Search the Community

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Overview: Featuring never-before-seen footage, this documentary delivers a startling new look at the Peoples Temple, headed by preacher Jim Jones who, in 1978, led more than 900 members to Guyana, where he orchestrated a mass suicide via tainted punch.

I have the theory Sex addiction is compulsively seeking and clinging to intimacy. It is the obsession of unity. Every person has the desire for unity but when people are deprived of intimacy they start seeking it compulsively. I think you read my post about pedophilia, it's the same mechanism (the abyss). Sex addiction happens, when you experienced abandonment in your life. Did your parents separate? Did your parents not give you the love you needed? Did your parents abandon you? Did you have friends in your childhood that you could count on? Where you at some point in a relationship that they suddenly ended? When you experienced abandonment at some point in your life, you will always fear it and cling to intimacy as long as you have not worked through the trauma. The brutal reality of the fear of abandonment is that when you cling to your relationships you tend to lose them bc humans want to feel free in relationships. And when that happens you are abandoned again and your fear becomes stronger which amplifies your clinginess. This negative feedback loop is one of the most tragic things in human experience, and it can drive you and your loved ones into suicide. So try to avoid it.

@LordFall This is a very difficult subject to handle. Firstly, you must empathise with the human condition. Illnesses, diseases, wars, forms of corruptions in the numbers greater than clothing designs, and all this where as much as this period in history reflects our highest technological growth, that is by abstract comparison far outweighed by all the above and the suicide rate across the planet. Also this is just our global context, we live our indiviudal lives and all of us are given these massive ego's when compared to the universe we are no more than specs of sand. What a cruel joke right! That said, most of the world's issues actually exist in the most developed countries ironically speaking when it comes to subjects such as happiness, which is separate to difficulties in themselves but nevertheless details the existential position one has towards them. I am sure you have previously done personal research before on native tribes for example that are perfectly content protecting themselves from the next latest iPhone upgrade! The goal should not be to find a particular answer, your role is to serve your unique living context. Look outside the screen you are viewing this from, where I am right now, does not matter outside the abstract of your present experience. You must find resolve within yourself about how you feel in your body and mind for the sake of your body and mind alone, not in trying to bring global or even universal existential resolve to a condition you have no control over, but just for yourself and your own developmental maturity. We as humans unknowingly become addicted to our emotional patterns, and we curate meaning unknowingly according to the feelings we are unknowingly falsely believing to be the very state upon how we should view situations. This is NOT word play, it is a very elementary reality that when its fixed by way of meditating within oneself and teaching oneself by observing their own inward patterns how their emotions emerge and with that too, fluctuations of energy kind and magnitude, and with that the influences that emerge to bring about our cognitive experiences. Most of the difficulties in reality in light of our technological advancements are more and more becoming fundamentally just judgements on our own personal emotional competence. Judgements in assessing our energetic state and leveraging our awareness to bring balance, harmony and joy through that interaction alone, and pride, time and care in that self awareness to strategic long term self organisation internally and externally in that process. You share a unique perspective in this world as do all people on this forum and the world at large. Reality is funnelled through the very unique limitations that make-up you as a human being. By taking pride in how our being organises information energetically (thus all encompassingly), maturity naturally folds the meaning we are meant to harbour for our unique life context. Maturity, not praise from the outside, not even internal validation outside of autocorrecting self esteem, is where the aim should be concerning any existential disposition we have, god or otherwise. That... is something only you have direct access to, have control over and a clear timeline towards responsibly embracing. To take that path maturely, you must release what is outside the reference frame of what you can control, and make peace with these realities. This will be my only comment for this thread, but I wish you well. Best regards.

Absofuckinglutely, thats why it is a suicide mission.

Am I allowed to commit suicide I want to die and never reincarnate as a human never again

You are more likely to see your young male date return home and suicide than you are to be murdered by him (as a woman). While intimate partner violence is a major issue (and many men are abused and it is chronically underreported), suicide is the leading cause of death for young men 😢

I would like to add some notes regarding what Leo disagrees with feminism: The patriarchal paradigm is as deeply integrated into society as materialism and rationality; everything is viewed through those lenses and, obviously, it is untruthful. It is alive within our consciousness, we perceive reality through its lens, often unquestioned. It is a hierarchical and oppressive system that was built for the biology of males by males. Its oppression is deep. It is not only women who are oppressed by men; it is the masculine oppressing the feminine, rather than coexisting with it as it should. It is the oppression of life, creativity, love, nature, mystery, spirituality, and everything that makes life whole. Feminism is not about insisting that men and women are equal in biology. This is a simplification based on a lack of understanding of feminism. Of course, there are biological differences between males and females, which are obvious. The point of feminism is not to deny them but to separate sex from gender. Sex is a biological truth. Gender is a social construct and is not as rigid as sex. If gender were as rigid as sex, all males and females would be born men and women with all the patriarchal expectations of manhood and womanhood built in. But in reality, males and females are not born as men and women they are socialized into these roles. Men and women should be treated with the same human dignity and respect, first and foremost. They should be given the same opportunities to be who they want to be. However, men and women have different biological needs, and this should be understood and valued. Patriarchal society is fitted to male biology as a default. Whether it is medicine, design, clinical research, safety testing, work rhythms, urban planning, public space, protective equipment, tools, default user assumptions, or social policies, this pattern appears repeatedly. Conservatives love to emphasize that "traditional" (oppressive) gender roles are from God and therefore natural, while never actually making society more suitable for women’s actual needs and biology. What problems are you talking about? If you are talking about modern problems such as a toxic productivity culture that leads people to burnout and even suicide, social isolation and a mental health crisis epidemic, environmental and ecological damage, the invisibility of care and domestic unpaid labor, and economic inequality then a matriarchal society, which is more care-centered, could definitely help resolve those. Again, matriarchy doesn’t mean women are at the top exploiting men (something men often fear, because they know this is exactly what patriarchy does to women hahaha), but rather a society that is centered around care. Have you ever asked yourself how we can create a better society? Where does it start? With children. What if you taught children from an early age all the important lessons you teach here, rather than teaching them to become another pawn in the system and another money-making machine for the few rich? If we want to create a better society, we should put most of our focus, love and care on them because they are the foundation. Again, this may not happen soon but we are in a transition to a more matriarchal society. Patriarchy is currently in collapse, this collapse may take a few more decades or even centuries but this is inevitable. There is a difference between sexual attraction and desiring a good-looking person without dehumanizing them, and seeing the other as merely an object or a machine. Do you think that men biologically see women as merely objects for consumption, without any soul or humanity? I don’t believe this is a natural way for humans to look at other humans. If we can perceive humanity and even “soul” in animals, trees, and objects, we can certainly do so in each other while also experiencing sexual desire. Seeing another human as merely an object is not a natural condition; it is a learned behavior, shaped by culture and environment. Women (biological females) obviously have different hormones. We have the menstrual cycle, which men do not have, and this certainly affects mood and energy levels. It is also true that men generally have greater muscle strength compared to women. However, cognitively, women are not inferior to men in any domain. The main thing that limits women is misogyny and bias. Throughout history, men have succeeded only because of the invisible labor of women behind the scenes. Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman. Women also have some physical strengths and advantages that men do not, such as higher pain tolerance in certain contexts (for example, due to childbirth). Women have always performed physical labor, carrying loads, working in agriculture, and caring for children. There has never been a period in history in which women did not engage in physical work. Feminism is not about turning women into men or turning men into women. It is first and foremost about the liberation of women (and men) from patriarchal, narrowed expectations that block them as humans. This is a soul liberation movement. The first wave of feminism was actually about women striving to have the same opportunities as men (voting, owning possessions, working in paid jobs); however, this is not about becoming masculine but having the freedom of choice. People with a shallow understanding of feminism confuse it with liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is not a real, distinct ideology in itself; it is often presented as a strawman version of feminism invented by critics and intertwined with capitalism. Liberal feminism is sometimes argued to be patriarchy in disguise. The only feminism is radical feminism. This is its true core. There is nothing in feminism about making women like men, this is a liberal capitalist invention. Even concervatives try to colonize feminism. The truth is that in a patriarchal society, we are not safe to be feminine. We are not safe to be creative, authentic, spiritual, and loving in our being because we may be exploited or would not survive in the system. This is the patriarchy, which makes us more masculine and denies us our femininity, which we truly crave especially the wild woman and the witch archetype that we long to integrate collectively as women but which is demonized in patriarchy. Additionally, no one in the world can convince me that we are not capable of being leaders and strategic thinkers like men, and even better, because we have greater emotional mastery. Even studies show that women are better leaders than men. In all the leadership measures. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2023/03/31/new-research-women-more-effective-than-men-in-all-leadership-measures/ The existence of gender roles may be efficient for society in fulfilling its purposes however, they are not natural or rigid and can vary between societies. In patriarchal societies, gender roles are such that men are above women; they enjoy more privilege, freedom, and protection. This is not a natural construct but a human-created system of gender roles designed to benefit patriarchy. There is nothing natural about it. The only natural thing is for women to have babies. How those babies are raised (in a nuclear family or a community), with how many people, which people, how resources are allocated, and which behaviors are valued or not in each gender are all constructed by society. People aren’t born as blank slates, they are born with their own temperament and personality traits that feel relatively stable. However, they are not born with gender roles and expectations they learn them. But children do have their own preferences, and socialization into gender roles does not always come easily to many. For example, I struggled with my socialization, and it made me frustrated. I hated that I had to be a “good girl,” which meant being nice and pleasant, downplaying my intelligence, and constantly caring about my appearance. I always had my own temperament, opinions, and a unique view of myself and others, which I couldn’t fit into this narrow box of gender roles. As a result, I often felt flawed and confused. I know I am not the only one who has struggled most of us do. Maybe the problem is not with gender roles themselves, but with the narrowness of them. Maybe there should be many acceptable ways to be a man or a woman, depending on the temperament of the individual, not only one narrow and rigid way which suits a few people. The problem is patriarchy, not men. Yes, it is a system that is built for men, but it harms men as well. The criticism is about toxic masculinity, not masculinity itself. The fact that many people cannot differentiate between masculinity and toxic masculinity which men often perceive as the only form of masculinity, and therefore feel is an “attack on masculinity” is very unsettling. It is also unsettling that when women express real issues like unsafety, femicide, rape, and predatory behavior from men, some men perceive this as an attack on them or their masculinity rather than as a real problem to address. Imagine if it were reversed and women were raping and killing men, and when men complained about it, women perceived it as an attack on femininity rather than actually addressing the issue. Still there is an inequality no matter how you rationalize it. If women are socialized from childhood to be pleasant, nice, attentive, and pleasing, it can make them more vulnerable to harm from men who are socialized in the opposite way. There are definitely measures that women can take to reduce the risk of sexual abuse, such as education about patriarchy, awareness of how some men may perceive women, and trusting their intuition. Without it women, such as men uphold the patriarchy. However, men are still more accountable for their behavior because they are the ones who act like predators. Some men coerce women into sex, manipulate them in various ways, or love-bomb them, often targeting young and vulnerable women, but not only them. This is why I believe that women need to assume that any man they meet could be a potential abuser until proven otherwise and maintain very high standards for men’s character. No one in society often teaches women this. Instead, women are frequently taught even by other women that having a male partner is their ultimate goal in life, regardless of who they are, to understand men, give them chances, ignore poor behavior, and try to fix them. When women set standards for men’s behavior, they are often seen as delusional, crazy, hysterical, or overly picky. Nothing justifies sexual abuse. Men should be held accountable for it. It is their responsibility to treat women better. Also men can also be attracted to toxic women who use them like rags. I have seen it a lot hahahaha. Some people are attracted to toxic people, regardless of gender. Sure, there are plenty of curropted and selfish women as well. The point of feminism is that there are many competent women who are not elected or hired for the mere reason that they are women and not men. I actually see the opposite: the breaking of the illusions of patriarchy regarding gender, biology, and human nature. I would love to hear some examples of privileges women enjoy that men don't in society. Maybe I am not aware of something. Not all women are saints who never lie or distort reality. However, women are not always listened to or taken seriously enough when they report abuse or sexual crimes because of male bias. Women can be genuinely angry or emotional because of the pain and humiliation, and men may not take them seriously, saying, “Oh, she is just overreacting” or “She is dramatic.” In contrast, when men report abuse or crimes against them, they are often taken more seriously, even if they express anger or emotion, because society tends to listen to men more. Holding men accountable for predatory and abusive behavior and asking for empathy and genuine connection is not turning men into women. It is turning bad men into good men. The fact that many men view being a good man as being like a woman shows how deeply they perceive toxic masculinity as the real or only form of masculinity. I agree. Men are often governed by conformity to other men, their ego and lust which distorts their perception of reality and truth.

Suicide of famous UFO researcher.

"Will to live" appears to be something slightly more complex for our species, perhaps being more of a transformation or confusion than a negation in the event of suicide and self-harming behaviors . I wish I could think of more to say on the matter, but I haven't come up with a more complete explanation of where our will to live comes from than the evolutionary inevitability that having life and seeking life are necessarily convergent principles.

Heaven's Gate: The Cult of Cults Overview: An examination of the UFO cult through the eyes of its former members and their loved ones; what starts with the disappearance of 20 people from an Oregon town, ends with the largest suicide on U.S. soil.

Since so much of our life is just maintaining our own survival, it’s a surprise for many that people go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and choose to end it on their terms. In a way, it takes a lot of bravery and courage, but in high pressure survival situations, it looks like the better option. What if suicide is just an attempt at survival in another form? Is suicide truthful? Legit i’m ready to die. It is also said that many had flashes of enlightenment when deep in this mire of suicidality. if the answer isn’t physical death then what is the real answer? Wouldn’t physical death lead to death of ego too? my outer circumstances don’t exactly let me pursue the spiritual path to the max the way I want to. I’d rather be dead then to live as this fuck up also in a fucked up deluded environment around deluded people i’m so sick of the BS in me and around me that i’d rather take a leap into the unknown and kill myself. Dissolving all this BS nauseating noise, shit and impurity

Woman arrested for masturbating on the beach. Commits suicide afterwards.

Women and kids lives are EXTREMELY important. And if you watch a movie you might get the impression that they are even MORE important going by the number of people killed. In real life too way more men get killed from: violence, homicide, war - not to mention suicide, dangerous workplaces, homeless, and drugs. By statistics alone the average man has more to fear than the average women. This is regardless of who the victimizers are.

When comparing humans to animals, I believe the way human institutions are structured likely contributes to maladaptive behavior on individual levels due to the belief that these structures are necessary for the collective good. For example, cases of animals sexually abusing juveniles of their kind is significantly less common in the wild compared to when animals are institutionalized. Putting animals in captivity tends to disrupt their natural attachments, contributing to various maladaptive behaviors. Likewise, human structures are likely unhealthy for individual humans in a variety of ways that might lead to maladaptive behaviors including suicide. The starkest example would be something like a death camp. While in a death camp, the survivors often held onto their bonds with loved ones as a form of meaning, knowing they would not face the darkness alone. I haven't read much about suicidal behaviors in animals, but I believe it is significantly less common compared to humans. Humans seem to have a cognitive layer which makes them more likely to lose the will to live compared to animals, including ideologies that glorify things like suicide bombings as a political tool. In such situations "survival" has changed from protecting the body to living on in the memory of others through infamy. The human self seems to take on many different identities compared to animals, therefore in some contexts depending on how the self is defined, suicide might be seen as acceptable from that point of view.

This is merely a possibility, but it could be that the will to live is simply a mechanical, evolutionary phenomenon. We are each of us the result of a multi-billion year chain of organisms which, without exception, lived to reproduce. No exceptions for billions of years. That's plenty of time to weed out the organisms that fail to experience some minimum level of joy in living, at least among the organisms that can be said to have experiences. The fringe case of human suicide could be mentioned, but suicide on humanity's level should be a relatively new phenomenon, evolutionarily speaking. It may just not have been accounted for by selective pressures yet. Though, at the rate we humans are modifying our environment, evolution may not get that chance. In any case, perhaps the will to live resulted from nothing more than the fact that evolution fundamentally selects for life. I'm not prepared to argue this in court, but I think it's worth pondering.

Maybe the question I need to ask is the following. If someone has lost the will to live or is consumed by meaningless suffering which offers no hope of a better future, then what exactly is needed to re-establish a will to live? What exactly was lost that led to a person losing this will to live, and how can it be countered? The fear of death doesn't seem to be universal as some come to welcome death given specific grievances. This can lead to suicide. What exactly was taken away such that the will to live is now gone and what is needed to restore it? This applies also to situations where the person is alone with nobody to help them as well.

We have a tendency to measure our progress related to what we do, how productive we are, habits, practices, books. Do you see? We have an approach to focus on WHAT WE DO. I want you to focus on WHAT YOU DON'T DO but it is beneficial to your life. Make a list of things you don't do daily that increase your quality of life. I don't drink alcohol. I don't smoke crack. I don't kill people. I don't watch TV. I don't think about suicide. There are so many EMPOWERING things YOU DON'T DO because of your Level of Consciousness & Cognitive Development.

By the map, it looks like family, sunlight and lower rates of alcohol use (or drunkenness) could be it. Middle East and Indonesia and North Africa are largely muslim, South America is largely Christian (low atheism rates). Muslim and Christian means more family and less or no alcohol (definitely less drunkenness). Alcohol is not just a comorbidity with depression but also a mediator for suicide.

How come they have such high suicide and especially depression rates? I never understood that I remember a friend from Iran who went to study in Western Europe told me "Even though we have 10000x more problems in Iran than Western Europe, people in Iran seem happier"

If you look at people killed - in war, work, murder, violence, health problems, drugs, homeless, suicide, life expectancy - then men actually suffer more than women in this "patriarchal" system. And it doesn't matter who the victimizers are since we admit that black on black violence is caused by surpression so why not male on male violence? Men make slightly more money but women have greater spending power and spend more money on average especially in a household. PS I'm a feminist, I support feminism, I think they add lots of value. Also third world countries are different. There perhaps women need more help.

A good read about when incel and red pill content is covertly promoted by influencers who appear to be "conscious", "balanced" and “objective": https://substack.com/inbox/post/186623062 The Diary Of A(n Undercover Incel) CEO You know how we’re always wary of those podcasts or speakers that are unambiguously misogynistic? Like A**rew T*te, the guys on Whatever Podcast, Fresh and Fit. The ones that are blatantly, loudly and proudly hateful. I don’t know about you but I would NEVER have a friendship or even an acquaintanceship if I can help it with anyone who listens to and follows those guys. They’re violently disrespectful and they don’t hide their disdain for women’s autonomy and ways of thinking. I wouldn’t even deign to pay attention to someone who says ‘but they make great points sometimes.’ What great points? Please run away from them. But what happens when there’s one that is hiding in plain sight? Enter Diary of A CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett. It launched in 2017 and on paper, the podcast looks harmless. It features conversations with “successful people” about hardship, growth and resilience. Sounds reasonable, and the type of thing a TikTok page called Goated Quotes would post multiple clips of (I kid you not there is a page named exactly that and they post clips of the podcast constantly). But underneath the motivational and seemingly profound front is a recurring logic pattern that isn’t just about self-improvement. It subtly reflects ideas about gender, purpose and societal structures that align with right-wing, reactionary and red-pill narratives, packaged as “brutal truths” for men. It’s also known for misinformation, especially on health. If you’d like to know more you can read here, but my main focus is on why it’s been called a ‘Trojan Horse for the manosphere’ and why that description is terrifyingly accurate. What makes Diary of a CEO dangerous isn’t that it’s openly hateful. It’s that it isn’t. The men who listen to Andrew Tate know exactly what they’re signing up for. The misogyny is loud, aggressive and obvious. You can spot it from a mile away and decide, very quickly, that you want no parts. Not this guy. Steven Bartlett speaks softly and uses language and tone that sounds like self-reflection, vulnerability, growth. His guests talk about genuine self-improvement in a way that sounds profound or even compassionate. That’s exactly how it sneaks in incel and bioessentialist propaganda without you knowing. For example, the recurring fixation on “men’s loss of purpose” or the perceived “mating crisis.” I watched some podcast episodes so you don’t have to and I will never do it again but here’s the gist: Steven had Dr. Alok Kanojia, or Dr. K as he’s mostly known, on his show in July last year. In that episode, the conversation starts with statistics that sound neutral and alarming in equal measure: rising sexual inactivity among young men, men accounting for nearly 80% of suicides, increasing reports of hopelessness and lack of purpose. All of these are real, verifiable issues. That’s part of what makes what comes next so sinister. Dr. K frames the situation as something close to an evolutionary crisis. Young men, he suggests, are being left behind by modern dating dynamics, economic shifts and social changes. Women, he notes, no longer need men in the way they once did; they can earn their own money, choose not to marry and even have children without male partners. This, according to him, creates what he repeatedly describes as an “extinction event”: a cohort of men who will never find partners, never reproduce and effectively “die out” of the gene pool. He ends up floating the idea that society should intervene to make sure men can pass on their genes, as if sexual access is a public utility like water or electricity. And, get this, he compares a man’s inability to find a partner to cancer, a deadly virus and genocide. I know damn well- Now, to his credit, Dr. K is careful to say that no one is entitled to sex, relationships, or reproduction. He acknowledges consent. He explicitly rejects coercion. But by casting male loneliness in evolutionary and biological terms like natural selection, genetic dead ends, extinction, it turns social alienation into destiny. He’s essentially suggesting that resentment and aggression towards women are not choices, but inevitable responses to being biologically sidelined. This mirrors almost exactly how incel and black-pill communities already talk about themselves, and the podcast instantly becomes a recruitment tool for the most radicalized corners of the incel movement. By suggesting that society has a responsibility to “course-correct” the fact that some men aren’t chosen as partners, Dr. K validates the dangerous idea that men are biologically owed the bodies of women. The same logic appears in Steven’s conversation with clinical social worker Erica Komisar. When asked about the “plight of young men” and rising suicide rates among them, Komisar argues that men have lost their purpose because society has dismantled their traditional roles as providers and protectors. Yes, she actually said that. I was baffled too. According to her, while “raising women up” had positive outcomes, it also involved “denigrating men.” She goes further, describing modern feminism as having taken on something “vengeful,” no longer about balance but about diminishing men, pushing them out and taking over. What’s next is she points to the fact that women now make up over 60% of university students and graduate school attendees, and cites studies suggesting that men tend to marry across or down educationally, while women marry across or up. The conclusion of all she’s saying is that women’s educational and professional advancement has effectively stripped men of their purpose, leaving them discouraged, diminished, and lost. What’s so funny here is not that she’s concerned for men, but the assumption beneath it: that men’s purpose is fundamentally external and relies on women’s dependence. When women no longer need men to survive economically or socially, men are said to lose meaning. That is not a feminist argument, it is a deeply patriarchal one that has been quietly repackaged as sympathy for men. Instead of encouraging men to find new, more empathetic ways of being, the podcast encourages them to look back at a patriarchal past with a sense of stolen entitlement. This pattern becomes even clearer in Steven’s interviews with former Love Islander Chris Williamson, and the language moves from therapy speak to market logic. Dating here is called a “mating market” so now, we’re talking about relationships in a transactional manner. Sounds awfully familiar… Chris describes women as hypergamous, inclined to date “up” in education, income and status. According to him, as women achieve parity or outpace men in education and early-career earnings, the pool of “eligible” men shrinks. The result is a large group of men rendered invisible, while a small group of “high-value” men accumulate options and avoid commitment. He called this the “tall girl problem.” Hmm. You mean the tall poppy syndrome? Here again, women’s independence is treated as the destabilising variable. By focusing on reliable contraception and socioeconomic autonomy as the “disruptors” of dating, he is essentially saying that women were easier to deal with when they had fewer choices. Structural issues like economic instability, job insecurity, housing crises, the collapse of community spaces suddenly fade into the background. The problem becomes women’s standards, women’s choices and women’s fear. Over and over again. Even MeToo is folded into this logic (of course it is). Chris acknowledged it as necessary to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes and misconduct against women, then he makes a hard right and describes it as having gone “too far,” leaving men afraid to approach women and women afraid of men, which therefore produces an epidemic of loneliness and sexlessness. He flattens fear of violence and fear of being accused into moral equivalents, so the asymmetry of power disappears. What’s left is the suggestion that women’s safety and boundaries have produced unintended “externalities” for men. Taken individually, any one of these conversations might sound like a clumsy but well-meaning attempt to understand modern relationships. Taken together, they form a consistent worldview: men are suffering because women have too much autonomy; equality has created imbalance; and social progress has left a generation of men behind. The problem is not that Diary Of A CEO talks about men’s pain. Ultimately, it functions as a bridge. It meets young men where they are; looking for health tips, business advice, or a sense of direction, and then slowly leads them toward a worldview where women’s autonomy is the root of their misery. Over and over again, the podcast returns to the same conclusions: men are purposeless because women no longer need them; men are invisible because women “date up”; men are angry because feminism went too far; men are lonely because women are afraid; men are being selected out of the gene pool because society has changed too fast. The villain is never collapsing social infrastructure, or the monetisation of dating, or the hollowing out of community, or an economic system that strips people of dignity and stability. It is, consistently, women’s autonomy. That is red-pill rhetoric. What’s missing from these conversations is the reality of femicide. The fact that men’s feelings of entitlement to access do not exist in a vacuum is rarely ever discussed. Women exist in a world where we are killed, stalked, assaulted and harassed by men who believe they have been wronged. What makes this especially dangerous is the tone. Steven Bartlett is not shouting or calling anyone a h*e or B-word. He is nodding and empathising. He is letting his guests spin narratives about extinction events, hypergamy and vengeful feminism with minimal pushback. While he has released a statement saying he doesn’t necessarily hold the same views as his guests, I call bullshit. He platforms these people, give hums of approval when they speak and eggs them on. He only released said statement because it was becoming obvious what was happening. So no, Diary of a CEO is not harmless self-help. It is not neutral, and it is certainly not just “motivational content.” It’s time we stop treating Steven Bartlett as a harmless motivational figure and start seeing him for what he is: the manosphere’s most effective public relations officer. That podcast is a pipeline that feeds young men a story where the social progress of women is the reason for their pain.

You know chronic fatigue syndrome causes me to lay in bed for 70% of the day. Sometimes I'm too fatigued to keep my eyes open. We are not talking about just brain fog here. And many have it way worse than me. Suicide rates are very high in patients. Some suffer for decades till they give up. And you are so sure about "its just poor air"?

Men don’t understand that feminists are not fighting against men. They are fighting for your soul, because society is trying to break it. Men are not inherently aggressive. This is a myth. Research shows that infant boys are often more emotionally reactive and sensitive than girls. Patriarchy works very hard to “harden” men. (Book recommendation: Why Patriarchy Persists by Naomi Snyder which explores how boys and girls are socialized under patriarchy and how those forces shape relationships, behavior, and identity). Patriarchy promised men a throne and told them that being a man means dominating, possessing, and being “alpha.” But at what cost? Isolation, higher suicide rates, and detachment from the soul and the community. Men feel unloved because the system wants their labor, while the community once wanted their soul. Only within a community are men valued for who they are. For most of human history, men were not lone wolves but deeply integrated into their communities. They were protectors of the tribe, not submissive soldiers of hierarchy. The patriarchal and capitalistic system stole their village and gave them a mortgage. This is not their fault, but it is their problem. Patriarchy and capitalism benefit when men are lonely and starving for power. Lonelier men are easier to control and easier to send to war. The lone wolf idea is a capitalist fantasy. In nature, a lone wolf is often a wolf that is close to death. Real wolves, like real humans, thrive in packs. Alone, you are easier to break. When communities were destroyed, boys lost their mentors. They were left in a system that values only what they can produce, not who they are. This is why so many men feel empty and unloved inside. When feminists and women speak about feminism in a passionate, even provocative way, it is meant to shake men awake, so they can see that what patriarchy presents as their “best interests” are actually the worst interests for their hearts and souls. When feminists speak about matriarchy, they do not mean a reverse patriarchy. They mean bringing men back into the fold. A circle where you do not have to be “alpha” in order to feel safe. You have a pack that has your back. I don’t want young boys to grow up and inherit a world in which they must “conquer” in order to be seen, or be “alpha” in order to be treated as human. I want them to inherit a village, a community where their sensitivity is their greatest strength. Sensitivity is human. Being able to read the room, feel empathy, be intuitive, and connect with other human beings is what fulfilled men before patriarchy took over. We are taught that testosterone is the “aggression hormone” that makes men naturally want to fight and dominate. But this is an oversimplified and patriarchal version of science, often used to justify oppression. In communal societies, testosterone functions differently. It is not only for fighting, but for seeking status through contribution. In a healthy group, a man gains status by being helpful, generous, and a good protector. When a man becomes a father and is deeply involved in childcare, his testosterone may actually decrease to make room for oxytocin the “bonding hormone.” His biology can shift to prioritize nurturing over competing. Patriarchy takes that protective energy and distorts it. It tells men that the only way to protect is to own and control. It turns men’s biological strength into a weapon. Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men. They were not lonely, they had a village of brothers and sisters. Capitalism needed men to be efficient units. It broke those communal bonds and turned men into competitors for a paycheck. It forces men into a lonely, nonstop grind where rest feels like weakness. Are you exhausted? Of course you are exhausted. There is also the patriarchal nuclear family trap, which can become a pressure cooker for men. They were told they must be the sole providers, which is an impossible and unnatural burden to carry alone. The nonstop pace of modern life governed by the solar rhythm of 24/7 ignores the human need for cycles of rest (wintering) and renewal. This constant “on” state leads to high cortisol and chronic stress (and more aggression as a result). Men’s bodies long for rhythms of rest and restoration (moon rhythm) just as much as women’s bodies do.

I have been doing some research on different psychological profiles of criminal offenders, particularly violent offenders. I found some information that challenged the monster narrative and created what some call "moral vertigo" when one can deeply empathize with a perpetrator and see their humanity while simultaneously recognizing the severe harm they cause. I could see the similarities in myself and many of these perpetrators as well as the human vulnerabilities that principate extreme acts. This included sex offenders of various profiles with the most challenging one perhaps being incest cases. In most cases when a parent sexually abuses a child, it is not out of sadism, but out of extreme brokenness and cognitive distortion leading to a twisted sense of harmless love. I found this helpful to me in a way because if such people are not monsters, then I am not a monster either. I also found the psychological mechanism by which institutional sex scandals emerge which is likely important for prevention. Much of this research is restricted, and potentially over restricted due to the fear of this knowledge being used by dangerous offenders. However, some information that could be used to protect people include the knowledge of psychological vulnerabilities such as a lack of belonging, making a person more likely to be swayed by peer pressure as in the case of some opportunistic or situational offenders. The actions of such offenders are harmful and they must be stopped, but they are still not monsters. For the most part, perhaps in more that 90% of rape or homicide cases, I could clearly and empirically refute the monster narrative. There are however some extreme cases which seem to have formed the basis of the monster narrative to begin with. This would be profiles such as sadistic offenders or psychopathic serial killers and rapists. I'm almost done reading a book about psychopaths and I seem to be understanding the general patterns. Starting with sadistic offenders, they are rare but the most dangerous. These are the type who often show early signs of behavioral and developmental problems in childhood. They often start off by torturing animals while using masturbatory reinforcement for intricate sadistic rape fantasies. They are more likely to target random strangers and take sexual pleasure in terrorizing victims for extended periods of time. They often tie their victims up and collect trophies from this person while calibrating their terror to just the right amount to keep the victim from losing consciousness or dying of a heart attack. This profile often has multiple victims and likely contributes to many unsolved murders because most murders are committed by someone you know rather than a stranger, making it more difficult to solve. The sadistic offender is more likely to exhibit traits of psychopathy. As for my research on psychopaths, I have found some interesting thought patterns they exhibit. They seem to closely mirror my family that deeply traumatized me. For example, my father and his gang would pay money to have sex with children including me. My father exhibited early signs of psychopathy such as animal cruelty and later became a career criminal who would boast about his exploits including using death threats to coerce people for money. Meanwhile, my mother like my father would use love instrumentally while pitting me against the other parent. My mother would treat her suicide threat as a little tiff of no real significance while magnifying anything that could be framed as wrongdoing on my part. My mother may be more of a narcissist than a psychopath compared to my father who showed an absence of moral conscience and little care for his children despite what he would say on the surface. I wrote a document on circumstantial evidence to help law enforcement in cases like those of my father and his gang. I found that criminal gangs often operate on an inverse moral hierarchy. A person who feels like an outsider to society finds belonging with criminal organizations. From there, these people prove commitment to the gang by performing acts that are universally condemned including child sexual abuse. A father who trafficked his own child would be given strong reputational incentives within the gang by showing his level of commitment to the point that he is not even loyal to his own child. The rape of child is more so about symbolically undermining the society that they hate than it is about the specific child. They take on universal condemnation while causing severe harm to society. This is especially prevalent in cases of school shootings in which the goal is to cause maximum harm to society by targeting its most vulnerable members in a place where they congregate. They pursue infamy by intentionally acting as evil as possible. I found it interesting that in psychopathy, this person usually attaches no emotional significance to different words or actions. This is what allows them to treat murder with the same degree of significance as what you had for breakfast this morning. For example, "Well, you know, it was like any other ordinary Tuesday. I woke up at my normal time, had some waffles and drove my girlfriend to her job. When I went out for some Starbucks, I later encountered this other guy who was kind of pissing me off. So, I slashed his throat and dumped his body in the river. After that I remembered that a new movie came out in theaters that my girlfriend would love to see. After shooting some hoops at the park, I went with my girlfriend to watch Despicable Me and we loved that movie. We both slept soundly, ready for another day tomorrow." They often insist "I am kind of a 'in the now' kind of guy. I told you I wasn't a serial killer because that was in the past and it is over and done with. But anyway, what's for lunch?" The sadistic psychopathic serial killer / rapist seems to be the kind of thing that I would call evil. They seem to most closely match the monster narrative, although I can still see their humanity in perhaps brain disruptions or developmental complications which which may have led to this kind of disposition. The moral indifference to having 30+ bodies buried in one's basement creates an act so atrocious that language strains to capture the severity of such acts, hence we call them monsters. However, from their point of view, they are the real victims because nobody understands them. Perhaps, we could in a sense say that such offenders are amoral in that they have no attachment to any moral constraints and thus apply them based on self-interest and survival. The rest is a matter of navigating externally imposed rules based on when it benefits them. This often allows the psychopath to get away with a lot of crimes, especially white collar crimes when they have no regard for the harm caused to the population while enriching themselves. The fundamental question I seem to be grappling with seems to be "if God is good then why is there evil?" Of course, there are a lot of different perspectives I could take on this issue. In any case, how would you deconstruct the monster narrative? Do you think sadistic psychopathic serial killer / rapists or child sex traffickers are evil? Would you have an argument for why such people are fundamentally good? I'm curious as to how you would address these psychological profiles. I'm not entirely confident for the most extreme offenders who were the source of the monster narrative to begin with.

I would move to Norway or Sweden but I don't speak the language. The US is suicide because there's no free healthcare. So moving there is inevitable bankruptcy. lol