I Am

I’m not who I was
Nor who I want to be
Who I am always
Changes
Constantly

I’m not this body
It is not truly me
Being consciousness bliss
Love Life
Truth Beauty

I am the Witness
Unbound by memory
I am Supreme Self
I Am
Everything

River run water
Flowing to boundless sea
Gathered by bright sun
The clouds
Rains falling

I’m not who I was
Nor who I want to be
Who I am always
Is you
I Am We

 

Composed by Nichole Hastings

Published in: on 07/15/2015 at 03:07  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

GCHQ’s Rainbow Lights

What’s that over there? *snapsnap* Look, look! Over there!

GCHQ:Public Affairs Office

Look at the pretty rainbow lights!

We’re not exploiting social issues for our own selfish purpose? Nope, cooperation is wonderful! And by cooperation we mean your compliance. (happy smiley face) Because your interests aligning with ours is a wonderful and beautiful thing! (happy smiley face, thumbs up)

Rainbows are pretty! Just like all of you! Support our fascist reg…I mean, our gay communities and celebrate! (martinis cheers, smiley face, party favor exploding)

GCHQ:Public Affairs Office

Aren’t those lights pretty? Just look at them. (happy smiley face) Aren’t we so open-minded and accepting? Isn’t the world wonderful? Aren’t we all so wonderful?

Well, except for those people.

And those ones.
And those, and those and those and those. (frowny sad face)

But never mind that. (happy smiley face) If they were as open minded and as accepting as we all are, the world would be such a better place! Gosh, we love rainbows!

GCHQ:Public Affairs Office

We have every color to show our openness to diversity! (martinis cheers, smiley face, party favor exploding)

Oh, black is missing? So is brown, you say? (sad frowny face) Well…we all know they’re pretty much the same color. (happy smiley face) They are the same color. (happy smiley face) Let’s call them ‘blawn’ to make it easier. (happy smiley face) And, and, ‘blawn’ just doesn’t really work well in making a pretty rainbow. (sad face) They’re just not as pretty as we are. (sad face) But look, look, the rainbow is surrounded by ‘blawn’ so while they’re not -actually- part of our rainbow-happy-time-diversity-celebration-of-compliance-cooperation, they’re still there all around us, pressing in on us, trying to extinguish our beautiful and peaceful light! (happy smiley face, happy smiley face, happy smiley face) If only they could see how important our rainbow-happy-time-diversity-celebration-of-compliance-cooperation is to creating peace all around the world!!!!

GCHQ:Public Affairs Office

Look! Here comes Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Kanye West and Rihanna! Let’s sing! Everybody!

“We are the world….”

GCHQ:Public Affairs Office

Photo: GCHQ/Public Affairs Office

The Perils of Feminism, Subjective Reasoning, and Dualism

I am not a Feminist. I am not a proponent of Feminism. My refusal to identify as one usually draws a strong emotional reaction from other women – a reaction of indignation.

Women that identify as feminists have berated me, given me historical lectures, and glared down their noses at me with outright disdain. Some might assume it’s because I’m of Asian descent, supposedly submissive to the whims of men. My boyfriend was at an intercambio (a language exchange) recently when three women confronted him with this very stereotype. I’ll quote his response: “My girlfriend is Asian, and she is definitely NOT submissive!”

I do not identify with contemporary Feminists because contemporary Feminism is illogical, and as a contemporary social movement it fights for nothing worthwhile. Feminists have become advocates for bad health, victimhood, “Rape Culture”, and conformity. They are quick to pounce on any who point out that being obese is unhealthy – a reality-denying stance they call “Fat Acceptance”. Any man who dares state a sexual preference for non-overweight women instantly becomes a target to be shamed. Does this mean that any woman who expresses her preference for an athletic man with a six-pack is also sexist? Is a woman who has consensual sex, but later decides to reclassify the experience after feeling regret, really a victim of rape?

The answer is no. And no.

And as for conformity, their seems to be an expectation for women to support the movement, or be dismissed as hapless victims of The Patriarchy. Men who fail to hop aboard the bandwagon are labelled “misogynist”, “narcissist”, or another pejorative.

Will some Feminists attack me and my reputation online via social media? Will the so-called leaders of the more radical Feminist wing sic their followers on me? Will some resort to name-calling, repudiate and dismiss my words in attempts to squash any dissension from or criticism of Feminism?

Perhaps.

When high-profile females have questioned or defied Feminist orthodoxy, we have seen the outrage they are met with. Feminist pundits are incensed and thirst for blood, demanding all dissent be squashed and all dissenters (especially women) be punished and met with shame for their crimes against “the sisterhood”. All must tremble before the altar of Feminism and despair!

Perhaps I am not even worth the standard treatment. I hold no position of so-called authority, am taking a sabbatical from work, and recently moved to Spain. I say, “Here kitty kitty. Come get some.” Why?

I’m outraged by Feminists’ ridiculous behavior, their moral superiority, and I find their justifications absurd.

When did contemporary Feminism become about the glorification of women, the demonization and subjugation of men, and the reactionary shaming of any who disagree? Why are modern Feminists behaving no differently than sexist men? Why do Feminists display such narcissism and open prejudice against males?

The absurdity that is modern Feminism is not completely their own fault. Society and culture have taken the pea out from under the mattress without considering how pampering demanding Princesses turns them into spoiled and selfish Queens. When you reflexively give in to others’ whims, they will only take your appeasement for granted, unrelenting in their demands for more. Unfortunately, women are taught to rely upon their emotions instead of logic to deal with challenges that arise. Women are told over and over that they are mere emotional creatures, and as a result they respond with subjective reasoning rather than objective logic.

Subjective reasoning is thought of by some as a feminine emotional way of rationalisation. I will refer to feminine emotional rationalisation as ‘subjective reasoning’. The central tenet of subjective reasoning is thus: the belief that the morality of an act stems not from its objective merits, but from the emotional feeling produced within the actor. So some women conclude that if it feels good, it is right. If it feels bad, it is wrong. And if it feels otherwise, they think “It’s probably right, but I’ll have to wait and see… because most likely it’s wrong.” They remain blissfully unaware of the contradiction. And men, of course, also use subjective reasoning, so this kind of flawed thinking is not gender-specific.

Is subjective reasoning Nature or Nurture? It is both, accompanied by the Pavlovian brainwashing of being told these things repeatedly. Subjective reasoning seems to dominate contemporary Feminist responses to everything they take issue with. Their use of ‘feelings’ to justify anything they say and do makes it hard for this logical female to take contemporary Feminism seriously. Contemporary Feminism condones sexist attitudes, thoughts and behaviors. Contemporary Feminists dehumanize, subjugate and objectify heterosexual men.

What if Masculinism were to become a social movement?

Feminists would be apoplectic. They would cynically shriek about the male evils supposedly perpetrated against womankind for millenia. One can only imagine the shrill note they would strike as they warned of the dire consequences a male empowerment movement would bring.

What, what?

Contemporary Feminists already rail against empowered men, whom they refer to as the dreaded Patriarchy. But how is it fair, or helpful to anyone, when Feminists blatantly commit the same sins they have for so long intoned against? ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’, as the saying goes. Any position of moral authority is only undermined if the holder embraces an eye-for-an-eye stance of vengeance. Someone, somewhere, is reading my words and thinking “That poor misguided woman. Doesn’t she understand that men deserve this? The Patriarchy is evil! Look at how bad it makes women feel about themselves!”

The truth is, only -you- can make -you- feel bad about yourself.

Let’s recall those childhood sayings, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” and “I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” Feminists and people in general would be wise to remember this, instead of wasting so much energy striving to punish others, when we have only ourselves to blame. An outwardly projected emotional response of your feelings, in reaction to what others say and do, is completely illogical. You can’t control what others do, but you can control what you do. And I say, apart from defending yourself from physical violence, the best reaction is to practice tolerance and learn to react with indifference. Contemporary Feminists and their ridiculous man-hating statements, as well as sexist men and their equally ridiculous woman-hating statements, should be completely ignored. What both want is a reaction – any reaction will suffice. Do not react, encourage others to do the same, and those trolls lose their power eventually losing interest. Think of them as children who throw temper tantrums; any reaction will only encourage their behavior.

If you are sitting there composing a mental response that includes suffrage, women’s working rights, or female circumcision to prove why feelings should control what others say and do, please just stop. Those -were- real issues in the United States. Suffrage won women the right to vote, but how many women exercise that right today? Women now dominate work places, so how are they oppressed when they’re more likely to be hired than a man with similar credentials? And aren’t the days of Kellogg and his crackpot ideas of masturbation prevention for both sexes by circumcision now past? For women, yes. For men, genital mutilation is still widely practiced to this day, so who is really suffering from that injustice?

Today contemporary Feminists focus on first-world problems that are not true injustices. A man saying he prefers to date women who weighs under 120-lbs is a manufactured issue; he’s expressing a preference, just as women do when they say they want a man who’s not bald. Students feeling “uncomfortable” about a fellow student discussing current rape statistics – in a class about a Greek mythological figure that was raped – Did that student really deserve to be expelled from the class? Perhaps the offended students that complained should think twice about studying Greek Mythology and avoid it like the plague, because they’ll likely be further offended by how many times Zeus can’t keep it in his toga. Feminists want a different set of standards for female firefighters, but if a woman can’t carry a two-hundred pound man out of a burning building in a timely manner, she should choose a different profession. I don’t want the standards altered so women can feel better about themselves. Women in the military? The ones who want to be, are. On the front line? Does any sane person really want to be there?

I see contemporary man-hating Feminists as they are: sadly misguided, their perspective distorted by their own prejudices, their reactions perverted by fear. To them, a world with men is a terrifying place, fraught with danger and degradation. Today’s Feminist rage is a shrill cacophony that diminishes the entire movement.

Contemporary Feminists ought to stop complaining and attacking others, and instead do something that will truly make the world a better place for everyone. Sitting at a computer using social media to shame others, or blogging about how unjust the world is for women, is a far cry from taking meaningful action on issues that really matter. What can you do to help that starving homeless person you stepped over and ignored while tweeting/posting/blogging on your mobile phone? What can we do about the Bureau of Public Land Management selling off our public lands designated as wilderness to private corporations, intent on turning our natural resources into their own private profits? What can we do to remove the capitalistic bent out of education, healthcare and public services such as the U.S. Postal Service and improve upon them? What can each us do to treat others as we would like to be treated?

Blatant Feminist prejudice against and the persecution of heterosexual men are acceptable today, because women have been trained to reason emotionally and rationalise with their feelings. We must first recognise the problem with subjective reasoning – feelings are not synonymous with reality. With subjective reasoning, everything is personal, and feelings become the arbiters of debate. In discussions and arguments, contemporary Feminists commit doublethink – Orwell’s term for holding two contradictory statements to each be true. And contemporary Feminism seems to be stuck in a Junior High School mentality, while riding an emotional roller coaster called Vengeance Shall Be Hers.

Everyone agrees, sexist men and Feminists aside, the equality of the sexes is important. But the question should not be, “How do we make the sexes equal?” A question we should all ask ourselves is, “Do logic and emotion, have a gender?” Logic and emotion are present in all human beings, not merely in men or women. The tendency of a gender to favor one over the other is a general tendency, not an absolute one. But Feminists have presently eschewed objective logic in favor of subjective reasoning, and this style of rationalisation pervades U.S. culture and used as a tool, to influence the thought processes of many women.

Now subjective reasoning is used in almost every arena where objective logic is actually needed. This simple flaw in thinking leads to all kinds of injustices occurring daily throughout the United States. Take the example of a police officer shooting a black suspect, and justifying the deed by saying “I feared for my life.” The officer, appeals not to objective evidence, but to their feelings to justify the act. Although the police officer may not realise their applied subjective reasoning, their actions show their style of reasoning through emotions is similar to that of contemporary Feminists. Another example is the U.S. government’s decision to bail out Wallstreet. Instead of administering the law, our government “felt” that the bailout was needed or our entire economy would collapse. Yet, there was no evidence to support that feeling, but there was ample evidence of Wallstreet’s corruption and many lives destroyed as a result of that greed.

The United States is not the only country suffering the perils of subjective reasoning and the destruction left in its wake. My new home Spain, and many other countries, are suffering grave injustices that are rationalised by using subjective reasoning as well. With history as our teacher, we human beings should be able to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately what history shows us, is that subjective reasoning in conjunction with Dualism is the root of all ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and a cause of suffering and despair. And when contemporary Feminism and Feminists, cease to utilise a value-based ways of thinking of men and women  in conjunction with subjective reasoning, they will no longer be one of the causes of despair and suffering. When human beings cease to utilise labels and apply a value to everyone and everything, we will no longer be a cause of our own despair and suffering.

I am not a Feminist. I am not a proponent of Feminism. I’ll share a quote from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, slightly modified in non-sexual and non-dualistic terms:

“Ism’s, in my opinion, are illogical. One should not believe in an ‘ism,’ one should simply believe in oneself.”

David Whyte on Friendship

“FRIENDSHIP is a mirror to presence and a testament to forgiveness. Friendship not only helps us see ourselves through another’s eyes, but can be sustained over the years only with someone who has repeatedly forgiven us for our trespasses as we must find it in ourselves to forgive them in turn. A friend knows our difficulties and shadows and remains in sight, a companion to our vulnerabilities more than our triumphs, when we are under the strange illusion we do not need them. An undercurrent of real friendship is a blessing exactly because its elemental form is rediscovered again and again through understanding and mercy. All friendships of any length are based on a continued, mutual forgiveness. Without tolerance and mercy all friendships die.

Shop display at Who Is Sylvia? in Woodstock Vermont. Photograph by Nichole Hastings.

Shop display at Who Is Sylvia? in Woodstock Vermont. Photograph by Nichole Hastings.

In the course of the years a close friendship will always reveal the shadow in the other as much as ourselves, to remain friends we must know the other and their difficulties and even their sins and encourage the best in them, not through critique but through addressing the better part of them, the leading creative edge of their incarnation, thus subtly discouraging what makes them smaller, less generous, less of themselves.

The dynamic of friendship is almost always underestimated as a constant force in human life: a diminishing circle of friends is the first terrible diagnostic of a life in deep trouble: of overwork, of too much emphasis on a professional identity, of forgetting who will be there when our armored personalities run into the inevitable natural disasters and vulnerabilities found in even the most average existence.

[…]

But no matter the medicinal virtues of being a true friend or sustaining a long close relationship with another, the ultimate touchstone of friendship is not improvement, neither of the other nor of the self, the ultimate touchstone is witness, the privilege of having been seen by someone and the equal privilege of being granted the sight of the essence of another, to have walked with them and to have believed in them, and sometimes just to have accompanied them for however brief a span, on a journey impossible to accomplish alone.

In New York City cafe in Chelsea after an early AM film shoot. Photograph taken by Nichole Hastings.

In NYC cafe in Chelsea after an early AM film shoot. Photograph by Nichole Hastings.

HEARTBREAK is unpreventable; the natural outcome of caring for people and things over which we have no control…

Heartbreak begins the moment we are asked to let go but cannot, in other words, it colors and inhabits and magnifies each and every day; heartbreak is not a visitation, but a path that human beings follow through even the most average life. Heartbreak is an indication of our sincerity: in a love relationship, in a life’s work, in trying to learn a musical instrument, in the attempt to shape a better more generous self. Heartbreak is the beautifully helpless side of love and affection and is [an] essence and emblem of care… Heartbreak has its own way of inhabiting time and its own beautiful and trying patience in coming and going.

 

A friend going through a divorce,  lost in thought, while strolling along a West coast beach after two week of driving from East coast Vermont.

A friend going through a divorce, lost in thought, while strolling along a West coast beach after two week of driving from East coast Vermont. Photograph taken by Nichole Hastings.

Heartbreak is how we mature; yet we use the word heartbreak as if it only occurs when things have gone wrong: an unrequited love, a shattered dream… But heartbreak may be the very essence of being human, of being on the journey from here to there, and of coming to care deeply for what we find along the way.

[…]

There is almost no path a human being can follow that does not lead to heartbreak.”

Read more of the original post by Maria Popova here on brainpicking.org.

The Label Trap

As some of you may be aware I recently moved to Madrid Spain at the beginning of April. And you may have presumed that I would be writing about the experiences of living here. In a way I will be…but I am not going to discuss Spanish food, culture, and the various everyday experiences one has in living day-to-day life. That’s what Facebook and other social media platforms are for. There are many wonderful books available as well as the experience of moving to Spain itself to be had. Instead, I will begin this new chapter in my life’s story by discussing The Label Trap and sharing my responses to a recent Hyperallergic article titled: What Happens When a Feminist Artist Interviews a Pickup ArtistI’ll begin with The Label Trap.

What is The Label Trap?

The Label Trap is the trap we create for ourselves and others with the application of any word label given to oneself and or others which restricts/confines/delineates and is used by oneself and others to create a false sense of identity. Some of these labels are ‘good’ and some are ‘bad’, although I do not believe in either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but all foster misunderstanding, fear and suffering with oneself and in others. The methodology of the trap manifests itself in stereotyping, bigotry, and other false positives. We can see the detriment of labels in how insidiously it imposes itself in the aforementioned Hyperallergic article and that detriment is boldly declared in its title. And what we see are two false positives, a being who identifies with a feminine sexuality and set of feminized beliefs and a being who identifies with a masculine sexuality and masculinised belief system. Both of whom are neither, but perceive themselves to be so. By examining Roosh V and Angela Washko’s true natures, as an example of other beings who are also subject to such a falsity in understanding their true selves and nature, we may come to understand that what both are doing has nothing to do with sexuality. Their words and actions have everything to do with being, a desire to justify their learned and biological emotional responses, an unwillingness to address their true selves and the resultant feelings of inadequacy, loneliness and suffering. We create the ties that bind us, cinching them tighter and tighter, believing that in doing so we will be free.

If you are not familiar with Roosh V or skipped reading the Hyperallergic article, I suggest you take a moment to go back and read it. Otherwise, whatever you read beyond this point may make no sense to you.

What Happens When a Feminist Artist Interviews a Pickup Artist.

After reading the article I composed this response speaking to Angelo Washko who self-identifies herself as ‘female’, ‘artist’ and ‘feminist':

Girl, your project failed because you fell for his psychology which played upon your female emotional response. Do you think Roosh V cares about your feelings, respects who you are as a person and your views of the world? He does not.

By his own admission he says he is not emotionally invested in his own arguments but clearly he is. You said, ¨he told me that he didn’t like the tabloid/sensationalised element of it and that it was disconcerting that women would publicly share the details of the sexual experiences they had with him.¨ He banked on you sympathising with him (which is what women do and why so many women will forgive a man for cheating on them or abusing them) and then employed social group psychology using his loyal group of yes-men and followers to make you feel as though you should abandon your project. Simply put, he used your feelings against you to protect his interests.

What about your interests?

I guess your project really doesn´t mean all that much to you.

You say, ¨I was not psyched about the conversations within the forum centered around whether or not forum participants would bang me.¨

So what if his yes-men and followers objectify you as a sexual object. You´re going to let THAT stop you? I´m not a Feminist and I too laugh (as I´m sure he and all his little groupies are) at how easy it was to throw you off your game. I thought Feminists were all about opposing the view that they are weak and helpless? Your decision to abandon the project instead of work through the challenges perpetuates that way of thinking.

My advice: Stop being emotional. Look at your project and reconsider your approach objectively and get back in the saddle. And most importantly, objectify the f*ck out of him and sally forth.

The response to my comment included applying the word labels of “narcissist” to Roosh V and his response to Angela Washko as “gas lighting”. My response:

I too am bothered by how often the Angela apologizes, it reiterates a tone of victimhood, throughout the article. She claims moral superiority over Roosh V because she was just a nice somewhat naive girl trying to see and appreciate who he is as a person hoping that he would understand her art project and give her the names of women he slept with so she could show what a terrible human being he is. How could she have known that that he would ‘manipulate’ the situation and ‘attack’ her? Puh-leeze.

Why did she do this interview? What is the point of this article?

The point of the article is to shame Rooch V for not fulfilling AW expectations and participating in her so-called art project. And to exonerate herself for abandoning it. And why did she think he would participate? Because she was nicer to him than other Feminists who stalk him and want to show the world what a terrible person he is?

This is the problem I have with modern Feminism. Their woe-is-me attitude and claims of moral superiority over others. That claim to moral superiority merely serves to foster an Us vs. Them mentality, which only causes more ignorance, misunderstanding and suffering. Modern Feminism is as ‘bad’, if not more so, than the male sexism they proclaim is oppressing women. Feminism’s sexist attitude and actions are equally as sexist, towards men, and just as morally reprehensible.

If you don’t want to be a victim, don’t be a victim.

Another comment addresses Roosh V’s use of censorship in his forum:

“What interests me most about this article is the claim that Rooosh likes to censor opinions be does not agree with and that his regular forum members gene to get dirty and personal on attacks.

Having read some comments on his blog, I would not be surprised. Some were certainly extreme and misogynistic.

What I find most interesting is that’s this is a mirror image of some extreme feminist blogs and commentators like Mary Sue and Jessica Valenti.

Quick to censor opposing conditions, quick personal attacks and misandrist statements. (Got kicked off Mary Sue for merely noting that men are statistically more at risk of attacks from strangers)

Kind of reminds me of the Israel Palestine conflict where both sides do horrible things and then calls the other side monsters.” ~douglass44

To which I respond:

One must take care in fighting monsters, lest ye become one.

The censorship piece is, to me, utterly dull. It is the least interesting thing about Roosh V, utterly typical and illogical. Censorship is a fear-based reaction which goes hand-in-hand with power and control. There isn’t a group or individual that doesn’t do it to one degree or another. You have extreme examples of censorship like North Korea and milder ones such as hiding a post another person has shared on one’s Facebook wall. As individuals we censor and restrict ourselves constantly by saying things like, “I’m the kind of person who (insert descriptive limitation here).” or “I’m a (insert word label here). We censor and restrict ourselves to justify what we do and say.

Roosh V uses his tactical approach to sleep with women, his teachings, and forum, to gather followers and justify his existence before discovering game. The creation of a tactical approach and study of the psychology of women is a base and narrow way of interacting with women. Roosh V does not truly understand women or try to understand even one because he only seems to consider one aspect of what he can get from them, his own sexual satisfaction. He may have discovered that in order to have sex with women he needs to understand how to sexually satisfy her, or not, which may or may not be why he didn’t want AW to interview his past or present sexual conquests.

Roosh V’s books teach other men this tactical strategy of ‘dealing’ with women with what he calls ‘game’. One will most likely find that Roosh V and all his followers are all the same. They all have no inkling of how to interact with women, are sexually frustrated led by their biological impulses, and lonely. His followers follow because his methodology does work but it will never achieve that which Roosh V truly wants, to have a women in his life, his sexual needs fulfilled and to not be alone. Everything Roosh V does is to justify his resentment of his so-called former self (the one that could not get sex or have a relationship with women), his biologically-driven sexual needs, and his methodology with women.

Roosh V’s ‘church’ of followers, their misogyny in the forum, and the censorship aspect are typical of and unsurprising for any fixed way of thinking. Roosh is the ‘Pan’ of his group and he takes a very typical leadership approach to it. Encourage those who are more extreme than he to control and bind them to him while censoring any dissension to prevent subversion. Will he allow himself to meet a Wendy? With his current attitude towards women, absolutely not.

Nothing that Roosh V is doing is new or innovative. He’s taking the same approach that many groups have in dehumanizing and objectifying what he doesn’t understand. Does this make him a terrible person? No, he is simply a more articulate representative of hierarchical, close-minded and self-serving ways of “thinking”, of “socializing” and, in “understanding” others. No one can break the chains that one binds oneself with, other than oneself. Thus, nothing that Feminists say or do will have any effect other than to further ingrain Roosh V’s and his followers’ resentment and methodology in his so-called relationships with women. Conversely, Feminists are equally at fault because they are doing the same exact thing to men and binding themselves with the same chains..

To strive for a truly free and democratic society is to support the free expression of oneself without expectation and negative recourse. To be a member of a truly free and democratic society one must have compassion, understanding and acceptance. To be compassionate is to care about others. To understand is to be open-minded and love. Acceptance is the stepping stone to logical discourse to discover how two opposing or different expressions of self and group can coexist peacefully.

Another comment, in response to this, by one who identifies as ezra.jones says:

“I agree with everything that you said except this:

His followers follow because his methodology does work but it will never achieve that which Roosh V truly wants, to have a women in his life

“Roosh does not want “a women in his life”. He wants some sort of neurotic/erotic fantasy in intermittent moments of his life. I can bet you any woman that’s slept with a man like him wakes up in the morning to a totally different person who wants nothing to do with her at all; and probably who goes so far as to hate her even. He’s easily a narcissist and definitely lacking emotional skill at all levels. To be honest, he’d probably be happier just ****ing himself.”

My response:

“He wants some sort of neurotic/erotic fantasy in intermittent moments of his life.”

I agree with this in that Roosh V is conflicted in what he wants and needs. He wants emotionally fulfilling relationships with both men and women which he does so with ‘game’. The game he plays is with both men and women. What is ‘game’? It’s a psychological analysis of others to understand what behaviors are required to connect with others in a way that achieves specific goals. With women, he analyzes them and uses specific tactics and behaviors that he has learned appeal to women sexually and emotionally: tells amusing stories, uses certain words and mannerisms to be charming, etc. With men, he shares his methodology and results to garner their admiration. He teaches to gain their loyalty. Because he relates to men and women driven by these goals, realized or not, his interactions with others will always be neurotic, fictional and one-dimensional. Roosh V is his own puppet.

When one relates to others in one-dimensional ways one will always feel alone. Roosh B has mentioned in his other writings how much energy it takes utilize ‘game’. This is indicative of the fact that he on some level realizes that ‘game’ is not a genuine and truthful connection; In the way that people who perform interact with an audience. Only showing aspects of one’s true self and a fictional being altogether. When two people truly connect there is an exchange of energy. Some people give more, some take more, and with some we find a balance and equality. Roosh V expends a lot of energy to have sex with many different women to fulfill his physical biological needs. He maintains long-term sex partners because he truly desires an emotionally fulfilling relationship. Women’s physical biology tends more to emotions, thus women usually need an emotional connection in order to facilitate a sexual one. And ‘game’ is about connecting with women on an emotional level so as to access them sexually. The tools of ‘game’ are just that, so using ‘game’ is and will become a burden to those who play due to the imbalance of energy expended to do so, and eventually one will tire of of the sport and playing it.

To balance this equation, women are just as guilty of using ‘game’ and also subject to unfulfilling one-dimensional relationships. I think this goes without question. Women use various tactics to fulfill their emotional and sexual needs: emotional manipulation, timing, the ways they dress, and tailoring their behavior to meet expectations. But beyond the sexual needs of men and women is a desire in each of us to connect emotionally and physically with others which transcends being man or woman. So why do we play games? We -think- it will facilitate a genuine, meaningful and fulfilling connections with others. But the simple truth is ‘game’ takes one farther away from having those fostering fleeting moments of positive self-worth, despair, and loneliness. To have truly fulfilling, genuine and meaningful relationships with others, one must have that with one-self. One must ‘Love thyself’.

“I can bet you any woman that’s slept with a man like him wakes up in the morning to a totally different person who wants nothing to do with her at all; and probably who go so far as to hate her.”

Of course. And if one is not secure and loving of oneself, one may also take on another’s neurosis. Some of the women Roosh V has had so-called relationships have probably had the experience you suggested. They wake up to a different person (the real one that is not as charming and sweet as presented), they recognize his hate (which is really his own self-loathing) and disregard of her (he’s done playing the game) internalizing it, supplanting his opinion of her for her own. This is why it is absolutely imperative that one does not base or place all of one’s self-worth in other’s hands.

One could say that what men and women do are ‘bad’ when they utilize ‘game’ but that is not so. It is only as ‘bad’ as the one who utilizes it is in conflict with oneself. Meaning, that if Roosh V truly felt that ‘game’ was The Way he would not feel the imbalance in energy expenditure nor would he resort to attacking others that disagree with his point of view. That defensive reaction is a reflex to defend that which he knows on some level is in conflict with who he truly is. Is it then also ‘bad’ to value oneself only through external measures of validation? Again, only if it is true and without conflict with one’s true self. If the feelings of conflict arise then I can only say, perhaps.

Let’s look to Nature as our teacher:

A tree, a blade of grass, a stone lying on the bed of a river stream, the deer and fox….flora, fauna and all that is does not “try” “to be” anything other than what it is. It is only ‘human nature’ to wonder, then question and be in conflict with one’s true self.

As for your opinion, “He’s easily a narcissist and definitely lacking emotional skill at all levels. To be honest, he’d probably be happier just ****ing himself.”, maybe and maybe not. Who are you and I to judge the actions and words of another. Analysis, understanding, and being true to oneself without harming others is, in my opinion, a much better way to be. Although admittedly, what some perceive as harm is nothing more than their reaction to a truth they would rather not face. Many dead philosophers much wiser than I have all agreed. They would also agree that Feminists should focus less on what others are doing and more on what they are doing to themselves and others. You can’t control what others do, only what you do. Hence my reiteration of Nietzsche’s words in a previous response. Here is the quote in full:

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

Alas! My conclusion of word labels, their application and utilisation, and effects…The Label Trap

The mind can only perceive that which it is able to comprehend.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 438 other followers