throw out these beta traps, if you do not fall for them, it doesn’t affect them.

How do I learn about framing, reframing and breaking frames?

Until a word exists for an idea or object, one can not relate to the idea or object. Inherently you are always framing, reframing and breaking frames but you are unaware of it. Once you are aware of this, then you can start putting it into practice.

In cognitive science there is a name for this phenomenon. It’s called hypocognition—the lack of the ideas you need, the lack of a relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked by a word or two.
The idea of hypocognition comes from a study in Tahiti in the 1950s by the late anthropologist Bob Levy, who was also a therapist. Levy addressed the question of why there were so many suicides in Tahiti, and discovered that Tahitians did not have a concept of grief. They felt grief. They experienced it. But they did not have a concept for it or a name for it. They did not see it as a normal emotion. There were no rituals around grief. No grief counseling, nothing like it. They lacked a concept they needed—and wound up committing suicide all too often. The ALL NEW Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

Different cultures often lack words to describe certain ideas or objects. Until a word is invented for that idea or concept, even though the effects might be known, we are essentially blind to this idea or object. In my post Filipino paradox - extremely honest but extremely dishonest, I described how the Filipino value of kapwa can make Filipinos behave in what appear to be bizarre ways from my perspective. Kapwa is like a group ego, when you describe that concept to a westerner, they often believe it does not exist. Filipinos subconsciously want to frame things according to kapwa.

Start practicing, when you listen to someone speaking, read a story or a news report, watch a movie etc. consciously observe how people are framing things. Example, I was reading a Fox article on the Afghanistan conflict. The article described a day of an American infantryman, he shot at insurgents, then later in the day, helped protect some Afghan girls going to school, then they helped distribute food and medicine. The article was framed from a first-hand perspective which gave the illusion that all American soldiers in Afghanistan are heroes. These heroes are in Afghanistan bringing the benefits of American democracy, education and health care to grateful Afghans. A Progressive news source, by contrast, would frame things to describe American soldiers as homicidal, bloodthirsty maniacs. Two identical situations, but by framing it differently you can turn heroes into monsters.

One area where George Lakoff fails is he doesn’t talk about switching frames. Humor is caused by switching frames.

When I see lovers’ names carved into a tree, I don’t think it’s sweet. I just think it’s surprising how many people bring a knife on a date.

The joke starts with two lovers names carved on a tree, something we expect to be sweet. The author then breaks the frame by stating it isn’t sweet. He then switches to a frame of two lovers carving their name in a tree during a date. This frame is broken by stating it is surprising how many people bring a knife on a date. In my post Understanding metaphor to understand frame and re-framing I showed how words generate images. When the word knife is used in this context, it implies potential violence. Logically, there are many reasons why someone would bring a knife on a date. Maybe they are eating apples and need a knife to cut them.

The best way to learn how to reframe is by practicing. Initially, you should in save areas, that is places where if you fail there will be no drastic consequences. Places you can practice range from texting, social media to conversations with people. During these discussions observe how someone frames things, then try and figure out how it is possible to break the frame. One the frame has been broken attempt to reframe.

Further directions

Whether pitching a sale, debating or attempting to pick up women, the techniques are the same. You are attempting to influence. Along the way, there will be beta traps. These beta traps are either due to circumstances or your opponent has laid them down. The biggest weakness of George Lakoff is he doesn’t talk about stacking frames. Previously some of my readers mentioned OODA loop and attempted to compare it to framing and reframing. In the past, I argued that they are two different things. I then thought about it, using OODA loop could be useful in stacking frames. This will be the subject of a future post.

In the meantime start observing where people are framing and reframing, start practicing these skills. Also, see if you can locate beta traps which are designed to channel your behavior.

If you find my posts helpful, send me bitcoin, my address is
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

What is an alpha male?

alpha male

• the dominant male animal in a particular group.
• a man tending to assume a dominant or domineering role in social or professional situations.

It is helpful to look at the definition of dominant.

dominant

• ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence:
• occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position.

From the two definitions, an alpha male is someone who is in control, they exert authority or influence in a group. How can you tell who the alpha male in a group? As the title of this post states, Alpha males act and beta males react. The terms alpha and beta refer to the hierarchical position of males in a group. How do you tell if a male is an alpha or beta? Simple, an alpha male acts and a beta male reacts. A simple example will demonstrate this.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of facebook, is driving down in Palo Alto, California. A police patrol car pulls out behind him, the patrol car flashes its lights to signal Mr. Zuckerberg to pull over. Mr. Zuckerberg pulls over to the side of the road, the patrol car pulls in behind him, the policeman gets out of the car and proceeds to Mr. Zuckerberg’s car. The policeman then asks Mr. Zuckerberg to show him his driver’s license, ask him how fast he was driving, is he aware that one of his taillights was broken etc. To each of these requests Mr. Zuckerberg complies. The policeman acts and Mr. Zuckerberg reacts, we can clearly see in this situation the policeman is the alpha male and Mr. Zuckerberg is the beta male.

After Mr. Zuckerberg rectifies his problem with the police officer, he then proceeds to the headquarters of Facebook. The moment he enters the office, everyone starts deferring to Mr. Zuckerberg. In this situation, he is the alpha.

Who is the alpha male depends on the situation

The argument used by the politically correct is that alpha males do not exist in the human since it depends on the situation. These are the arguments used by Stanford Professor Robert Sapolsky and anthropologist Tim White.

In Faye Flam’s book The Score: The Science of the Male Sex Drive, Stanford Professor Robert Sapolsky shares his misgivings, stating that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. He notes that in dogs and wolves, for example, every member has a place in the hierarchy. And among baboons, he notes, the alpha male dominates over a group of subordinates who are equal in power to each other—until he is challenged and overthrown. In these species, the alphas exert more power. Humans are more complex, Sapolsky says. We belong to more than one social circle—a man who may be a custodian by day may be a superstar DJ by night. Flam also interviewed anthropologist Tim White, who said that alpha males likely ruled the common ape ancestor humans shared with chimps roughly 7 million years ago, but that they no longer exist among humans. Are Alpha Males a Myth or a Reality? - Psychology Today

The argument used is that human beings are broken down into groups which can cooperate with each other. Who is alpha depends on their status in that particular group and it is dependent on the situation. Using the previous example of the policeman and Mr. Zuckerberg, in that scenario, the policeman is the alpha. What happens if Mr. Zuckerberg doesn’t comply with the policeman’s request to keep both of his hands on the steering wheel? The policeman might decide to draw his gun or drag Mr. Zuckerberg out of his car and throw him on the ground or just shoot Mr. Zuckerberg, the policeman has the authority to do this. The difference between higher and lower social classes in human societies is that in lower classes, the threat of violence isn’t obscured.

Present this hypothetical situation to a person, there are two people, A and B. A has 1 million dollars, B has a gun, then ask the person, who has more money, The benefit or B? Usually, if the person is a former convict, gang member, member of a primitive culture, former military etc. They will answer B. By contrast, people who are isolated from harsh realities will answer A. You will point out, person B pulls his gun, he tells person A to give him the 1 million dollars. People who are isolated from reality will say, B can’t do that. You point out, B has a gun, if A refuses, B shoots A and takes the one million dollars. The naive person will say B can’t do that. You then might as our naive person, why they pay taxes? They might say something like it is the law etc. The real reason is if you don’t pay taxes, the government hires men like the police to collect these taxes. If you refuse to pay these taxes, the policeman might shoot you, if he doesn’t, you will end up being locked inside a steel box for many years. The government is able to collect taxes because they dominate you with the threat of violence.

Members of lower classes of society due to personal experience are able to grasp these realities easier. In primitive societies, criminal gangs, prison gangs etc the alpha male uses violence or the direct threat of violence to maintain authority. These direct threats of violence threaten the person’s life or ability to support themselves. A gang leader threatens to do bodily harm to a gang member who steps out of line. The gang member who is harmed will be unable to earn an income to support himself. By contrast, the intellectual Liberal will claim to abhor violence, yet if they disagree with your opinion they will make indirect threats of violence. Threatening to contact your employer to tell him about your views, ostracization, harassment, lawsuits etc are all forms of indirect violence.

Using deductive reasoning, we can determine the alpha male is always situational and relational. You have 5 dog packs and 5 criminal gangs. From each of the 5 groups, you remove the alpha male and put them into a newly created group. Whether it is dogs or criminals, a new alpha male will emerge in this newly created group. Within the old groups, where the alpha male was removed, a new alpha male will emerge. The methods used to determine how the new alpha male emerges will differ between humans and dogs but the principle remains the same.

Characteristics of alpha males

It is easy to discover what the majority of men find attractive in women. Analyze 70 years worth of beauty contest winners for measurements like hip to waist ratio, facial characteristics etc will yield specific numbers with little variance. There is some cultural bias but for the most part what is considered female beauty is universal. By contrast, if one attempts to use the same methods to identify alpha males, there are some generalities but the correlation is weak. The article Are Alpha Males a Myth or a Reality? - Psychology Today it identifies 3 traits, height, voice and face. But for example, with male facial features, there are studies which contradict each other. This indicates that what women find attractive in men is nonphysical.

The best example of this is the study which indicated women are attracted to bad boys, assholes, and jerks. How did the study define and asshole or a jerk?

In the terms of Psychology, the “asshole” consists of the following traits: High Extraversion, Low Neuroticism (perhaps), Low Conscientiousness, Low Agreeableness, High Openness to Experience, and a bit of a dip into the dark triad traits (those with an extreme dark triad profile aren’t considered sexually attractive). Do Assholes Really Finish First? - Scott Barry Kaufman Ph.D.

Each of the asshole traits describes how the person interacts with other members of a group. This means that being an asshole is dependent on the group itself. High extraversion means the person is able to interact with other people. Paradoxically he has low neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness. These last three traits are ones which are told make people like us. So how would an asshole fit into my definition of Alpha males act - Beta males react?

Since the asshole has high extraversion, he is able to voice his opinion and have people listen to him. Since he has low neuroticism and conscientiousness, he doesn’t care what other people think of his opinion. Usually, his opinion differs from the status quo which causes other members of the group to react. The asshole requires the ability to think quickly to counter the arguments being placed by his opponents. This means through his actions he is causing the rest of the group to react, this gives him power. When his opponents can not break his frame or arguments they refer to him as an asshole.

In a politically correct group, an asshole will say, this election I am voting Republican because I don’t want Negroes wasting my taxpayer dollars. Here the asshole has thrown out an opinion that will get a reaction from the rest of the group. Someone will call the asshole ignorant, one should not refer to black Americans as Negroes. The asshole counters with, forty years ago they liked to be called Negroes, maybe they are confused? This causes another reaction within the group. This means the asshole regardless of his status in the group has temporarily become alpha. He then can keep on doing this to maintain control. Whether or not the asshole is a republican supporter or his personal opinions on black americans is irrelevant, most of the time he just wants a reaction.

The physical traits which an alpha male might have like greater height, deeper voice and a square jaw increase his ability to dominate other males. With the square jaw, it could be a case of correlation as opposed to causation. Square jaws indicate a man with extra testosterone, this would make him more aggressive. In more primitive societies the asshole would need to be able to back up his views with violence. Even the American Author Mark Twain, who was a pacifist, almost got into a duel because of his inflammatory newspaper articles. Until recently, the threat of violence was socially acceptable in most societies, in some societies it still is. An asshole who is physically domineering has a greater chance of warding off threats of violence, this is most likely wired into us at a subconscious level.

Alpha males act - beta males react

power - the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

There is a debate what is alpha versus beta behavior. Alpha behavior is when your actions cause someone else to react. Beta behavior is when you are reacting to someone else’s actions. In the case of humans, who has power is decided by law and social conventions. In the case of a police officer versus a civilian, the police officer is inherently in an alpha position. With male and female relations when it comes to sex, the female inherently is in an alpha position since she is the gatekeeper of sex. From a social evolutionary perspective, the male should have sex with as many females as possible. The female, on the other hand, should only have sex with males who can pass on good genes.

When in an inherently beta position, one has two options to get into an alpha position. Either by breaking the law or breaking social convention. If you choose to break the law, probably you will end up dead or locked within a small steel box with bars. The second method is by breaking social convention or the other person’s frame. Both social convention and the other person’s frame is designed to channel you into a certain path of action. If you follow their frame, you inherently are beta since you are reacting in the manner which they want you to.

In the case of being stopped by the police, the only frame you can maintain is a time frame and silence frame. Depending on your jurisdiction, the police are allowed to arrest and detain you for 24 to 72 hours without charges being laid. You do not have to answer any questions without a lawyer present, a police officer can not detain you unless you been arrested. Even if you are unjustly being arrested, you should cooperate with the police, otherwise, you will be charged with resisting arrest. The point I am making is for the period you are dealing with the police, you are in a beta position unless the case goes to court. In that case, possibly your lawyer can turn it into an alpha position.

Further directions

The only way to tell if your action is alpha or beta is by the results it achieves. It isn’t what you do as much as how you do it. In the example given with the police officer, it is almost impossible to turn an inherently beta position into an alpha one. A benefit versus cost analysis shows this. The benefit is you go free versus for failure, you will end up being charged with a crime. In this case, the best option is to maintain the status quo which is a silence frame and a time frame.

Whether or not alpha and beta males actually exist in humans is irrelevant, it is a useful model regardless. My next post will be on how to break frames to temporarily get yourself into an alpha position.

If you find my posts useful, send me bitcoin, my address is
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

What is a cynic?

Let’s see what Websters has to say.

Definition of cynic
1 capitalized: an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence
2 a faultfinding captious critic; especially: one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest
Merrian-Webster

From the definition, we learn that the term cynic originated with an ancient Greek School of thought and it is a person who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest. From the definition, it deals with gaining an understanding of what actually motivates people. Human beings are unique in two ways. First, they have the capability of language. All social animals have the ability to communicate within their group but with humans, we can transfer large amounts of information. Secondly, human beings are capable of lying, as in transferring a complex idea that is intentionally false. A televangelist named Reverend Crow says, send me 10% of your income, I then guarantee that your spirit will never die, just your body. After your body dies, you will be reborn into a new body at Sugar Candy Mountain.

Mr. Donkey accuses Reverend Crow of spreading lies for self-gain, he is called cynical. Reverend Crow will also call him butt-hurt and angry. Shutup Mr. Donkey you are ruining everyone else’s happiness. Reverend Crow now has created another set of lies to cover up his first set of lies. Indirectly Reverend Crow accuses Mr. Donkey of lying. Other animals are capable of deception but not to the degree humans are. A pigeon will fill himself full of air to appear bigger. Another pigeon can not directly say, hey pigeon, you really are not that big. Then the puffed up pigeon can’t respond with, yes I really am. Lying as a form of deception is unique to humans.

Since humans are capable of lying for self-advantage, that means their true motives can not be determined by what they say. When people are lying, their speech patterns often will not align correctly with their body language. This is why self-deception is advantageous if Reverend Crow believes that Sugar Candy Mountain exists, it is easier from him to deceive others. I call this Lying to the person in the mirror, psychologists call it rationalization. A cynic is a person who understands the true motives of human beings, he is a person who studies social evolution.

What is social evolution?

Social evolution is a subdiscipline of evolutionary biology that is concerned with social behaviors that have fitness consequences for individuals other than the actor. Social behaviors can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor and recipient.

• Mutually beneficial – a behavior that increases the direct fitness of both the actor and the recipient
• Selfish – a behavior that increases the direct fitness of the actor, but the recipient suffers a loss
• Altruistic – a behavior that increases the direct fitness of the recipient, but the actor suffers a loss
• Spiteful – a behavior that decreases the direct fitness of both the actor and the recipient
  This classification was proposed by W. D. Hamilton, arguing that natural selection favors mutually beneficial or selfish behaviors. Hamilton’s insight was to show how kin selection could explain altruism and spite. Social evolution

Freud popularized the term subconscious, that there is a part of our mind which we are not fully aware of but somehow influences our decisions. What is lesser know is that Freud was what we would now call a social evolutionist. He understood that most of our behavior originated from what he called the primal horde. What Freud called the subconscious, we now call the reptile brain, the part of our brain we inherited from reptiles. It is within this brain, emotions originate.

IN 1912 I took up a conjecture of Darwin’s to the effect that the primitive form of human society was that of a horde ruled over despotically by a powerful male. I attempted to show that the fortunes of this horde have left indestructible traces upon the history of human descent;
…
the relation that holds between the contrivance by means of which an artificial group is held together and the constitution of the primal horde. We have seen that with an army and a church this contrivance is the illusion that the leader loves all of the individuals equally and justly. But this is simply an idealistic remodeling of the state of affairs in the primal horde, where all of the sons knew that they were equally persecuted by the primal father, and feared him equally. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego - Sigmund Freud

There is evidence that Freud based many of his theories on Social Evolution or what is sometimes called Evolutionary Psychology. Freud was criticized for stating most of our behavior originates because of sex. Where did Freud get this idea from? Darwin.

Darwin’s reaction to the existence of the bright plumage of the peacock led him to one of his most important insights. Given how sexual reproduction works, he concluded that reproduction is, ultimately, more important than survival! If one animal (let’s call it a survivor) has a feature that improves survival a great deal (but that inhibits reproduction) and a competing animal (let’s call it a reproducer) has a feature that tends to inhibit survival but facilitates reproduction, the reproducer will leave more offspring than the survivor. Accordingly, any feature that is, for whatever reason, desirable to potential mates will be selected—regardless of its survival value. Thus, the preferences of the opposite sex (preferences that, clearly, fall under the umbrella of psychological phenomena) select the qualities that will be reproduced in offspring. Why do peacocks have such a bright tail? Because peahens think a bright tail is a hot commodity. Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love

The foundation of evolutionary psychology which is the foundation for all psychology is based on Darwin’s observation Given how sexual reproduction works, he concluded that reproduction is, ultimately, more important than survival. Darwin then observed that there are two types of evolutionary competition, competition between species and competition within the species. A large peacock tail benefits the male peacock for competition within the species. For competition between species, the tail of a peacock is a liability, it serves no purpose.

The biggest criticism of social evolution is that it couldn’t explain altruism. The reptile brain signals a person with emotions. Altruism makes us feel good, threats to our status or territory makes us angry, danger makes us fearful. Altruism is beneficial in two ways, in the first case, it can be mutually beneficial. In a hunter/gather tribe, food can not be stored, a hunter giving away excess food is a primitive welfare system. In the future, he might be short of food, hunters which he gave surplus food to would be more inclined to give him food when they have a surplus.

The second reason for altruism is less obvious, it is a way for males to signal potential mates they are good providers. The peacock tail shows females that the peacock has a surplus of energy, he then uses this energy to grow a large tail. By the same token, a hunter who consistently gives away food is showing he is producing a surplus of food. This signals potential female mates, he is a good provider. Women want a good provider since babies require a lot of food. Altruism doesn’t exist since it provides the giver with an advantage. If Evolutionary Psychology has a scientific foundation, why is there a tremendous opposition to it?

The illusion of freewill

freewill : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Human beings have the concept of freewill. That they can control all of their actions with their logical mind. This is an illusion. If you are not aware of something, you can not control it. I swing at your head with a baseball bat, you will feel shock or fear, you will instinctively flinch or duck. I stick out my hand, instinctively will also stick out your hand, we shake hands. Many drug addicts are highly intelligent people, consciously they know their behavior is causing self-harm and harm to others. Yet the is a force beneath the surface that compels them to continue using drugs. One of the greatest fears people have is losing their freewill.

Demon possession is an example of a fear of losing one’s freewill. Rename demon to the subconscious and rename own spirit to consciousness. The descriptions of demon possession start to resemble someone whose subconscious is causing them to behave irrationally. The person is described as having an outer force or evil spirit controlling them. This evil spirit causes them to lose their freewill.

Social evolution shows that a lot of our decisions are made by our subconscious or reptile brain. This scares most people. Also, there often is a conflict between the conscious and the subconscious mind. Society tells people they should behave in one way, their logical brain accepts this and tells them the same thing, yet their subconscious tells them to act in an opposing manner. The reason why society tells people to act in a certain manner is self-interest for certain individuals.

Self-interest under the guise of altruism

About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” Acts 19:23-27 New International Version Bible

There are two known accounts of Apostle Paul accusing certain religious followers of being concerned about self-interest under the guise of religion. Later these silversmiths attempt to bring charges against Paul for blasphemy and robbing the temple. The court magistrates throw out the charges due to lack of evidence. There is no proof that Paul blasphemed or robbed the temples. Paul most likely belonged to the branch of Christians known as Gnostics, knowledge or truth seekers. Despite later revision of the accounts of Paul, his message could not be totally hidden.

Move forward 2000 years. In 2007, Satoshi Kanazawa published a book entitled Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire—Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We Do which explained in layman’s language Social Evolution or Evolutionary Psychology. He pointed out many politically incorrect truths. The response, a petition against him by 68 evolutionary psychologists, he was dismissed for writing for Psychology Today and his current employer, the London School of Economics, forbid him from publishing in non-peer review outlets. Meanwhile when so-called woman’s studies scientists publish articles denying gender differences in the human brain, harsh measures like this are never taken against them.

If you mention a politically incorrect truth to the average person, sometimes they agree with you or most of the time they don’t care. The ones that protest the most are ones which profit the most from politically correct lies. Ironically the politically correct attacks religion yet they behave in a similar manner to many religions. To be able to see this, one needs to get a red pill attitude.

What is the red pill?

The term red pill originates from the movie The Matrix. It is an action movie but beneath the action and special effects it has a deeper meaning. The premise behind the movie is everything we see is an illusion, that we are living inside a matrix, a huge computer which generates what we perceive to be reality according to a set of rules. In the movie, Neo is offered a red pill or a blue pill, if he takes the red pill, he will be able to see the hidden rules of the Matrix. Once he sees the hidden rules of the Matrix computer, he is able to free himself. This isn’t a new idea, it is similar to Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave where everything is a shadow on the wall.

The red pill is a name which has been adopted by many Internet groups. The subreddit the red pill describes itself as:

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

There is often debate within the red pill community, what exactly does red pill encompass. The answer is simple, every single decision a male human makes is indirectly sexual strategy. The definition is similar to the social evolution one.

Social evolution is a subdiscipline of evolutionary biology that is concerned with social behaviors that have fitness consequences for individuals other than the actor.

An advertising agent is a red pill. At car shows, beautiful female models sit on the hood of sports cars. The implied message being, if you purchase this sports car, you will be able to attract a beautiful female. The advertising agent knows that putting a female dressed in skimpy clothes on the hood of the car increases sales by 40%. By the reverse token, makeup and beauty products are a multibillion dollar industry for women. The premise being, buy this product, you will be able to attract higher quality men. This is the universal premise, even in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Last year, Saudi women spent almost $2.4 billion on cosmetics, among the highest per capita in the world, and analysts predict that the market will grow by 11 percent this year. Saudi women among world’s biggest consumers of beauty products

What many people, even on the red pill subreddit are in denial about. What is a good sexual strategy for men isn’t a good sexual strategy for women? Men and women live in two different realities as I describe in my post Fish and fishermen occupy different realities. The third wave feminist movement is in total denial since it goes against their best interests. It could be called a red pill for women.

One of the most prominent areas of research in evolutionary psychology—and one of the most controversial 15—pertains to work on sex-differentiated behavioral patterns between men and women in the mating domain. Study after study that examines differences between the sexes in mating-relevant behavior has found important differences that are generally consistent with predictions based on the evolutionary perspective.
Although long-term mating strategies definitely characterize human mating in a general sense, research does suggest that it is appropriate to differentiate between a specific male mating psychology and a specific female mating psychology. Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love

Both the red pill and third wave feminists make the same accusations about each other. Both groups are hateful and they are practicing deception for a sexual advantage. Earlier I talked about self-interest under the guise of altruism, an uncomfortable truth is both males and females of all species practice deception to gain a sexual advantage.

Deception within sexual strategy

Research on sex differences exists in the midst of a sea of controversy. Scholars who reject the idea of human nature point fully to societal structures as the causal mechanisms that underlie male-female differences. Evolutionists, on the other hand, draw on evolution and human nature as critical in helping us understand these differences. This intellectual war rages—and likely will for years to come.
In this context, we believe that the evolutionist approach makes for an intellectually useful framework for understanding the nature of human sex differences—along with much else regarding human social behavior. Human deception is precisely the kind of area that seems to be sex differentiated in a way that is predictable in terms of the evolutionary perspective (of course, we acknowledge that there are differences within each sex in the use of deception). Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love

Women have been practicing deception as a sexual strategy for at least 6000 years. Some of the earliest writings in ancient Egypt describe the use of female cosmetics. There is evidence showing female makeup is at least 100,000 years old. Some of the oldest archaeological discoveries in Africa are what appear to be crayons which appear to be female makeup. Modern versions of female deception are the advice that men should be honest with women. This is rather ironical considering most women are wearing some sort of makeup, the purpose which is to attract men. The uncomfortable truth is women have a greater incentive to deceive men, their survival depends on it.

In this context, we believe that the evolutionist approach makes for an intellectually useful framework for understanding the nature of human sex differences—along with much else regarding human social behavior.
Most of the calories that men in these societies provision come from hunting or fishing. So in many hunter-gatherer groups it’s not unusual for men to contribute up to 90 percent or more of the protein eaten by their families and band. These valuable nutrients and fat, however, come from vertebrate meat. And hunting requires many years of investment to master; even then, return rates are often low and quite variable. Among contemporary foraging groups, vertebrate meat can range from anywhere between 30 percent and 80 percent of the diet. So women’s work is extremely important, since women extract more constant and predictable food resources, including roots, nuts, seeds, invertebrate meat, and plant fibers that require a large amount of effort to process.18 Therefore, both sexes depend very much on one another to divide their labor between the staples needed to survive and the high-value nutrients required to thrive. Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us

In the majority of primitive societies, men have been responsible for gathering the majority of calories for the group. Third wave feminists here will lie by citing a primitive tribe in the Philippines which had female hunters. This is intellectual dishonesty since it is the exception as opposed to the rule. In places like the Philippines, there are no natural predators, the greatest risk is disease as opposed to starvation. From a survival perspective, a man does not require a woman versus a woman requires a man. That means there is a greater incentive for the woman to deceive the man. Third wave feminists go to great lengths to hide this truth.

The argument by the politically correct or feminists is don’t generalize or not all women are like that. From a theoretical perspective, they are correct, there is a possibility for genetic mutations. Whether or not the red pill or social evolution is 100% correct is irrelevant, I quote In this context, we believe that the evolutionist approach makes for an intellectually useful framework for understanding the nature of human sex differences—along with much else regarding human social behavior. From a male perspective, what is an effective sexual strategy?

Viable sexual strategies

Humans, unlike other animals, have technology. The percentage of the population required in food production has shifted from almost 100% in primitive societies to approximately 3% in developed nations. Theoretically, a woman does not need a man as a provider, unfortunately, technology does not change human brains which are thousands of years old. This then leaves a man with three possible sexual strategies.

• Getting cucked - for some men, this is a viable sexual strategy. Cucked refers to a man providing economic resources to a woman for a child which is not his own. Usually, the child is from a higher value male, in exchange for this the man is allowed to raise children of his own. In some primitive tribes, the was a formalized version of cucking. A weaker tribe bordered a stronger tribe, in exchange for not getting wiped out, the weaker tribe would offer the stronger tribe some of their women for sex. These women would then be returned to the weaker tribe usually pregnant. In the modern world, what third wave feminists desire from most men.
• Red Pill Strategy - gain a greater understanding of how humans make decisions, then exploit this understanding to make better decisions. As I have shown, all human decisions are based on sexual strategy, most of these processes are built into our subconscious. For people that argue it involves deception, the entire advertising industry is based on deception. Convincing people that your product is the best.
• MGTOW - known as, Men going their own way. The MGTOW man has the same knowledge as the red pill man. Instead of pursuing a sexual strategy, he decides to spend all the resources he collects on himself. Third wave feminists call these type of men selfish since they are not spending any of their resources on women. Historically this has precedent, the Apostle Paul recommended that if a man can resist his sexual urges, he should stay single.

Possibly there are other solutions for men. To find out the truth behind anything, follow the money.

Everything is economics

economics - a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Economics is a social science dealing with transactions. To ease calculations, humans invented something called money. The value of something is always in comparison to another item. A dozen eggs cost $3 and a bottle of beer costs $3, this means that one bottle of beer is equal to one dozen eggs. Society tells us that certain things like sex, companionship, life can not be measured in dollars and cents, economics says otherwise.

To find out how much sex is worth, look on an escort site in your area. First, you will notice that the majority of people who buy sex are men, this is regardless of whether they are straight or homosexual. There are no sites which offer men who sell sexual services for women. The cost of sex is dependent on three factors, the age, appearance and what type of sex she offers. The point here is to show that value of sex can be measured in dollars.

Most men like to delude themselves with the statement they do not pay for sex. What they mean is they do not directly pay for sex, instead they are paying indirectly. Example, a person drives half way across town to save $0.10 per a gallon of gasoline. The average sized gasoline tank is 12 gallons, he buys 10 gallons of gasoline, in his mind, he has saved $1. What he has failed to account for is the indirect costs, a person’s time is worth $10 per hour, the amount of gasoline consumed driving across town and the wear and tear on his car. Assuming it took in 1 hour to drive across town, instead of saving $1 he has lost a minimum of $9.

For men to increase their chances of attracting women to have sex with they need to increases their looks, power, and status. To do this he decides to work out in the gym 4 times a week at an hour per session and spend more on clothes. If his time is worth $10 per hour, working out in the gym costs him $40 per week. He then needs to calculate how many hours he spends propositioning women etc. The point is the man, there is always a cost. Granted there are other benefits from working out, better health, longer life span etc. From an economic perspective, this does not change the fact indirectly a man always pays for sex.

Originally economics assumed people make rational decisions. Modern economics no longer assumes this, people’s decisions are influenced by their subconscious. From Darwin’s original observation, Given how sexual reproduction works, he concluded that reproduction is, ultimately, more important than survival. People’s economic decisions will be based on sexual strategy and then survival.

You are cynical and bitter

Cynical means someone who assumes humans are motivated by self-interest. It is the ancient version of someone who is a social evolutionist and economist. The more a person profits from deception, self-interest under the guise of self-interest, the more bitter they will find you. As Willie Sutton the bank robber indirectly said, if you want to know how something works, follow the money. Bitter means they find you sour and distasteful. They want to spit you out. It is an interesting analogy since it implies they can not eat you. You have no use for them.

Further Directions

The purpose of this post is to show that all decisions a human being makes are related to either sexual strategy or survival. The closer to the truth one is, the better decisions one can make. A factor that is ignored is the role deception plays in sexual strategy. Historically speaking, the female benefits more from deception than the male since she is inherently reliant on the male. The biggest deception is pretending she is not reliant on the male.

Send me bitcoin because I am too lazy to make up a reason why you should send me bitcoin.
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Debunking the anger is harmful to the health myth.

The anger is harmful myth originates from the seven deadly sins myth which I talked about in Invention of Good and Evil - Intent becomes more important than results. The character traits of the seven deadly sins when used appropriately are needed for success, regardless of how you measure success. The myth is attractive since it enables us to attack successful people with a minimal amount of mental energy. You could always say, even though he is successful in this life in the next life he will be burning in hell. At the same time, it limits your own abilities since when you feel these emotions, you will try and limit them instead of directing them.

The myth of the Type A and Type B personalities fit well with the seven deadly sins myth. If a new belief reinforces an older belief it will be adopted without question. The Type A and Type B personalities originated from a 1950s study, people with Type A personalities allegedly had a greater probability of suffering a heart attack, Type B personalities lead happy and contented lives. Traits of a Type A personality are:

• rude, ambitious and highly status-conscious
• rigidly organized
• impatient and proactive
• concerned with time management

Versus the Type B personality traits are:

• work steadily
• may enjoy achievement but are not concerned with winning and losing
• avoid physical and mental stress
• when faced with competition, focus less on winning and losing.

During the 1980s this type of categorization was common in NewsPapers and TV, Type A personality where bad versus Type B personality people were good. Eventually, all they had to do was say, he is a Type A personality, this implied he was bad, it was implied he was going to die of a heart attack. Later is was proven the Type A and Type B personality theory is flawed, the original study ignore environmental factors. When environmental factors were taken into account both groups had the same risk. In an attempt to redeem the idea, further studies tried to link Type A personalities with a greater probability of developing cancer, again no link was proven.

Even after a concept or theory has been proven false, the belief still lives on. Variants of this myth are you are making yourself unhappy, you are going to get stressed, your health will suffer etc. Indirectly the Type A and Type B personality theory is an indirect attack on male anger since most Type A personality types are men. Why do men have a greater tendency to anger than women?

Why are men angrier than women?

Traditional societies can be broken into male and female social groups. Male social groups are hierarchy based and they are responsible for the protection of female social groups. For a man, status and territory are more important than for a woman. In primitive societies, for a man to lose these things could death. Primitive societies have extremely high rates of male mortality, up to 40%. The high mortality rate is attributed to men fighting for territory and resources within and outside the tribe. If one tribe conquered another tribe, usually the men are killed, the women are assimulated into the other tribe. Even in modern conflicts where ethnic cleansing occurs, this still holds true. In the former Yugoslavia, men and boys were first castrated, then killed. By contrast women were raped but not intentionally killed. For those who claim it is a social construct, Chimpanzees have similar rates of male mortality due to violence. What is interesting, Chimpanzees patrol their territory in a similar manner to primitive human societies. They also have a male mortality rate of a 40%. Therefore the male brain has evolved so that when he perceives his territory or status is under threat he becomes angry.

For males, displaying signs of dominance and aggression is an important way to establish and maintain a social hierarchy. Even if Jake really didn’t feel all that confident, he wanted to look as though he was in charge and not afraid to fight. But as most men know, a show of anger is just as often only a bluff. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Displaying confidence and hiding fear are important for a man. Anger is a display of confidence, it shows he is not afraid of the person challenging him. You will see similar behavior with other pack animals. A dog sees another dog encroaching on its territory, it will growl at the other dog.

A man’s brain area for suppressing anger, the septum, is smaller than it is in the female brain, so expressing anger is a more common response for men than it is for women. The anger-aggression circuits in the male brain are formed before he’s born and get behaviorally reinforced during boyhood and hormonally reinforced during the teen years. And by adulthood, using these hormonally influenced circuits for social risk-taking and aggression has become a familiar part of his life. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

The human brain for a fetus in the womb starts out the same for both males and females. When the testes of the male develop they start to produce testosterone and other hormones. These hormones are what cause physical differences between male and female brains. As the male progresses from infancy to adulthood, their brain will be exposed to more testosterone than females, this will cause structural changes to the male’s brain. Due to social evolution, the septum is smaller in men, men who react to their territory and status being challenged will have an advantage. If male brains have evolved this way, are the allegations that anger affects male thinking negatively true?

How anger affects male thinking

It is important to differentiate between anger and rage. Rage is the result of someone being angry but unable to change their circumstances. The anger builds until the person is unable to make rational decisions. Anger, on the other hand, is an emotion that is directed at another person or circumstance, it isn’t harmful if the person is able to change their circumstances.

Scientists have found that when anger reaches the boiling point in some men, under conditions of high testosterone, it can produce pleasure, egging them on and making their anger harder to control. Joe couldn’t admit it to me, because he almost didn’t know it himself, but part of his brain was enjoying being angry and seeing her angry. He was getting a high from his anger. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

In this case, Joe is a high testosterone man. High testosterone men are more dominant and have a greater tendency to dominate others in the social hierarchy. In this case, Joe and Maria are arguing, they have entered a feedback loop. Joe responds to Maria’s anger by getting more angry which in turn causes Maria to become angrier. The difference between Maria and Joe is the anger affects Maria negatively while it is affecting Joe in a positive manner. Anger affects men and women differently.

For women, anger means their social connects are at risk. For women, social connections are more important than hierarchy or status. Hence women want to avoid being angry and exposure to anger from other. By contrast, for Joe, his increased anger means he will be more successful at defending his status or territory. The definition of winning and losing is different for men and women. For Joe, winning means protecting his status and territory, for Maria winning means maintaining social status. That Maria is in an angry conflict means she has inherently lost even when she has won. This is why women remember episodes with anger longer than men. Here Joe’s anger is a negative thing because it is causing problems with his wife. In normal circumstances it actually is beneficial.

This high was what Joe had been using for decades to win competitions. He knew from playing high-school football that getting angry got him fired up. And he now used that energy to help him win the sales contests at work. When men like Joe are in a competitive mood or looking for a fight, seeing their opponent get angry creates a strange sort of excitement. The intelligent part of the brain, our cortex, has learned to harness deep, primitive emotions—like anger—to our advantage.
According to studies, people prefer to feel emotions that are potentially useful, even if those feelings are unpleasant. Researchers showed that even though anger can cause flawed thinking by reducing the perceptions of risk and triggering aggression, anger can sometimes make us think more clearly. They concluded that anger prompts more careful and rational analysis of another person’s reasoning, so in some instances, anger can make people more rational, not less. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Contrary to popular belief, except for risk judgment, for men anger does not cloud judgment or sense, on the contrary, it makes them sharper. From a social evolutionary perspective, this is logical, anger is a way to gear the man up for conflict. Before entering the conflict, the man will need to assess his enemy, this requires sharper thinking. What is also interesting is that it appears as if anger enables the man to analyze his opponent’s reasoning better. This is the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom teaches.

This also can explain why men perform better in many businesses than women. Steve Jobs had a definite vision of how his products and he refused to compromise this vision. The idea of an iPod and an iPhone were not unique to Apple. What was unique is that these products were built with Job’s vision which he refused to compromise. Previous products made by other companies were made by a committee. They had multiple functions but didn’t excel in one particular function.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates share one common attribute, they would get extremely angry. Both of them had a vision for their companies, both were extremely competitive. Both would do whatever it took to make their products succeed. We now can see how anger can benefit men in certain areas. Are there other benefits.

Women find higher testosterone men attractive

Here lies the paradox of woman’s nature. They desire a man who is domineering since these types of men will make good providers and protectors at the same time these types of men will be more prone to anger.

As it turned out, when Maria and Joe first started dating, she was flattered by his jealous, intense way of letting her know she was the one. She said she liked the way he aggressively stared down other guys he caught checking her out. In those days, Joe’s tough-guy attitude made him more attractive to her.
Research shows that angry men get noticed more—not only by other men but also by women. Ironically, it was the same high-testosterone personality traits that had initially attracted Maria to Joe that were now driving them apart. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Men who are angry get noticed by both men and women. On the other hand for women, the traits which initially the woman found attractive can end up causing problems within the relationship.

Attacking male anger cripples the man

Attacking male anger is a Trojan horse, it pretends to be helpful while it deflects from the argument. First, it limits the man’s ability to argue. As we have shown, anger can enhances the man’s thinking abilities. Secondly, it serves a more subtle method of attacking the man. By using the Seven deadly sins myth or Type A vs Type B personality myth you make the man feel guilty. He then sends himself into a negative feedback loop. He feels angry about a circumstance, instead of directing the anger to fix the circumstance he tries to fight his anger. This means his circumstance will not change, this will cause more anger which the man will attempt to suppress.

My personal theory is that suppressed rage can cause a person to run amok. Amok originally was classified as a culture-bound mental disorder. The term Amok originated in the Malay people which Filipinos are part of. Usually, the person is outwardly calm, appears rational, behaving normally, suddenly the person start yelling and screaming, behaving irrationally. In one case a security guard in the Philippines was repeatedly being teased by his coworkers. The teasing was relentless and wouldn’t stop. One day the security guard went to work, shot all of his co-workers and then killed himself. There are other incidents where a person will get a machete, attack and kill bystanders in a crowded place. They symptoms are similar.

This academic paper attempts to dispute the cultural connect Running Amok: A Modern Perspective on a Culture-Bound Syndrome, in my opinion, the paper is catering to political correctness. I was talking to a Filipino who would occasionally run Amok. In a Filipino culture, one is supposed to conform, they are not supposed to openly express anger. He described the sensation as a kettle on a stove with a lid that is on too tight. He then said he could feel the pressure building, how he is forced to conform, how he feels powerless. Eventually, he would reach a breaking point and explode. The academic paper states that Amok is associated with other mental disorders, in some cases possibly, in this person’s case no. In most cases Filipinos who run Amok seem rational.

The modern politically correct society has created one that is similar to a Filipino one. Men are unable to express their anger in constructive ways, they are forced to suppress it. Worse yet they are made to feel guilty about it, which causes feelings of helplessness. The feeling of helplessness is a major cause of depression. The majority of men who were involved in killing sprees were usually on medication for depression. That a few men go berserk once in a while is worth it to maintain social control.

The methodology used by the Catholic Church and Modern Liberals to maintain control is similar. With the Catholic Church, if one expressed anger, that meant they would not be allowed to go to heaven. With Modern Liberals, expressing anger is damaging to your health, toxic masculinity is what prevents society from advancing. In both cases, there is an implied promise which can not be proven.

Ensuring one’s anger is directed properly

Our emotions are reflections from our reptile brain or what is called the subconscious. The emotion itself isn’t harmful, it depends on how you choose to act on them.

Lou: “So my boss, he was talking to me about how many sick days I’ve taken. And I was like, you know, don’t go there, you know. But, he kept on about wanting to see some kind of a doctor’s note or something. And I said, look I’m seriously serious. You don’t want to go there! But, he kept talking and talking and being such a nag. And then I just blacked out. I blacked out. And when I woke up, I was standing over him. And I was screaming, I told you not to go there! I told you not to go there!”
Buddy: “Well, how do you think you handled that situation?”
Lou: “Uh, not as well as I could’ve” Anger Management - movie

The problem isn’t that Lou got angry it is how he handled the anger. Also, Lou possibly might have boundary issues, maybe Lou did take off too many sick days. If Lou’s boss is being unreasonable, Lou has other options besides beating up his boss. Feelings or emotions are not reality, they are your perception of reality. Lou should acknowledge to himself that he is angry, he then should decide how he wants to react to these emotions. It is a scene from a movie, maybe Lou’s boss might be unreasonable. Lou doesn’t specify how many sick days he took off. In this case, anger might be used to propel Lou into finding a new job etc.

When directed properly, anger can be used to get things done. In the past, I was wronged, people said there was nothing I could do about it. Just accept the situation, they then told me, I am angry. Yes, I was angry. The anger made me determined which I then used to look for possible solutions. Without this anger, I would have given up. In my experience, many times women can be a liability. Instead of trying to find solutions to overcome the obstacle, women try to appeasement. If you pursue the solution, the woman instead of being supportive will be recommending appeasement. Personally when I find a possible solution when I am angry, if possible I postpone acting upon the solution. Anger sometimes causes you to misjudge risk. If you wait, after your anger has dissipated, you can judge if you have a viable solution.

The most important thing to realize that you have a choice. You can either stay and fight or you can choose to walk away. The fight is meant figuratively to mean taking action. The doing nothing, when you choose to do nothing, is a viable choice. Anger Management - movie is a comedy but beneath the surface it raises important points. In the movie, Dave is sentenced to mandatory anger management sessions. Dave (Adam Sandler) is some that everyone abuses and takes advantage of. His boss steals his ideas. His GF is cucking him by seeing a former BF. Even when Dr. Buddy starts dating his GF, Dave doesn’t get angry. Yes, it is a movie but Dave would make an ideal employee. Ironically Dave is extremely unhappy but he doesn’t realize it.

Lou on the other hand despite his violent outbursts, is quite happy. The only problem Lou has his outbursts might result in him ending up in prison. As part of his denial, a person like Dave might try and project unhappiness on Lou. A person like Lou is actually happy since he is able to protect his status and hierarchy.

The key is realizing the emotions are not reality, they are a perception of reality. As the book The Male Brain shows men as young boys instinctively learn that their position in the hierarchy is important. For men, growing up means learning how to hide their emotions, learning how to put on a war face. Some anthropologists believe that the reason men grow beards is to conceal their emotions better, this would give them an advantage when confronting adversity. It is only by dealing with adversity that the boy learns how to control and direct his emotions like anger. Coupled with anger often fear. It is important to confront and identify what this fear is.

Further directions

With relation between men and women, modern wisdom says men and women should be open about their emotions. The problem is since men’s brains are more prone to anger, if a man is open to a woman about his emotions it upsets her. The anger doesn’t need to be directed at her, just anger in general upsets women. A woman asks me what I am thinking, I then tell her I am angry at a certain situation. I have a plan on how to rectify the situation but I don’t have a chance to share it with her, since she starts lecturing me on how I shouldn’t be angry. Of course, I get upset since I feel she doesn’t want to hear my solution. For men, anger can be important when it comes to finding a solution. I have now learned don’t talk to women about these things, it upsets them.

Possibly because there are more women than men in many mental health professions, there is the myth that one needs to share emotions. This is because women, when they are discussing, are validating each other’s emotions. Since women are less prone to anger than men, that means when they share their emotions, it will not be about anger. On the other hand, if a man shares how he feels about his emotions, a woman is caught in a conundrum. There is the natural desire for her to validate the emotion paradoxically she can’t validate the man’s anger emotion since she naturally finds anger repulsive. Due to political correctness, since both men and women have unrealistic expectations of each other, it causes both men and women unhappiness.

The accusation of anger is used to deflect from the real issues. On a deeper level, it can be used as a form of social control. By stigmatizing anger it prevents people from taking action. If accused of being angry, many people will attempt to justify their anger. I then tell the person, whether or not I am angry is irrelevant, let us return to the key issues. Ironically I am often accused of being angry when I am not. In this case, I ask the person, how do you know I am angry? Are you a mind reader?

After writing this post, I am extremely angry, send me bitcoin to pay my bargirl mental health expert
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Debunking the anger is harmful to the health myth.

The anger is harmful myth originates from the seven deadly sins myth which I talked about in Invention of Good and Evil - Intent becomes more important than results. The character traits of the seven deadly sins when used appropriately are needed for success, regardless of how you measure success. The myth is attractive since it enables us to attack successful people with a minimal amount of mental energy. You could always say, even though he is successful in this life in the next life he will be burning in hell. At the same time, it limits your own abilities since when you feel these emotions, you will try and limit them instead of directing them.

The myth of the Type A and Type B personalities fit well with the seven deadly sins myth. If a new belief reinforces an older belief it will be adopted without question. The Type A and Type B personalities originated from a 1950s study, people with Type A personalities allegedly had a greater probability of suffering a heart attack, Type B personalities lead happy and contented lives. Traits of a Type A personality are:

• rude, ambitious and highly status-conscious
• rigidly organized
• impatient and proactive
• concerned with time management

Versus the Type B personality traits are:

• work steadily
• may enjoy achievement but are not concerned with winning and losing
• avoid physical and mental stress
• when faced with competition, focus less on winning and losing.

During the 1980s this type of categorization was common in NewsPapers and TV, Type A personality where bad versus Type B personality people were good. Eventually, all they had to do was say, he is a Type A personality, this implied he was bad, it was implied he was going to die of a heart attack. Later is was proven the Type A and Type B personality theory is flawed, the original study ignore environmental factors. When environmental factors were taken into account both groups had the same risk. In an attempt to redeem the idea, further studies tried to link Type A personalities with a greater probability of developing cancer, again no link was proven.

Even after a concept or theory has been proven false, the belief still lives on. Variants of this myth are you are making yourself unhappy, you are going to get stressed, your health will suffer etc. Indirectly the Type A and Type B personality theory is an indirect attack on male anger since most Type A personality types are men. Why do men have a greater tendency to anger than women?

Why are men angrier than women?

Traditional societies can be broken into male and female social groups. Male social groups are hierarchy based and they are responsible for the protection of female social groups. For a man, status and territory are more important than for a woman. In primitive societies, for a man to lose these things could death. Primitive societies have extremely high rates of male mortality, up to 40%. The high mortality rate is attributed to men fighting for territory and resources within and outside the tribe. If one tribe conquered another tribe, usually the men are killed, the women are assimulated into the other tribe. Even in modern conflicts where ethnic cleansing occurs, this still holds true. In the former Yugoslavia, men and boys were first castrated, then killed. By contrast women were raped but not intentionally killed. For those who claim it is a social construct, Chimpanzees have similar rates of male mortality due to violence. What is interesting, Chimpanzees patrol their territory in a similar manner to primitive human societies. They also have a male mortality rate of a 40%. Therefore the male brain has evolved so that when he perceives his territory or status is under threat he becomes angry.

For males, displaying signs of dominance and aggression is an important way to establish and maintain a social hierarchy. Even if Jake really didn’t feel all that confident, he wanted to look as though he was in charge and not afraid to fight. But as most men know, a show of anger is just as often only a bluff. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Displaying confidence and hiding fear are important for a man. Anger is a display of confidence, it shows he is not afraid of the person challenging him. You will see similar behavior with other pack animals. A dog sees another dog encroaching on its territory, it will growl at the other dog.

A man’s brain area for suppressing anger, the septum, is smaller than it is in the female brain, so expressing anger is a more common response for men than it is for women. The anger-aggression circuits in the male brain are formed before he’s born and get behaviorally reinforced during boyhood and hormonally reinforced during the teen years. And by adulthood, using these hormonally influenced circuits for social risk-taking and aggression has become a familiar part of his life. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

The human brain for a fetus in the womb starts out the same for both males and females. When the testes of the male develop they start to produce testosterone and other hormones. These hormones are what cause physical differences between male and female brains. As the male progresses from infancy to adulthood, their brain will be exposed to more testosterone than females, this will cause structural changes to the male’s brain. Due to social evolution, the septum is smaller in men, men who react to their territory and status being challenged will have an advantage. If male brains have evolved this way, are the allegations that anger affects male thinking negatively true?

How anger affects male thinking

It is important to differentiate between anger and rage. Rage is the result of someone being angry but unable to change their circumstances. The anger builds until the person is unable to make rational decisions. Anger, on the other hand, is an emotion that is directed at another person or circumstance, it isn’t harmful if the person is able to change their circumstances.

Scientists have found that when anger reaches the boiling point in some men, under conditions of high testosterone, it can produce pleasure, egging them on and making their anger harder to control. Joe couldn’t admit it to me, because he almost didn’t know it himself, but part of his brain was enjoying being angry and seeing her angry. He was getting a high from his anger. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

In this case, Joe is a high testosterone man. High testosterone men are more dominant and have a greater tendency to dominate others in the social hierarchy. In this case, Joe and Maria are arguing, they have entered a feedback loop. Joe responds to Maria’s anger by getting more angry which in turn causes Maria to become angrier. The difference between Maria and Joe is the anger affects Maria negatively while it is affecting Joe in a positive manner. Anger affects men and women differently.

For women, anger means their social connects are at risk. For women, social connections are more important than hierarchy or status. Hence women want to avoid being angry and exposure to anger from other. By contrast, for Joe, his increased anger means he will be more successful at defending his status or territory. The definition of winning and losing is different for men and women. For Joe, winning means protecting his status and territory, for Maria winning means maintaining social status. That Maria is in an angry conflict means she has inherently lost even when she has won. This is why women remember episodes with anger longer than men. Here Joe’s anger is a negative thing because it is causing problems with his wife. In normal circumstances it actually is beneficial.

This high was what Joe had been using for decades to win competitions. He knew from playing high-school football that getting angry got him fired up. And he now used that energy to help him win the sales contests at work. When men like Joe are in a competitive mood or looking for a fight, seeing their opponent get angry creates a strange sort of excitement. The intelligent part of the brain, our cortex, has learned to harness deep, primitive emotions—like anger—to our advantage.
According to studies, people prefer to feel emotions that are potentially useful, even if those feelings are unpleasant. Researchers showed that even though anger can cause flawed thinking by reducing the perceptions of risk and triggering aggression, anger can sometimes make us think more clearly. They concluded that anger prompts more careful and rational analysis of another person’s reasoning, so in some instances, anger can make people more rational, not less. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Contrary to popular belief, except for risk judgment, for men anger does not cloud judgment or sense, on the contrary, it makes them sharper. From a social evolutionary perspective, this is logical, anger is a way to gear the man up for conflict. Before entering the conflict, the man will need to assess his enemy, this requires sharper thinking. What is also interesting is that it appears as if anger enables the man to analyze his opponent’s reasoning better. This is the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom teaches.

This also can explain why men perform better in many businesses than women. Steve Jobs had a definite vision of how his products and he refused to compromise this vision. The idea of an iPod and an iPhone were not unique to Apple. What was unique is that these products were built with Job’s vision which he refused to compromise. Previous products made by other companies were made by a committee. They had multiple functions but didn’t excel in one particular function.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates share one common attribute, they would get extremely angry. Both of them had a vision for their companies, both were extremely competitive. Both would do whatever it took to make their products succeed. We now can see how anger can benefit men in certain areas. Are there other benefits.

Women find higher testosterone men attractive

Here lies the paradox of woman’s nature. They desire a man who is domineering since these types of men will make good providers and protectors at the same time these types of men will be more prone to anger.

As it turned out, when Maria and Joe first started dating, she was flattered by his jealous, intense way of letting her know she was the one. She said she liked the way he aggressively stared down other guys he caught checking her out. In those days, Joe’s tough-guy attitude made him more attractive to her.
Research shows that angry men get noticed more—not only by other men but also by women. Ironically, it was the same high-testosterone personality traits that had initially attracted Maria to Joe that were now driving them apart. The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Men who are angry get noticed by both men and women. On the other hand for women, the traits which initially the woman found attractive can end up causing problems within the relationship.

Attacking male anger cripples the man

Attacking male anger is a Trojan horse, it pretends to be helpful while it deflects from the argument. First, it limits the man’s ability to argue. As we have shown, anger can enhances the man’s thinking abilities. Secondly, it serves a more subtle method of attacking the man. By using the Seven deadly sins myth or Type A vs Type B personality myth you make the man feel guilty. He then sends himself into a negative feedback loop. He feels angry about a circumstance, instead of directing the anger to fix the circumstance he tries to fight his anger. This means his circumstance will not change, this will cause more anger which the man will attempt to suppress.

My personal theory is that suppressed rage can cause a person to run amok. Amok originally was classified as a culture-bound mental disorder. The term Amok originated in the Malay people which Filipinos are part of. Usually, the person is outwardly calm, appears rational, behaving normally, suddenly the person start yelling and screaming, behaving irrationally. In one case a security guard in the Philippines was repeatedly being teased by his coworkers. The teasing was relentless and wouldn’t stop. One day the security guard went to work, shot all of his co-workers and then killed himself. There are other incidents where a person will get a machete, attack and kill bystanders in a crowded place. They symptoms are similar.

This academic paper attempts to dispute the cultural connect Running Amok: A Modern Perspective on a Culture-Bound Syndrome, in my opinion, the paper is catering to political correctness. I was talking to a Filipino who would occasionally run Amok. In a Filipino culture, one is supposed to conform, they are not supposed to openly express anger. He described the sensation as a kettle on a stove with a lid that is on too tight. He then said he could feel the pressure building, how he is forced to conform, how he feels powerless. Eventually, he would reach a breaking point and explode. The academic paper states that Amok is associated with other mental disorders, in some cases possibly, in this person’s case no. In most cases Filipinos who run Amok seem rational.

The modern politically correct society has created one that is similar to a Filipino one. Men are unable to express their anger in constructive ways, they are forced to suppress it. Worse yet they are made to feel guilty about it, which causes feelings of helplessness. The feeling of helplessness is a major cause of depression. The majority of men who were involved in killing sprees were usually on medication for depression. That a few men go berserk once in a while is worth it to maintain social control.

The methodology used by the Catholic Church and Modern Liberals to maintain control is similar. With the Catholic Church, if one expressed anger, that meant they would not be allowed to go to heaven. With Modern Liberals, expressing anger is damaging to your health, toxic masculinity is what prevents society from advancing. In both cases, there is an implied promise which can not be proven.

Ensuring one’s anger is directed properly

Our emotions are reflections from our reptile brain or what is called the subconscious. The emotion itself isn’t harmful, it depends on how you choose to act on them.

Lou: “So my boss, he was talking to me about how many sick days I’ve taken. And I was like, you know, don’t go there, you know. But, he kept on about wanting to see some kind of a doctor’s note or something. And I said, look I’m seriously serious. You don’t want to go there! But, he kept talking and talking and being such a nag. And then I just blacked out. I blacked out. And when I woke up, I was standing over him. And I was screaming, I told you not to go there! I told you not to go there!”
Buddy: “Well, how do you think you handled that situation?”
Lou: “Uh, not as well as I could’ve” Anger Management - movie

The problem isn’t that Lou got angry it is how he handled the anger. Also, Lou possibly might have boundary issues, maybe Lou did take off too many sick days. If Lou’s boss is being unreasonable, Lou has other options besides beating up his boss. Feelings or emotions are not reality, they are your perception of reality. Lou should acknowledge to himself that he is angry, he then should decide how he wants to react to these emotions. It is a scene from a movie, maybe Lou’s boss might be unreasonable. Lou doesn’t specify how many sick days he took off. In this case, anger might be used to propel Lou into finding a new job etc.

When directed properly, anger can be used to get things done. In the past, I was wronged, people said there was nothing I could do about it. Just accept the situation, they then told me, I am angry. Yes, I was angry. The anger made me determined which I then used to look for possible solutions. Without this anger, I would have given up. In my experience, many times women can be a liability. Instead of trying to find solutions to overcome the obstacle, women try to appeasement. If you pursue the solution, the woman instead of being supportive will be recommending appeasement. Personally when I find a possible solution when I am angry, if possible I postpone acting upon the solution. Anger sometimes causes you to misjudge risk. If you wait, after your anger has dissipated, you can judge if you have a viable solution.

The most important thing to realize that you have a choice. You can either stay and fight or you can choose to walk away. The fight is meant figuratively to mean taking action. The doing nothing, when you choose to do nothing, is a viable choice. Anger Management - movie is a comedy but beneath the surface it raises important points. In the movie, Dave is sentenced to mandatory anger management sessions. Dave (Adam Sandler) is some that everyone abuses and takes advantage of. His boss steals his ideas. His GF is cucking him by seeing a former BF. Even when Dr. Buddy starts dating his GF, Dave doesn’t get angry. Yes, it is a movie but Dave would make an ideal employee. Ironically Dave is extremely unhappy but he doesn’t realize it.

Lou on the other hand despite his violent outbursts, is quite happy. The only problem Lou has his outbursts might result in him ending up in prison. As part of his denial, a person like Dave might try and project unhappiness on Lou. A person like Lou is actually happy since he is able to protect his status and hierarchy.

The key is realizing the emotions are not reality, they are a perception of reality. As the book The Male Brain shows men as young boys instinctively learn that their position in the hierarchy is important. For men, growing up means learning how to hide their emotions, learning how to put on a war face. Some anthropologists believe that the reason men grow beards is to conceal their emotions better, this would give them an advantage when confronting adversity. It is only by dealing with adversity that the boy learns how to control and direct his emotions like anger. Coupled with anger often fear. It is important to confront and identify what this fear is.

Further directions

With relation between men and women, modern wisdom says men and women should be open about their emotions. The problem is since men’s brains are more prone to anger, if a man is open to a woman about his emotions it upsets her. The anger doesn’t need to be directed at her, just anger in general upsets women. A woman asks me what I am thinking, I then tell her I am angry at a certain situation. I have a plan on how to rectify the situation but I don’t have a chance to share it with her, since she starts lecturing me on how I shouldn’t be angry. Of course, I get upset since I feel she doesn’t want to hear my solution. For men, anger can be important when it comes to finding a solution. I have now learned don’t talk to women about these things, it upsets them.

Possibly because there are more women than men in many mental health professions, there is the myth that one needs to share emotions. This is because women, when they are discussing, are validating each other’s emotions. Since women are less prone to anger than men, that means when they share their emotions, it will not be about anger. On the other hand, if a man shares how he feels about his emotions, a woman is caught in a conundrum. There is the natural desire for her to validate the emotion paradoxically she can’t validate the man’s anger emotion since she naturally finds anger repulsive. Due to political correctness, since both men and women have unrealistic expectations of each other, it causes both men and women unhappiness.

The accusation of anger is used to deflect from the real issues. On a deeper level, it can be used as a form of social control. By stigmatizing anger it prevents people from taking action. If accused of being angry, many people will attempt to justify their anger. I then tell the person, whether or not I am angry is irrelevant, let us return to the key issues. Ironically I am often accused of being angry when I am not. In this case, I ask the person, how do you know I am angry? Are you a mind reader?

After writing this post, I am extremely angry, send me bitcoin to pay my bargirl mental health expert
3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Understanding the interpreter of the human brain

To understand framing and reframing arguments one needs to understand what Michael Gazzaniga, a pioneer of cognitive neuroscience, calls the Interpretor. The human brain is comprised of different parts, each part having a different function. The job of the interpreter is to take all of these inputs from the different part of our brains and to combine them into a narrative that makes sense. Neuroscientists have no discovered where this interpreter exists in the brain but they can prove its existence.

Everything you see with your eyes is an illusion. The way the optic nerve is connected to the eyeball creates a blind spot. Each eyeball transmits vision data with a big hole in the middle. The interpreter in the human brain fills in this hole. What you are looking at is an illusion. For the most part, the human brain does a good job interpreting reality but there are exceptions. Optical illusions are an example of where the interpreter malfunctions. With an optical illusion, the brain compares a central object against surrounding objects. It then frames it, in the case of the optical illusion, incorrectly. Everyone has seen a sentence like this one Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Here your interpreter is filling in the blanks. The interpreter takes input and then modifies it to fit your belief system, this occurs at the subconscious level. Where does the interpreter get the information to fill in or correct these blanks?

The brain comes prewired with defaults, as Steven Pinker shows in The Blank Slate, most people have an innate fear of snakes and spiders. Even infants have a fear of snakes and spiders which indicate it isn’t a learned behavior. What would be the evolutionary explanation for this? Most snakes and spiders are harmless but getting bitten by a poisonous snake or spider is a Black Swan event, meaning if you get bitten by a poisonous snake or spider, you will probably die. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense to error on the side of caution.

Then there are brain defaults which are from gender differences, Louann Brizendine the Neuropsychiatrist, provides an overview of them in her books The Female Brain and The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think. With gender differences in thinking, there is a spectrum, lesbians, for example, have essential a male brain in a female body. Finally one has the beliefs created by our experiences, one of the big influences is culture. Most Hindus find the idea of eating beef repulsive, culture affects brain programming at an early age. Your beliefs can be changed by your experiences, the snake or spider fear can be overcome by being exposed to snakes.

You do not need to know how the brain’s interpreter works, just it is always there, always running. This post is about changing people’s actions as opposed to their beliefs, to do this we use re-framing.

Entering the psychotic’s frame and then spoiling it for him.

Richard Bandler is a fat slob who is a self-confessed charlatan. As he says, the difference between me and other mental health professions, I tell you straight out I am a fraud. Despite all of this, he has a certain charm. It was through Bandler I first encountered re-framing.

I’ve always thought that John Rosen’s approach to psychosis was the most useful: enter the psychotic’s reality and then spoil it for him. There are a lot of ways you can do this, and some of them aren’t obvious. For instance, I had one guy who heard a voice coming out of electrical outlets, and the voice forced him to do things. I figured if I made his hallucinations real, he wouldn’t be schizophrenic anymore. So I hid a speaker in an outlet in my waiting room. When he came into the room, the outlet said “Hello.”. The guy turned around and looked at it and said,
“You don’t sound the same.”
“I’m a new voice. Did you think there was only one?”
Where did you come from?”
“Mind your own business.”
That got him going, Since he had to obey the voice, I used that new voice to give him the instructions he needed to chance what he was doing. Most people get a handle on reality and respond to it. When I get a handle on reality, I twist it! Using Your Brain–For a Change

Most people would argue with the psychotic whether or not electrical outlets can talk. The brain’s interpretor can usually find a way to rationalize why the person has these beliefs. The interpreter defends the person’s belief systems. If you would accept all new beliefs given to you, you would be open to manipulation. Michael Gazzaniga talk about how he was working with a patient who believed she was always in her house. When he was examining her, she was in his office. He then asked her, where are you? She replied I am at my house. Mr. Gazzaniga then opened his office door and showed the lady the row of elevators, he then asked, how can you this be your house? Houses do not contain rows of elevators. The lady replied it cost me a fortune to get all those elevators installed.

Instead of attempting to change the psychosis’s reality, Bandler instead enters the psychosis’s reality. In this reality, for some reason, electrical outlets can talk. The problem isn’t that the electrical outlets talk but that the voices coming out of the socket told the psychotic to do antisocial things. The psychotic believes he has to obey the voices from the electrical outlets. Bandler then reframes the problem by replacing the old voice in the electrical outlet with his own. He then tells the psychotic to stop doing antisocial things and how he can improve his life.

psychosis - a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

The story also shows that whether or not a behavior is classified as psychosis is largely cultural dependent. A person who claims to talk to a divine entity, depending on your religious beliefs, is viewed as someone who is special. A facebook post by a mental health professional stated that since Trump was elected she was terrified of being raped. She then stated her feelings were real and not to be questioned. In my opinion, it is improbable that her chances of rape have increased due to Trump getting elected. Therefore her emotional feelings appear to have lost contact with external reality. She argued that I am the one out of touch with reality. Somehow the election of Trump will cause millions of men to become rapists. Interestingly enough, the mental health professionals patients commented they had the same fears. This indicates that some forms of psychosis are socially acceptable other are not.

The importance of understanding the other person’s reality

My post Myths - reflections of our cultural subconscious showed how cultural beliefs which are reflected in myths affect our subconscious. Even when a person no longer believes in these myths they subconsciously affect their decisions. An example of this is former Hindus who become atheists, despite their change in religious beliefs, they still find the idea of eating meat, especially beef repulsive. If your goal is to get the former Hindu to eat beef, it will be difficult to re-frame this action. Some actions, on the other hand, can be re-framed.

Two religion pushers visited my house, I am always interested in why people believe certain things, so I invited them in. I have a large dog, if a person is nervous around a dog, it upsets the dog. I then noticed on the religion pushers appeared nervous, so I asked her why is she nervous. She replied, she was scared of the dog. I then stated, when Daniel was thrown into the furnace his faith was being tested. Maybe my dog has been sent to test her faith. If her faith is as strong as she claims, she should not be afraid. She then laughed, appeared to calm down and my dog was no longer agitated.

People inherently frame things, often men and women think they want the same think when they actually don’t. In my post, What Men fail to understand, Men solve, Women affirm I showed men want to solve problems versus women want someone to affirm them. Men frame things that when there is a problem, they should offer a solution. Women frame problems that they want someone to affirm there is a problem. This causes all sorts of problems, most of the time, men should just shut up and listen. I, of course, do not follow my own advice, the woman then claims I lack sensitivity etc.

Time can be used to frame situations. The man asks a woman to dance in a club. The woman replies no, the man reframes with, I don’t want to marry you, I just want to have a dance with you. Here he has reframed his request from a lifetime to ten minutes. Usually, the woman would laugh and say lets dance. Similar methods can be used with online dating, a woman has a shopping list of all the qualities she desires in a man. She states she wants these qualities for a long term relationship. The man can reframe by asked her, what is the woman doing right now? She replies that she is waiting for Mr. Right. The man says while you are waiting for Mr. Right, why not have some fun with Mr. Wrong? What do you plan to do if Mr. Right never comes along? Here the man has changed the frame.

It is only by entering the other person’s frame or reality one can frame things correctly. My post, Understanding metaphor to understand frame and re-framing that all language is metaphor and simile. As in all words are comparing something to a fixed reference point. Here you need to verify that both of you are using the same reference point. The same word can mean different things to different people.

Further directions

The purpose of this post was to show it is better to attempt to change the person’s actions as opposed to their beliefs. To do this, you need to know what the person’s beliefs are. You then need to re-frame your point so the action is within their beliefs. The difference between influence and fraud is the second uses deception to re-frame your points so they match the other person’s belief system. If your deception comes to light, it inevitably will have negative consequences.

How to do the reframe requires research and looking at things from different perspectives. The techniques discussed in my post Finding better solutions by thinking inside the box sometimes are helpful for reframing. Talking to the person, asking questions can help in finding out what their belief systems are.

Finally, do not attempt to change the person’s belief systems. It is our innate nature to attempt to do this but usually it accomplishes little.

Bargirls require Newyear lady drinks, send me bitcoin so I can buy them a Newyear lady drinks. 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If your are in the Philipines and need a bitcoin account you can sign up for one at coins.ph.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.

Until recent history, culture, and religion were the same

The divide between religion and culture is a modern one, in Britain, the Queen of England is head of the Anglican Church. The roots of the separation of religion and culture have their roots in Christianity, the reason was political.

The ruler maintained social control with religion, social control can either have negative or positive aspects. Prior to religion, the largest social groups humans could maintain would be equivalent to our evolutionary cousins, Apes, Chimpanzees, Monkeys etc. This reason is the leader of these other primate groups needs to maintain control directly. The alpha primate of the group maintains control directly by implied threats. If the alpha primate is not there, the other members of the group will not follow the rules. If your dog thinks you are not looking, he will attempt to take food off the table. A key component of training your dog not to eat food off the table is to create the illusion you can always see what he is doing. For humans, religion played a vital role in this, it provided the illusion that someone was always watching you.

The book The Evolution of God shows that religious/cultural beliefs evolve. Originally all societies started at a tribal level, they had Shamanic religions with countless deities which resembled humans closely. These deities served two purposes, they provided an explanation for things and more importantly they provided social control. What makes the Bible interesting is behind the scenes it is possible to see how Judaism developed. Originally Jews started as 12 tribes which were polytheistic, for the tribes to have unified, the 12 commandments from Moses where required. This prevented individuals from within the tribes killing each other.

The Bible shows an evolution from polytheistic personal gods to a monotheistic abstract god. As scientific knowledge increased, the direct involvement of gods was no longer needed to explain things. The role of gods switched from explaining natural behavior to social control. In the garden of Eden, we see a personal god who walks among humans and talks with them. Later in Genesis, Jacob gets into an argument with God and has a wrestling match with him. After his encounter, in Genesis 32:20, Jacob states, I have seen God face to face, yet my life was spared. A few thousand years later, the son of God crucified on a cross is asking God, why have you forsaken me? There is an evolution from personal gods to an abstract god.

The Bible provides a snapshot of meme theory in action over a 2000 year period. The garden of Eden myth probably originated with the Babylonian religion. Other neighboring religions had similar myths to Noah and the flood. There is also evidence of cultural evolution in action. Example, someone gets the idea that pigs are unclean. In the middle east, eating pork puts one at a greater risk from parasites. You would see your neighbor is healthier, you will think he is blessed by a god, you will be inclined to adopt this belief. The Bible has basic hygiene rules. If a person has an illness, send him away from the rest of the tribe. This prevents the illness from spreading. At the time, the path of infection was unknown, the explanation would be, god doesn’t like you eating pork, people who do not eat pork are blessed.

The Jewish religion evolved into monotheistic one and more importantly one where its believers could not accept the existence of other gods. This is one unique characteristic of Judaistic based religions, it also enabled its believers to keep their religion even when conquered. When the Roman Empire conquered other ethnic groups, it was a simple matter of moving some of the conquered groups gods into a Roman temple. That the Romans beat the ethnic group proved that Roman gods were stronger, with polytheism it was easy for the conquered group to just add Roman gods. The Jewish religion, by contrast, would not allow this. Judaism evolved into Christianity, which allowed the religion to spread throughout the rest of the Roman empire. But before this could happen, the needed to be a separation between God and earthly authorities or the beginning of the separation between state and religion.

13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. 17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him. Mark Chapter 12, King James Bible

Did Jesus actually say this? It doesn’t matter. Before recording devices or shorthand writing existed, historians got a general consensus of what people believed a famous person said. They then attempted to reconstruct this consensus into a logical account. Historical accounts were inaccurate. Printing presses did not exist, manuscripts were copied by hand. The person copying the manuscript might make errors or they might correct the manuscript to their views. Writers were flexible when it came to facts. When writing a biography of a Caesar or King, their birth was signified by the appearance of a comet or a star. Jesus is King of the heavenly realm, the author of the Gospel of Mathew decided to add in a comet or a star.

In the Roman Empire, Christianity had a problem, they can not accept the possibility the Caesar is a god. Meanwhile, the Romans are worried the Christians will not pay taxes. By separating Caesar into the ruler of physical things and Jesus into the ruler of spiritual things this fixes the problem. To assure the Romans that Christians will pay taxes, Jesus sends someone to fetch a Roman coin. Whoever wrote this passage was an expert at reframing. Placating the Roman authorities allowed Christianity to spread throughout the Empire. But it wasn’t until the founding of USA that a true separation between state and religion occurred. We have seen how the separation of state and religion occurred, how did the evolution of good and evil happen?

The evolution of good and evil

Hunter gather societies contrary to popular belief were highly successful when it came to gathering food and resources. The evolution of good and evil originates with societies becoming agricultural based.

Sahlins concludes that the hunter-gatherer only works three to five hours per adult worker each day in food production. Using data gathered from various foraging societies and quantitative surveys done among the Arhem Landers of Australia and quantitative materials cataloged by Richard Lee on the Dobe Bushmen of the Kalahari, Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer tribes are able to meet their needs through working roughly 15-20 hours per week or less. [Original affluent society

• wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society)

Archaeological evidence shows that people in agriculturally based societies worked harder and had a greater tendency to be malnourished. The advantage that agriculturally based societies had is they could tie up the land preventing hunter-gatherer societies from using it. The garden of Eden myth probably reflects how the knowledge of agricultural destroyed the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis Chapter 3, King James Bible

Here we have an example of how certain types of knowledge can be harmful, but there isn’t yet good and evil. As the book The Evolution of God shows, inside the garden of Eden, Eve is tempted by a serpent. Modern Christians assume that the serpent is the devil but the first time we encounter the devil in the Bible is in the book of Job. Here the Devil is described as a daemon, a servant. We see that this daemon has been dispatched by God to tempt Job. The Garden of Eden myth predates the book of Job, but the book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. It isn’t until the New Testament that the Devil is being blamed for all sorts of problems in the world. Why did Jesus and his followers need a Devil or the concept of Evil?

**Intentions become more important than results

Throughout the longest period of human history—one calls it the prehistoric period—the value or non-value of an action was inferred from its CONSEQUENCES; the action in itself was not taken into consideration, any more than its origin; but pretty much as in China at present, where the distinction or disgrace of a child redounds to its parents, the retro-operating power of success or failure was what induced men to think well or ill of an action. Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

If you decipher what Nietzsche is saying, for most of human history, whether or not an action was good was determined by its consequences. At some point in time, this changed to its intent. The middle east in the Roman Empire was unique in that is was a free market of religion. It was full of traders traveling between Europe, Asia, and North Africa. The traders would bring with them their respective religions. Prior to the this, transfer of beliefs between different religions only occurred at the boundaries of two or more tribes. Within the tribe itself, the religion was protected by the ruler. In the free market of religion, how do you explain how members of competing religions are blessed?

Simple, instead of basing actions on consequences, base it on intentions. For this to work, you need an all powerful, evil entity which Christianity and later Islam called the Devil. Proving intent if you can not read minds is impossible. Then answers questions like, why is the Jupiter worshipper prospering? The Jupiter worshipper is getting his rewards from Satan. Satan does this to lead one astray. How come the Jupiter worshipper does good deeds? The Jupiter worshipper has bad intentions, he does this to lead you astray to Satan. These same tactics could be used within the competing versions of Christianity.

Early Christianity did not have a uniform set of beliefs. This first battle took place between the Gnostics and what would become accepted Christianity. Simon Magus, or Simon the Sorcerer, most likely was a Gnostic. How do you explain the things he was able to achieve? Simple, he from the devil, his intentions are bad. Within the different branches of modern Christianity, you can see the same thing. This argument was used by different branches of Protestantism and Catholicism. The same reasoning is used within competing versions of Islam. What is amusing is this argument is still used by most Atheists.

** Greenpeace had good intentions, that seals were never endangered doesn’t matter.

Greenpeace and similar environmental groups first gained popularity by protesting seal hunting. Seals were never endangered, the method used to kill the baby seals isn’t much different than the method to kill cows, pigs or sheep for food. Greenpeace intentionally chooses to protest seal hunting since baby seals are cute. Smashing in the head of a cute baby seal with a club gets people emotional. Someone smashes the head of a pig, no one cares. That hundreds of thousands of fishermen and native people relied on seal hunting for their livelihood during the lean winter months is irrelevant. That banning of seal hunting robbed these people of their livelihood and contributed to the destruction of the Canadian East Coast Fishery is irrelevant.

In 2013, the Canadian department of fisheries estimated the harp seal population to three million, three times that of the 1970s. Each seal consumed 8 kg of fish a day or approximately 3 tons of fish a year. One doesn’t need to be a marine biologist to see that this would affect the fish population. As fish populations declined, a moratorium on all east coast fishing was imposed. The closing of the east coast fisheries caused more economic hardship for an already impoverished region. Since intent is more important than consequences, Greenpeace for causing economic destruction is a hero. Greenpeace intended to use seal hunting to raise awareness for their organization and it worked.

Using the same logic, Stalin and Mao were not evil. According to their writings, they intended to create a utopia on earth. Unfortunately, evil, greedy peasants didn’t cooperate. These peasants needed to be reeducated. That their economic programs failed caused starvation and uncooperative peasants were killed is irrelevant. Their intentions were good, the consequences do not matter. Stalin and Mao had good intentions they are heroes.

** JD Rockefeller despite saving the whales and cutting down on pollution is evil.

Oil played an integral part in the founding of United States. Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America shows that one of the primary exports from the Northern American colonies was whale oil and whale bones. Whale oil from the blubber was using primarily for lighting in lamps. Spermaceti, the waxy substance found in the heads of whales was used to make candles. The bones of the whales were used in the manufacture of corsets. The benefit of whale oil is that in lamps it burned cleaner and brighter than any other oil. Spermaceti candles also burned brighter and cleaner than beeswax or other types of candles. As a result, whale oil products and whale bones were in high demand in Europe.

The invention of the exploding harpoon in the 1870s increased the rate which whales could be hunted. Whales in the local waters of the eastern USA were driven to the brink of extinction. Whalers then began to travel further north and south to find new species of whale to hunt. Eventually, they reached the waters above the arctic circle and went as far south as Antarctica. The search for new sources of whales after the 1870s is similar to the modern search for new sources of petroleum oil. Why did people stop hunting whales?

Petroleum oil became a cheaper substitute. Originally when Petroleum oil was discovered in the USA it was more expensive to produce and refine than whale oil. The primary substitute for whale oil as a lighting oil was Kerosene. Kerosene is produced from the distillation or refining of petroleum oil. Unfortunately, due to the inefficiency of refining and improper refining techniques the kerosene produced was expensive and often unintentionally mixed with gasoline. Kerosene mixed with gasoline is dangerous since it is explosive. The waste byproducts like gasoline and asphalt were dumped into nearby rivers. One man would change this, JD Rockefeller.

As the book, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller shows, he was greedy, ruthless and eliminated the competition. His determination was probably a result of his family being abandoned by his father who was a traveling medicine man and conman. The one thing that helped JD Rockefeller and his family survive was his mother’s Baptist faith. This would instill into young Rockefeller the values of hard work and frugality. Rockefeller was determined to escape the shame of his impoverished childhood. An opportunity for this presented itself with the emerging US Petroleum industry.

During the US Civil war, while other’s were prospecting for oil, JD Rockefeller saw the importance of refining oil. The primary purpose of refining the oil was to get kerosene, the other 60% of the refining products like gasoline and asphalt were thrown away. Gasoline an explosive by-product was dumped into rivers. Rockefeller saw that instead of throwing away the gasoline and asphalt it could be used to heat the petroleum oil for the distillation or refining process. The distillation process in other refineries was a haphazard process. Rockefeller hired a chemist to make the process scientific, that way all kerosene produced from his refinery was of uniform quality. As a result, he was able to decrease operating costs and as a benefit decreased pollution. Using the extra profits he earned, he bought out other refineries and make them more efficient. These savings he then passed onto the consumer which made Kerosene a competitive product to whale oil.

Rockefeller saw that the transportation of oil was inefficient. Originally oil was transported by railcar in barrels. To lower costs, he made contracts with railway companies agreeing to a guaranteed amount of oil every month on a specific schedule. This benefited both Rockefeller and the railway. The railway had a guaranteed income and they could schedule shipping oil during downtimes, Rockefeller benefited due to reduced shipping costs. These reduced refining and shipping costs Rockefeller passed onto the consumer. For his entire life, Rockefeller was constantly looking for ways to reduce waste and inefficiency. For example, originally natural gas was flared off as a waste product, He pioneered creating natural gas pipelines turning a waste product into something that could be used to heat homes cheaply and cleanly.

As the price of Kerosene dropped and with the invention of petroleum-based substitutes, the demand for whale oil decreased. By the 1920s, whaling ceased to be a major industry in the USA. So here we have a man who helped saved the whales, cut down on pollution, dropped the price of oil from $120 (2013 dollars) a barrel to $20 (2013 dollars), maintained this price for the next 70 years is evil. The cheap price of kerosene also allowed even poor Americans to light their houses which encouraged literacy. Whatever benefits Rockefeller gave society are irrelevant since he was only concerned with profits, he was greedy therefore he is evil.

Judge a tree by its fruits

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

To determine whether Rockefeller provided more value to the world than Greenpeace requires a cost/benefit analysis. The point is, one should judge by results, not the alleged intentions. As Nietzsche points out, by working backwards one can turn failure into good intentions. On the other hand, using the same methodology, one can turn positive results into evil ones by claiming bad intentions. Another side effect of the myth of good and evil one can use it to turn a person’s natural instincts work against him.

Using the person’s natural instincts against them.

Modern Liberals or Progressives claim to be open minded and tolerant, they denounce religion for being intolerant. Meanwhile, if their false prophets are attacked they will use the same methods as the false prophets of old. They inevitably use variants of the seven deadly sins:

• Lust
• Gluttony
• Greed
• Sloth
• Wrath
• Envy
• Pride

Their methods are similar to old fashioned evangelical preachers. To see these methods in action old-fashioned revival service. First, they have good looking girls dressed in white singing with the voices of angels. The man looks at these women, he naturally feels lustful. Then the preacher gives a sermon about how it is wrong to feel lust. These feelings are wrong, they come from the devil, you must renounce them or be cast into the burning pit of hell. Then afterwards he has the same angelic ladies sing songs about redemption, the pastor then sends people to collect money.

The modern Liberal uses a similar tactic. Besides being a good way to make money, it also sabotages competition to their ideas. Instead of competing, the man will be busy trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Men like JD Rockefeller, Mao, Stalin etc had strong natural human instincts. These human instincts directed properly are what enabled them to achieve the status they did. In the case of Stalin and Mao, the problem was the system they lived in didn’t allow them to direct these instincts in beneficial ways. Both China and Russia where tyrannical states, to achieve their ambitions, both Mao and Stalin overthrew the leaders of these tyrannical states. They replaced it with a more efficient system of tyranny.

Instead of setting up systems which direct these natural tendencies in a healthy direction, the modern Liberal like the false prophets of the past attempt to change human nature.

Further directions

Until recently, the artificial divide between religion and culture did not exist. Culture evolves to fit the environment but within the culture, but within the culture will be vestiges of the past. The concept of good and evil, the seven deadly sins are from this past.

Religion itself isn’t bad. It depends on what the beliefs are of the religion. In Judaism and early Protestantism, both religions required its followers to be able to read the appropriate scriptures. Then the followers were encouraged to debate or interpret what these scriptures meant. This then had unintended positive consequences.

The point behind this post like most of my posts is to provoke thought and cause people to question conventional wisdom. In this case, why are certain things considered good or evil? Where did these ideas originate from?

Send me bitcoin because I asked you to. Adding because in a statement increases compliance by 30% plus, it works even if the reason given is ridiculous. 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ.

Sources
Historic Price of Oil 1861 to Present

Solitary confinement in most the majority of prisoners causes severe mental trauma. The stress created from this form of confinement can shrink parts of the brain including the hippocampus which is responsible for spatial memory, orientation, and emotional control. Yet some prisoners emerge from long periods of solitary confinement unscathed. What did they do differently compared to the other prisoners? Some of these prisoners recommended finding out what you can control within your small cell and controlling. For example, deciding when you would eat your meal and exactly how you would eat it. Other prisoners resorted to mental imagery, mentally bouncing a ball in their heads. Some prisoners would just imagine themselves sitting on a bench in a park. The key is since they were able to control something in their environment, even if it was insignificant, prevented the feeling of helplessness. What causes the feeling of helplessness?

How to teach helplessness?

Learned Helplessness - The term learned helplessness was coined by psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven Maier in 1967 to describe the behavior of dogs who, after experiencing inescapable electric shocks behaved as if they were helpless. As with many terms in psychology, learned helplessness is both descriptive and explanatory. Learned helplessness describes a constellation of maladaptive passive behaviors that animals (dogs, rats, cats, fish, mice, and humans) frequently exhibit following exposure to uncontrollable events. Learned helplessness is also a cognitive, expectancy-based explanation; after repeated, inescapable, aversive helplessness, animals expect to be helpless and do not attempt to change the situation—they have learned that their actions are ineffective. Learned Helplessness - International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

Psychologists conducted psychological experiments on animals with electric shocks. In the first group, there would be a way for the animal to avoid the electric shock. In the second group, the animal would be unable to avoid the electric shock.

In the first group, the animal’s cage would be divided into two areas, for each portion the floor of the cage could be electrified. The animal would be on one side of the cage, the animal would receive painful electric shocked but learned if they jumped to the other side of the cage they could avoid the electric shocks. Despite receiving this type of abused, the researchers discovered the animal remained relatively healthy psychologically.

With the second group, the entire floor of the animal’s cage was electrified. Initially, when the floor was electrified, the animal would attempt to avoid the electric shocks. After a while, the animal learned he could not avoid the electric shocks. When the floor was electrified, the animal just huddled on the floor, it did not make any attempt to avoid the shocks. The animal then became lethargic and depressed.

What is surprising the actual electric shocks did not cause the animal to become depressed. The animal became depressed only when he was unable to avoid the electric shocks. This then explains how prisoners in solitary confinement were able to avoid depression by mental exercises for example. The prisoner still had some control over his circumstances. Before we go further, let’s take a detour into intelligence.

How important is intelligence?

People often comment that I am an intelligent man. I usually sarcastically reply, for an intelligent man, I seem to do a lot of stupid things. Being intelligent means I can read lots of books and I can do a lot of keyboard mashing. I also can do stuff like provide what appears to be a logical argument for actions that are actually pretty stupid. It also means I am better at Lying to the person in the mirror, I did many stupid things but at the time I was able to rationalize they were intelligent. When people ask about my time in the military, I reply like this.

In the military, I spent most of my time having my ass carried by my comrades. They are often shocked to find out I served in the infantry, ground pounders or as Americans like to call them, grunts. They assume I served in Intelligence or something with computers. The next question is, why did I need my ass carried? Sometimes I am pretty stupid. There are forms of intelligence IQ tests can not measure. Possibly these forms of tests can be developed. My comrades saw I tried hard, but some things I was just stupid, so they had to help me out. I, on the other hand, helped them out by filling out useless forms explaining why we had lost military equipment or supplies.

The Limousine Liberals I talked about in my previous post, How Limousine Liberals perverted the Left fail to realize the skills needed to perform many trades. This is because they have never done real manual work, worse yet, they denigrate manual work. Point I am making, a man with a low IQ can become a better woodworker, metal worker, welder etc by practice and learning. The Limousine Liberal claims he endorses equality but when the working man expresses his views, he, of course, is ignorant.

The reason why I took a detour into a discussion about intelligence is because of books like Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Limousine Liberals state the book is racist because it points out that certain ethnic groups like Blacks and Hispanics have a lower than average IQ. Another factor they ignore is the effect of culture, before colonization, Malaysians and Filipinos have similar origins. Modern Malaysia is far more successful then the Philippines, the difference being, the first was colonized by the British versus the second the Spanish. Instead of addressing the real issues, they deflect with arguments like is low IQ caused by environment or genetics etc. These are pointless arguments which do not provide immediate solutions.

Ford Motor Company in Detroit was one of the first major companies to hire blacks. To compete with Ford, other factories in Detroit started to hire black workers. Lower supply of black workers means that black wages will rise. The black/white wage gap, despite racism, was closing naturally. After blacks started to earn more money, they were able to start things like Motown and other business. You would think, blacks making more money, being productive, not ending up in prison would make Limousine Liberals happy. On the contrary, they state there was inequality. The where more whites with office jobs while blacks were doing dirty jobs like working in the paint shop. The grim reality is, the black man probably had a lower IQ than his white counterparts, this meant he could not perform an office job as well as his white counterparts. But him working in the paint shop meant he could feed his children and provide them with a better start. Also from 1900 to 1950, the number of blacks doing clean jobs increased which showed this problem was fixing itself.

So how did Limousine Liberals manage to subvert things?

Accepting responsibility for your actions

I had lots of fun during one of my drinking sprees in the military, so much fun that I ended up getting detained by the military police. I possibly was facing charges but fortunately, a nice doctor visited me. He then asked me a bunch of questions concerning my drinking, I didn’t see any reason to lie, so I told him the truth. After he finished questioning me, he said, I think you are an alcoholic and winked. You can not control your drinking. He seemed like a genuinely helpful doctor, so I told him, I agreed I am an alcoholic. He replied, no problem, I will tell your superiors this. Little did I know, I was facing possible charges but by saying I was an alcoholic, it avoided this problem.

The nice doctor talked to my superiors and recommended instead of charging me, they send me to an alcohol treatment center. Suspecting I faced possible charges, I agreed. The treatment center was based on Alcoholics Anonymous and its 12 step program. The program has been attacked for its cultist behavior, an outdated theory of addiction and accusations that it victim blames. The first two allegations are correct. The one redeeming factor was avoiding a sense of helplessness or becoming accountable for one’s actions.

Most of the treatment consisted of group therapy or written exercises. One of the components of the exercises is that your feelings are not real, they are a result of how you choose to react to certain circumstances. Someone in the group would share an experience where they got angry and had an argument with their boss at work. After work, they went to the bar, got drunk, got into a fight then ended up in jail. The counselor would ask the person, what could they have done differently so they didn’t end up in jail. If the person attempted to rationalize or shift the blame to someone else, the counselor would ask:

Where are you at fault in this problem?

The person might say, well maybe I shouldn’t have escalated the situation by swearing at my boss. Maybe instead of going to the bar, he could have gone straight home. The point of the exercise is that the person had a multitude of options. In regular 12 step programs, usually, it would be other group members who would call you on your BS. Knowing about helplessness, we can see why this was effective and actually empowered the person. They learned from their mistakes, next time the person would be able to deal with the situation better.

This was always coupled with don’t beat yourself up. Which meant one can not change the past, we can only learn from it to change the future. The one area where 12 step programs fail, is they fail to take into the brains neuroplasticity. We now know what causes the addiction can be changed. If this form of therapy was effective, the question arises, where did don’t blame the victim originate from?

Don’t blame the victim

Don’t blame the victim implies that the victim is helpless, they can not change their fate. What is interesting, the phrase originated with the modern black civil rights movement and feminism.

James Farmer, civil rights leader and honorary vice chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “By laying the primary blame for present-day inequalities on the pathological condition of the Negro family and community, Moynihan has provided a massive academic cop-out for the white conscience and clearly implied that Negroes in this nation will never secure a substantial measure of freedom until we learn to behave ourselves and stop buying Cadillac’s instead of bread.” 30 In 1987, Hortense Spillers, a Black feminist academic, criticized the Moynihan Report on semantic grounds for its use of “matriarchy” and “patriarchy” when describing the African-American family. She argues that the “terminology used to define White families cannot be used to define African-American families because of the way slavery has affected the African-American family.”31
Psychologist William Ryan, in his 1971 book, Blaming the Victim, also criticized the Moynihan report. He said it was an “attempt to divert responsibility for poverty from social structural factors to the behaviors and cultural patterns of the poor.”32 Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps

Despite racism, Jim Crow Laws, Lynchings etc. The wage gap, education gap etc between whites and blacks was naturally closing. What is interesting is that Booker T. Washington and other early black leaders warned about blacks who would be using victimhood for profit.

One of American’s greatest pioneers, a former slave, educator, entrepreneur, advisor to Presidents and the founder of Tuskegee University, Booker T. Washington, spoke of this class in his 1911, “My Larger Education.” He referred to them as “Problem Profiteers.” The definition of which has remained consistent into our new millennium.
“There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.” Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps

By the 1980s, it started to become evident that modern civil rights movements had actually caused blacks to regress. If you are conspiracy-minded, you would get the idea blacks were test subjects in a social engineering experiment. The idea of don’t blame the victim then started to be used to attack other organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous’s 12 step programs. It has now become accepted mainstream when it comes to many social issues.

Coupled closely with don’t blame the victim is the modern idea that feelings are reality. Modern Liberalism arbitrarily picks which feelings are valid, people who have feelings which are invalid should be shamed. After Trump was elected President, I saw many posting on social media, including one by a psychiatrist and her patients, they where having nightmares about being raped. On the other hand, men who complain about being victims of divorce rape and female abuse are angry and told to man up. If you talk about these things or other social issues, you will probably be told:

There is nothing you can do about it.

This is the modern standard response to almost all complaints. There is nothing you can do about it, negative thoughts like that will make you unhappy. I often respond, well I am doing something about it right now. They go, what do you mean? I reply, I am educating you about the problem. Possibly they might respond with, I don’t need that type of negativity in my life. I reply, then you are part of the problem, how do you expect things to get better? In some cases, the person visibly flinches. I then might point out that accepting reality doesn’t mean one has to become unhappy.

If you examine the above conversation, it is an example of learned helplessness. There is a problem, instead of discussing it, choose to do nothing, sit in the corner of your cage, and just accept the electric shocks. This type of thinking is not even questioned anymore.

Popular media makes people think that grandiose gestures are needed. Willingly choosing to do nothing is an option. Finding ways to legally exploit the system is an option, they key word is legally. Choosing not to buy the latest electronic gadget is an option. By making do with your cell phone or tablet for another year, that means you will have greater economic independence, this, in turn, gives you more options.

From my observations, people who claim you are being negative or bitter and accuse you of being unhappy are usually unhappy themselves. They want to hide from reality. The other possibility is they are the ones who actually profit from the current system. Obviously, they are concerned since they see their livelihood under attack.

Further directions

Learn helplessness or helplessness is when it appears you have no choice. There are always choices but often they are not obvious. My post Finding better solutions by thinking inside the box was a theoretical post on finding new solutions using the materials you have on hand. In the military, my Sergent ordered me to do something. I then asked him, do I have to do what you ordered? He replied, Yes I do. I asked, what happens if I decide not to? He said, I will be charged, I will then go to military prison. I pointed out, that I have a choice, either do what he ordered or go to military prison. He told me to shut up and do what I am told, stop wasting time. I replied, yes Sergent, I choose to obey you order instead of going to military prison. He got a good laugh from it.

The point is, there are always choices, and if you look at things from different angles you can see more possibilities.

If you find my posts entertaining or helpful you can send me bitcoin at 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If you wish, you can sponsor me on Patreon. Thank you for your support and positive comments.

You can also follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab.ai @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative. If there is a post or topic you would like me to write about, feel free to contact me via twitter or Reddit.