The same mistake

I started writing this entry in January, 2016, just after my first entry. I was in a strange state of mind — very depressed, largely due to taking Cymbalta, which I later found out I SHOULD NEVER, EVER TAKE — but I figured I’d post it now, after a bit of editing.

I was very morose. In a deep, dark hole. And the maudlin sentimentality reflects the state of mind I was in at the time.

Note that I was still vol-cel at the time. The issues I discuss here were not sexual, and I think I underestimated just how prevalent the assumption that ‘male attention toward a woman is always sexual’ actually is. Like I said, I was in a weird place, mentally and emotionally. I’m always struggling by January anyway.

I find the thinking morbidly empathetic and self-pitying. The style overly formal, neurotically overstated, and approaching the incomprehensible… but I’ll publish it now, after a little cleanup effort, if only to remind myself of where I was at that time, and where I don’t ever want to go back to…

I don’t want to make the same mistake.
*****
THE SAME MISTAKE

There has never been a mistake I’ve ever made that I have the wisdom never to repeat. One does not live a lifetime on a first meal. Why then the insistence that we learn from our mistakes?

Among those mistakes that are my ‘existential Chinese food’ is the tendency to over-generalize a similarity with someone. No matter how many times it’s happened, I still sometimes find myself taking some small glimmer of similarity with a person, and wrongly projecting it into a broader compatibility. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, a hope of connection to another like mind that I discussed in my previous essay, “Contemplating Loneliness”.

Perhaps this over-generalization flaw is actually a reaction to its opposite: the inability to generalize, or predict, what other people are going to do in some social situations.

The same personality that can attract friends and lovers can provoke distaste, distrust, disgust, disapproval, disappointment, disregard, and occasionally disaster in some other person — which has at times baffled me. How can people be so different, yet so convinced they see ‘the reality’ of another person.

How can someone ‘dislike’ someone whom other people love?

I’ve realized a pretty young woman must get a type and quantity of attention that a man cannot even imagine. That amount of attention must be both a blessing and a curse. But it comes too easily; they’ve done nothing to earn it, and a suspicion of others, a lack of appreciation for the value of effort, and a false sense of somehow ‘deserving’ — setting her up for a profound shock later in life — is often the price.

The biggest mistake I think she can make is to think she has “earned” that attention. The second biggest mistake is to believe it’s more than ephemeral.

But most times, it seems, all she ever knows is that she’s made another wrong choice in whom to trust, and then only after the fact. Unless she learns she consistently makes the same mistake — the opposite of my own repeated mistake — she is doomed to either repeat┬áthat error in judgment, or become embittered and lonely.

It’s easy for me to avoid the ‘false positive’ error of trusting someone with whom I have nothing in common, or in whom I can see no quality of character. It’s always been with those I felt a commonality, and thought highly — leading to a false sense of familiarity — I have inadvertently learned these life lessons.

This fact would seem to lead inevitably into suspicion on my part, but that’s not what seems to happen for me, or for her. I’ve never learned to accurately predict how people will react to me, especially women, but I now try to imagine some past hurt she bore, and a scar she still wears, that causes her to continuously make the mistake of ‘the false negative’, or ‘the false positive’.

(I’m describing a self-sacrificing form of empathy. How noble of me.)

Is friendship predictive of a potential relationship with a woman, or is it an inescapable hole called ‘The Friend Zone’?

The only type of woman who has provoked romantic interest is the rare gem who is neither suspicious nor dismissive of me, implying that friendship and romantic interest overlap for me. But it often seems to work oppositely for women; many would never consider a relationship with someone they get along with — so utterly weird and twisted it seems to me!

The same set of traits that can cause one person to think I am fascinating can cause someone else to view me as a creep. I don’t know what life experiences have led to these radically differing interpretations of this same person — ME! — so I cannot stand in judgment, and thus I best not be offended.

Advertisements

A response to Muslim terrorism

Homo_habilis-cropped

There’s often talk about being “better than” extremists. That’s another psych-op intended to prevent any action toward self-defense. We’re not better than, and no moralistic position is relevant.

You do what you have to do to protect your society, and your people. Take a hypothetical scenario in which torturing and murdering a billion people would be necessary, and not doing so would result in the genocide of your own people…

Then you torture and murder a billion people. If you have any moralistic hesitation, then you should have no say whatsoever in the decision-making process.

It’s hypothetical. It’s a variation on a ‘reductio ad’ argument. But it outlines the basic principle: You do everything you need to do to protect your people, and maintain a liberal society of free expression for individuals and groups within your society.

Anyone who suggests it’s better to be destroyed than “sink to their level” needs to be marginalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Someone asked me, “What if humans are your people?”

What if a group of humans doesn’t believe ‘humans are their people,” and act accordingly. What you’re saying is idealistic, and not based in the real world. Distinction is difference. Can you distinguish one group of so-called “humans” reliably? Can the person next to you reliably make the same distinction? Can someone make the same distinction, and their neighbors make that distinction, and use it to call you an enemy?

The answer to those questions is ‘Yes’. That’s the real world. Family Resemblance Categories. Clustering phenomena. Organic social organization, as opposed to ‘idealistic’ (not based in real-world phenomena).

What if humans are your people, and humans destroy other humans based on distinctions you simply PRETENDED not to see? That’s what you’re recommending.

You’re playing nonsense games with language. I know it comes from a good place, you have no malice, but it’s another effect of the Bubble of the Success of Western Culture that causes a detachment from pragmatic, realistic understanding of relevant categories.

Besides, humans is not a species. There are no extant human species. “Human” is a genus. The picture above is a “human”… Homo habilis. It had a brain just larger than a walnut, was about 3-4 feet tall, covered with fur, could not use language, only used basic tools, but it could walk upright, though hunched over.

Excuse the following sarcasm, but I have a major reorganization in thinking to accomplish:

But why stop at humans? Why not include Family Hominidae? Chimpanzees and bonobos are your brethren. Power to the chimps!!

Keep going. Include all mammals. Naked mole rats are your brothers and sisters,

Phylum Chordata. Everything with a spine is related to you.

Kingdom Animalia. Slugs are people, too!

Selecting “humans” as your people is almost arbitrary. They share the ability to use language, and a few other basic similarities, but a close ancestor to Eurasians — but not sub-Saharan Africans — the Neanderthals, could not use much more than grunts and hand signals, and they went extinct so recently that one should consider them effectively “us” if you are White or Asian.

What ultimately matters is: What people will continue your culture? If you think all humans are the same, you’re deliberately creating a cognitive blindspot, using selective attention, and ideology over thought, and you will be surprised about just how narrow a group the real answer to that question is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2599854/Europeans-closer-Neanderthals-thought-Ancient-DNA-humans-species-interbreeding-outside-Africa.html

You don’t have any thoughts. You don’t have any ideas. You don’t have values or feelings, either. What you have, and what you have ONLY, is ‘fractal adumbrations’ — primordial echoes of all the evolutionary stresses your ancestors survived, and (IMPORTANTLY) that their brothers, sisters, and cousins did NOT survive.

That’s it. That’s all there is.

You cannot replaced that with someone who shares no common ancestry for the past 5000 to 200,000 years and expect them to have the same thoughts, ideas, values, to create the same culture, have the same in-group identity or inter-group attitudes, the same economic success, have the same anything. The Selfish Gene, and the genetic imperative wants you, and the legacy of your ancestors, GONE.

That’s it. That’s all there is.

You have ONE JOB, and it’s not the one that signs your paycheck every week or so per the employment contract, but is secretly trying to steal everything they can from you.

That ONE JOB is to create a safe, prosperous environment for your descendants, and the descendants of your close relatives. And you’re not doing it. You’re not doing your ONLY fucking job.

You let someone else, someone who you don’t even know who they fucking are, talk you out of doing your only job, so that they can get an advantage for their descendants at the expense of yours.

It may not happen in your lifetime (and maybe it will), but your children, your grandchildren, their children, will experience a type of violent brutality that you’ve never seen in real life, you’ve never seen on TV or movies, that you cannot even fucking IMAGINE, but which THEY will see FIRST-HAND as it is committed upon them and everyone they love.

At that moment, they will curse you for not doing your job. You won’t be there to hear, so I will do it for them now:

FUCK YOU. You had one job, and you didn’t do it. I’m finding it hard to include my standard “and I love you”… but I do. I must, or I’d not be making this effort, taking this risk. Nonetheless…

Just fuck you. And fuck me, too.

I’m still that annoying boy

Hug your mom every day if you can. I randomly did it this morning, pretending I was stuck to her and couldn’t pull myself off of her… just long enough to become slightly annoying.

I’m still that boy who expresses affection toward females by annoying them. I always will be. I constantly look for openings in the ‘social milieu’ to annoy women to whom I have some sort of attachment.

If they pull some sort of power-play, causing me real-world consequences, it doesn’t just end the annoying behavior… It severs the relationship. I never forget that kinda stuff. It’s not some sort of masculine “code” or test or power-play… It’s ‘the thing itself’… they’re willing to cause me harm. Just to one-up me. I understand what they’re telling me, even if they thought they “didn’t mean all that,” and I never forget it. It hurts the feelings I have for them. Of course it does. How could it not?

If they just ‘go silent’, it chills the relationship, and it takes a long time to warm up. I stop trusting them.

Otherwise, no, they don’t have a choice in the matter. I will try to annoy them. Trust me, it’s intended as an expression of affection.

The dynamic with men is similar, but very different. It’s assumed they won’t be annoyed, and thus becomes what’s called in the vernacular, ‘ball busting’. It’s actually quite fun, when it’s with a dude I know I can totally trust.

From an ‘objective perspective’, it’s a trait evolved to test and ‘cement’ relationships through taking a social risk. I put myself on the hook, and if someone yanks the line, they cannot be trusted.

There are very few forces in the world powerful enough to kill your “inner child.” They’ll try to convince you otherwise, coerce you into psychological suicide, but they’re lying. I’ve seen dudes come out of a men’s prison — one of the few places in the West that can really destroy a person — who still retain a sense of humor and playfulness. It may take a while to rediscover, but it’s still there.

The Secret of Life

I’ll let you all in on the Secret of Life:

If you can say ‘I love you’ to anyone and everyone, and mean it, you can literally say and do anything you want. Short of harm. Or committing crimes.

But, yeah. There ya go. Have fun with it.

Vol-Cel: Glorious Freedom

Becoming vol-cel is the most empowering thing a heterosexual man can do. Entering into the sexual marketplace today is like entering a business negotiation with no leverage; it’s sure to end in a bad deal. But opting-out unlocks all individual power one has. There are no constraints, no manipulation to be subjected to, no tiny cages to which to be relegated in exchange for an occasional treat and pat on the head…

It took a while… a long while… but I’ve come to understand the glorious freedom of this way of life, and I’d only give it up in the most unique and special of circumstances.

I’m not sure I could ever get to this point again if I ever gave it up from here on. It would be more difficult than trying to get sober again. Though it’s different, because alcohol offers absolutely zero payoff, but there is real potential benefit in a “good” sexual relationship… It’s just that it would require a phenomenal level of trust — given that all social, institutional, and legal power is in the hands of women, and that that fact is highly destructive to families and relationships.

Insecurities

So I approach (authority figure) the other evening, and he suddenly looks nervous. He stumbles over his words, and crouches down like a beaten dog while talking to me. He tells me about his cup sweating for some reason, and accidentally says “condescension” instead of ‘condensation’ — a definite Freudian slip.

As always, I pretend I don’t see any of this.

Why he thinks I think I am better than him, that I have it out for him, that I am some kind of asshole, I don’t know. But later, after he gains his composure, he starts misleading me deliberately, trying to make me look foolish, as some kind of passive-aggressive “joke” that is not funny.

Look, I’m not dumb. I have a fair idea of how I come off. But any offense is purely accidental. One of my best friends is barely literate. Why is he a good friend? Because he acts like a normal person, and treats me like a normal person. That’s it. That’s all there is.

We’re all insecure. We’re all fucked up. I don’t understand why some people try to pretend otherwise. It’s not like it’s our fault. Other people did this shit to us. It’s other people’s insecurities lodged into our psyches from damage done, usually as a child, and none of is it “us,” none of it is our fault.

Just don’t harm other people, and accept your fucked up-ness. I’m not going to spout any of that “you’re perfect” bullshit. You’re not. You’re as fucked up as I am. Accept it, love it — but try to learn from your mistakes — and love everyone else for their fucked-up-ness, too.

That’s my speech. Anyone need the soapbox now?

It’s not your job

Moms, don’t think it’s your job to destroy your children… especially your sons… especially first-born sons. Don’t think you have to knock them down a peg at all times. Don’t think you have to tell them they’re “not that smart,” or call them an “idiot,” and freak out if they express their own views, calling them “arrogant.”

Don’t think you have to contradict everything they say, do, think, or believe. That’s a deep-seated psych-op attempt to cause psychosis in your own child. Even if he resist, and somehow stays rooted in the real world, he will suffer psychologically, and severely.

Also, don’t think it’s your job to humiliate, shame, and embarrass your children, especially sons, especially first-born. That’s the tendency, and it’s rooted in pathological bonding due to oxytocin-flooding during and soon after child-birth, causing a lack of ability to allow the child’s individuation later in life, and a deep-seated desire to infantilize that child — usually a first-born son.

It’s not “funny.” It’s sick. You should be charged with child abuse, tried in a court of law, and put in prison.

Fathers, if the words “no good,” or “never amount to nothing” come out of your mouth, toward your child, or anyone’s child, you should be put on your knees on the spot, and two bullets put through your head. Right where you spoke those words. Fuck you.