My reply on the topic of the “Unnecessariat”

I was sent a link to an article titled “Unnecessariat” by a youtube commenter who has asked me on a couple of occasions to address what was written. Not sure if the commenter was the original author of that article, but I did finally get around to trying to comment on it today on that blog, but for whatever reason it did not allow my post. So, I will post my thoughts here instead:

_______________________________________________________

I was sent a link to this article and asked to comment on the condition of the unnecessariat (a designation I quite obviously belong within as well). Hmmm. What really can be said about all of this? It is true that times have changed and that nearly everybody wishes for a return to “the good ol’ days” but that it’s not going to happen (as the angry commenter above already explained). Is this a depressing reality? Sure. But must it lead us to drug abuse and alcoholism and completely giving up? NO.

Basically what you’re asking here is what’s the meaning of life, or what meaning can sustain a person through a decline with no end in sight. I guess the best place to look would be at the words of those historical figures who endured slavery and bitter poverty and the like to get an idea of what helped them to carry on. For many, it was a deepening sense of spirituality and connection with the Creator. For Stoics, it was adopting a simpler, more principled life so as to be able to appreciate the small pleasures that do exist despite the harshness of reality. That’s where I’ve been turning my attention in recent years.

I did notice the sentence in the article about “why they’re shooting drugs and not dynamiting the Google Barge” and while I can understand the anger it stems from, you have to remember that people make their own choices. Fight technology why? Fight the major corporations why? And the author also disparaged entrepreneurship, dismissing it as “self-rescue with unicorns and rainbows.” So you’re really leaving nobody any out here. I personally am self-employed and it suits me. Will such a strategy work into the indefinite future? Who knows? More importantly, why should I care? It allows me to live a simple life and get by, which is enough for now. Is the goal in writing this to incite people to blow up Google, and do you really think that will stop human progress? Do you really think that might reset everything back to times we like to romanticize about being simpler and more predictable?

The past is gone. And if ever humans manage to knock themselves back into a dark age where we effectively do reset our civilizations and have to begin building again, you can bet that eventually we’ll arrive right back at this point once again. Because that’s what humans do. It’s how we’re driven, right or wrong. Trying to fight all of this can wind up being about as useful as trying to fight the wind. Life’s not easy and there were never any promises deserving of being taken to heart that this project in living would all work out great in the end. That’s our own expectations fucking with us. Adaptation and/or utilization of the current power structures so as to effect change are our best options. Blowing the place up will only create a vacuum wherein another group of ideologues will rush in to fill the void, likely resulting in even more dire results.

Not saying that to sound apathetic, but I do believe it comes down to a question of what it is we’re really expecting in this life. To live on forever and ever in peace? That’s unrealistic. To believe we’re entitled to green pastures into the foreseeable future? That’s utopian. Sure, it’s understandable to not wish to be screwed by those who’ve grown most powerful, and we can work toward booting those people out of positions of power and figuring out how best to protect ourselves from such exploitation in the future. Won’t be ushered in via socialist utopian fantasies, though, that much I’m willing to bet. So, yes, in a real sense it is a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” scenario. Because we humans have a tendency to both strive toward power as well as become corrupted, and that doesn’t change under a socialist setup either.

My own decision was to not have kids. People love to scream about how horrible the future is bound to be, and yet they keep churning out more kids who will be forced to confront these job and resource shortages. Seems folly to me. Perhaps this is a terrific point in history to forego having kids and instead of losing ourselves in drug and alcohol abuse actually do our best to educate ourselves about what is and what all has come before. Just so we can become better oriented in this life and therefore perhaps better capable of handling whatever is in store.

A look at the label “histrionic”

When Paul Elam, in the first sentence of the first comment he’s ever made to me, referred to me as “histrionic” I had to go look it up. Not a label I’m familiar with. Looked to wikipedia initially, but tonight I have some time to delve into the label in a little more detail, out of curiosity.

Conducted a search on youtube and came up with a video from Davis M. J. Aurini (Feb. 2012) claiming to know a thing or two on the subject. Personally, I don’t take that guy as an expert on this or any other subject, but I realize plenty of others do, so I listened to his opinions on this:

Okay. My first impression is that “histrionic” or “hysterical” behavior as it is outlined here is so completely broad that it could be loosely applied to probably a quarter of the population or more. So I’ll just respond for myself on the claims he makes since this is such a hodge-podge of behaviors all smashed together to where I very much doubt but a very few people fit the description to a tee and those who do would also satisfy the label of “narcissist.”

Aurini described this kind of person as someone who’s empty inside and lacking an internal compass to where they find trolling other people the only thing worth doing to give excitement to their lives. Ookay. Well, that right there isn’t my ambition. He said it’d be someone who exaggerates what others tell them, but that made me wonder if perhaps that could be due to lackings when it comes to accurate comprehension or even a faulty memory versus stemming from malevolent intent in all cases.  *shrugs* He said it’s someone who talks about how screwed up everyone else around them is but who considers him/herself as better than the rest.  LOL  Quite the contrary, I’m critical about all of us. He said this is basically a bored woman who isn’t about shit who fucks with people for entertainment and deliberately sows seeds of discontent between others. Hmmm…  (Justicar flashed through my mind there.)  While I do agree that boredom can and often enough does foster trifling behavior in both females and males, that is clearly not my intention when interacting online if anyone were to take an overall look at the videos I “like” and add to playlists as well as those I respond on. Most of it is pretty fucking far from getting up involved in some he said/she said-type of interactions, and as for sex/gender relations, I’m one of those out here urging people not to go to extremes in hating on one another categorically.

See, and that’s what’s so goofy there: Paul Elam, a man whose identity revolves around leading a men’s rights organization, yet who spends more time complaining about female nature and encouraging men to be extremely cautious in their relations with women in general (not only feminists, mind you), who in various videos assigns an assortment of psychiatric labels to women in an effort to drum up fear of women in men (who apparently aren’t also in need of psychological evaluation by Paul Elam’s estimate, that is, unless they qualify as “manginas”), and who also receives donations for such important service to the community—that guy is calling me out as using emotionality in a manipulative manner? lol  For what? For saying I don’t recommend a man sign some stupid petition?  For critiquing what Dean Esmay was publicly advocating? For in the past stating I’m not a fan of Paul Elam and wouldn’t follow him anywhere? That was and remains my honest assessment of Paul Elam after reading and watching plenty of his output.

Is it somehow not okay to disagree with someone or to take issue with their political tactics and social messages? People say we should focus on the issues we have a problem with, and I did. Is that divisive behavior? Well, what about when we publicly take issue with bullshit a preacher or priest says or that a popular feminist organization states—could that be construed as any less divisive in nature in so far as we’re making an appeal to those who are following folks we personally see as misguided? In short, would he feel the need to call someone like me out as “histrionic” if my message had flowed in the other direction and against someone or something he considers an “enemy”? Somehow I doubt it.

Just so weird how people jump to labeling one another all willy-nilly. Do I have big ambitions for my life right now? No, not so much. But I go to work everyday and handle my business, so what’s it to anyone? Do I place myself on some higher pedestal than all others in my life? No. In fact, a big reason I’ve been spending so much time alone in my apartment, reflecting and also listening to others online, is precisely because I am working on myself, because I recognize I have all sorts of problems and conflicts and things needing to change. Welcome to human life — what’s so wrong with admitting it?

BUT, just because I’m doing my thing doesn’t mean I can’t pipe up to let it be known that I, for one, think it’s stupid to sign any document on a U.S. government website for any reason (most especially if the petition in question is retarded) that in any way links myself or the group(s) I’m affiliated with with “terrorism” (that being a big, bad word these days). Most folks don’t want to be associated with that dangerous label, so just from a marketing angle it seems like a very stupid strategy. But, like I said in the video, people will do what they want. Figure some might like to hear varied perspectives on such matters though, and if not, then just click off. No worries. Do what you want. Grown adults have to decide for themselves. Just good, IMO, for folks to hear opinions from those outside of their echo chambers every once in a while. And what’s the harm in that?

For good measure, let’s take a gander at Wikipedia’s entry on “Histrionic Personality Disorder“:

[…] defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotions and attention-seeking, including inappropriately seductive behavior and an excessive need for approval, usually beginning in early adulthood. People affected by HPD are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, and flirtatious. HPD affects four times as many women as men.[1] It has a prevalence of 2–3% in the general population and 10–15% in inpatient and outpatient mental health institutions.[2]

HPD lies in the dramatic cluster of personality disorders.[3] People with HPD have a high need for attention, make loud and inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors and emotions, and crave stimulation.[3] They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.

Further down the page it lists these common characteristics:

  • Exhibitionist behavior
  • Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
  • Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
  • Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
  • Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
  • Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
  • A need to be the center of attention
  • Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
  • Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
  • Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
  • Making rash decisions[4]
  • Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
  • Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
  • Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]

When have I shown myself as a seductive exhibitionist through all of my time on youtube?

Lots of people are sensitive to criticism, the extent depending on the source, but I don’t believe my behaviors online have demonstrated my willingness to submit to others who simply show approval toward me. Rather, I’m more often generally described as a contrarian who can quibble over details on all sides in any debate.

A need to be the center of attention?  Ha!  If that were the case I’d work a lot harder at making attention-grabbing video content, show some cleavage, and get my face and hair all dolled up for the camera. Not as if I don’t own a shit-ton of makeup and hair-styling accessories.

I stay low-level frustrated much of the time, so yeah, my tolerance is tested routinely. Whatever meltdowns I do experience are the result of real-life events and thus are handled in my offline real life. Might blog about my thoughts and feelings from time to time and share stories (keeping offline individuals anonymous), some of which I later make private since the words are mostly for myself, and also sometimes I later realize my venting was being a bit unfair or one-sided. But I am able to admit that, so what’s the problem? Probably plenty of folks out there whom I’ve known in the past include me in their bitching sessions as well. Pretty common behavior among people. (Why does Stefan Molyneux immediately spring to mind when considering this point?)

Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others… hmmm. Some of our disappointments do directly relate to others. But I blame plenty on myself. Not a saint, wouldn’t ever pretend to be one. I’ve hurt people too. Such is life. No human is an island, and we are social creatures who can’t help but depend on and impact one another, plus we are living in crazy times, so…   It is what it is. We live and learn through honest introspection and reflection.

Unwillingness to change…  That one is particularly inaccurate since I change all the time in light of compelling information and ideas. Changed quite a lot over the last decade and don’t regret doing so at all. Was and is totally necessary. Just as I expect to change a great deal over the next decade. Comes with trying to keep an open mind to what’s out there in the world, including other people’s perspectives. Not all perspectives are created equal though, as we know.

Tendency to believe relationships are more intimate than they are…  No clue how that one relates to me. Pretty big on sticking with my closest people where long-term bonds are already established. Don’t feel intimately connected with anyone known to me only online.

Haven’t pretended to be physically unwell to garner attention.

Who doesn’t make rash decisions? I can be impulsive in some situations.

Overly dramatic and emotional…  Who determines what is excessive there? A bunch of stuffed suits with vested financial interest sitting around voting on the matter?  Gimme a break. I am a sensitive, emotional person, and that’s just the way it goes. Nothing necessarily wrong or unnatural about that, though it can make life a bit harder since we humans can be so damned calloused to one another. Depression happens. All too common these days. Makes people want to reach out and interact from the comfort and convenience of our own homes where communications can be exchanged from a physical and emotional distance.

Okay, so that’s the basic rundown. Looks like a piss-poor attempt at playing armchair psychoanalyst, from where I sit, but ah well. Some folks can’t handle criticism, so it’s been said.

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

The title is a quote attributed to Frederich Nietzsche.

So this week I created a video having to do specifically in this case with idiots among Barbarossaa’s admirers taking issue with me responding on one of his videos asking for greater clarification over one of his claims made therein. Then Bar Bar and others went on the defense and completely misunderstood what I was getting at.

Since my attempt at explaining myself via video didn’t go over terribly well and it appears my point is still confusing to many, let me try to break this down here.

Copying from Bar Bar’s video comment thread in question, my original question posted 3 months ago was:

Just a thought. Assuming that all MGTOWs are 100% non-violent and non-coercive seems a bit of a stretch. How do you know this? Does the MGTOW banner have one specific philosophy that it prescribes to in terms of interaction with women? Because from what I read and watch that doesn’t seem to be the case. It differs depending on the man in question as to what his stance. Hence the idea of men going THEIR OWN ways. But perhaps I missed the memo.

Yes, there were typos and I very likely commented while tired late at night, but it doesn’t appear my typos obscured the point I was trying to convey, which is that MGTOW philosophy doesn’t appear capable of ensuring violent or non-violent outcomes in all who embrace that label. And that had been my first comment on that video comment thread.

Bar Bar replied with this:

I’ve come into contact with hundreds of mgtow, not a single one of them have advocated violence, the fact that as a woman, you come into this male space insinuating that we could be violent, makes you suspect.

And has since received 33 thumbs up on this comment.

To which I replied to Bar Bar:

No, you misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that these men are or must be violent or coercive, just that the term MGTOW and that life strategy doesn’t exclude that possibility in individuals.

Nanthew Shandridan was a bit more open to comprehending what I was saying:

I understand what you are saying which is that “as MGTOW is self defined, then won’t their be some MGTOW who add violence to how they definite it.” The is that is possible, BUT as violence is not a fundamentally MGTOW concept preached by any MGTOW with any visibility it is pretty safe to assume that the number of such individuals is approaching that of the background level of humanity who are prone to violence whatever they believe in, so in the end MGTOW still has nothing to do with violence.

My reply to Nanthew Shandridan:

That was pretty much my point, that MGTOW has nothing to do with violence either way. Kind of like how atheism doesn’t determine whether someone is violent or not — their atheistic beliefs are a separate matter. MGTOW looks the same to me since it is such a loosely defined group of individuals who ultimately decide for themselves rather than embrace one particular ideology.

Baszar’s reply to Nanthew Shandridan’s reply to me:

MGTOW is about 2 things IMHO:

1) Trying to understand the exact rules of man-woman dynamics.

2) It incurages man, based on that data, to redefine their place in society.

Whatever your conclusion is and what you do with it thats your buissnes.

That’s what I thought too.

Thomas Jefferson then jumped in to say to me:

“Assuming that all MGTOWs are 100% non-violent and non-coercive seems a bit of a stretch.”

Not at all, since men are basically violent and coercive out of societally-induced male competition and abuse, which MGTOW’s reject.

In fact I think most “tough guys” are simply closet homosexuals who doth protest too much and crave physical contact with other men.

Thomas Jefferson replied to Bar Bar’s comment to me with a little off-road rambling:

Especially since women are FAR more violent than men when it suits them, but are simply hypocrites who turn on the water-works to play the victim because it usually suits them MORE.

Young girls sadistically abuse smaller kids; meanwhile women are just as domestically violent as men, while they are far MORE physically abusive to children.

So when women accuse men of being violent- or anything else- the simple response is “Hello, WINNING?” since they’re just being sore losers who can’t compete.

More from Thomas Jefferson to me:

“MGTOW has nothing to do with violence either way”

Of course it does! Society pushes men to be violent almost from birth, enabling bullying and competition, ababdoning them to fend for themselves, while ridiculing and abusing them MORE for refusing or failing to do so.

Then after a lifetime of special treatment and PROTECTION from this sort of abuse, feminists have the GALL to call men “violent” when in reality women are even MORE violent DESPITE such pampering (which ENABLES it as well).

And even more from Thomas Jefferson in reply to me:

Until you actually see a single instance of MGTOW’s advocating violence towards women, then you’re just being paranoid.

Likewise, men already suffer enough from women’s FALSE accusations of violence towards them, only an insane man would advocate making it REAL.

Likewise, men are ENCOURAGED to be violent towards other men– which is ENCOURAGED in our society as praiseworthy, while women are SACROSANCT.

MGTOW stands for NO contact with women who don’t benefit us– not VIOLENT contact!

Then, Thomas Jefferson had a few pearls of wisdom for Nanthew Shandridan too:

No it is NOT possible.

Men are already pressured to be violent in our society–look how our society treats aggressive men vs. those who are VICTIMS of it, as well as all our media; violent men are praised as “heroes,” while victims are treated as “cowards who get what they deserve…” while women, as always, are sacrosanct in any situation.

MGTOW is about ENDING this hypocrisy by simply saying NO to it!

This is just feminist propaganda hating on men leaving them in the lurch.

All but two other replies effectively side-tracked what I was trying to ask. More examples follow.

Ajskdak kasskiudud replied to me:

Oh hey I can do this, too: Just a thought. Assuming that all women are 100% non-violent isn’t a stretch, but an obvious lie. Just a thought, assuming that you’re not a transparent dumbass for setting those standards is a stretch.

To which I replied:

Of course all women aren’t non-violent. That’s a given. I don’t understand why what I originally stated has set some of you off.

MultiShadow1979 replied to my original comment with this:

It figures YOU would attempt to pin violence and coercion on MGTOWs. I guess people like you just make things up when you need to vilify your emotions, huh?

That guy always gets an eye roll out of me, having dealt with him on countless comment threads on YT.

To which I replied:

My god. I’m not pinning anything on anyone. Just saying, like with atheism or even feminism and plenty of other groups, it doesn’t seem that non-violence is automatically built into the movement, since each individual therein subjectively decides what that label ultimately means for them. I’m not picking on anyone here or on MGTOWs. Was just trying to make sense out of what’s being advocated here. But nevermind. Whatever.

MultiShadow1979 replied further with this:

We aren’t even big enough to face those kind of odds. The actual MGTOW movement is just a small group on the internet.

The trend of men not getting married is much larger, and yeah.. maybe some of those guys turn to violence because they don’t understand what’s happening, or because of their circumstances.. but who knows.

All we are advocating here is that men stopped being used as disposable providers and realize what their role is in modern society, they should look out for themselves first.

And he’s received 15 thumbs up for this comment which states that yes, “maybe some of those guys turn to violence,” albeit qualified by offering them the out of not understanding what’s happening or “because of their circumstances.” That’s leaving it pretty open-ended, but yeah, that’s what I figured on as well — that some won’t abide by a strictly non-violent strategy, nor does the label of MGTOW require it of its adherents thanks to how broadly the “movement” is defined (or, more accurately, left undefined), and we see already compassion being conjured up in the event that some of these men ever do turn toward a violent response.

AeonAvatar replied to me with this:

Hello again Byenia. If the “MGTOW banner” “prescribes” any one philosophy on interaction with women,it is simply don’t interact with them. A man going his own way is trying to avoid harm to himself,not to harm anyone else. Why does a man living his life for himself have to raise suspicions about how he treats women? I’m always amazed by the female tendency to make everything about themselves

I personally fall somewhere in between the MGTOW & PUA communities,but I understand what MGTOW is about

LikeMindedIncident replied to me with this:

I’m missing the translation from (self) societal jettison into an act of violence/coercion.

To which I replied:

Nevermind me. Go back to whatever ya’ll were talking about. It wasn’t meant as insulting but just me wondering out loud about what seemed obvious, but now it’s ticked people off, and that wasn’t the goal, so…nevermind me.

I was bowing out at that point because I realized 1.) my question was apparently too complex for a comment thread discussion, 2.) Barb himself didn’t take kindly to me interacting on his video thread, and 3.) the back and forth up to that point had proven unproductive.

So then, LoneSir said this to me:

Women are biggest instigators of domestic violence by hitting FIRST!

How does mgtow philosophy who says avoid ”crazy women” and cut them out of your life so you don’t get into trouble is exactly violent ?

Ar you scared of everything that is confrontational direct manly put? We say no women no problems where is the violence part? There is NONE!

Because you are valuing everything with your female lizard brain that is scared of everything and is in constant paranoia! And men are sick of you

 

I left it that that because virtually no one was getting where I was going with what boiled down to a quibble over the content in the video where Bar Bar stated more than once that the MGTOW “movement” is completely non-violent. He was stressing that point, and I was asking what made that so when it’s up to individual men to decide for themselves which way they’re going to go in. They’re not all in lockstep with one another, and they state that plainly, and nothing in the MGTOW philosophy explicitly admonishes the use of violence where someone might deem it necessary or advantageous. As I’ve repeated, again and again now, this critique can be applied to feminism and the feminists who seem to think their movement and the vast majority of women under it are non-violent, which surely isn’t the case when we consider the role the State plays in promoting their interests, both with and without using physical force.

And as I explained in my video and tried to explain in Bar Bar’s comment thread, when we look at atheism we understand it’s not defined one way or the other in terms of violence or non-violence. Violence simply has nothing to do with that belief system itself, regardless of how many atheists actually choose to behave violently or nonviolently.

Now, the reason why this quibble matters to me is that a number of MRAs and/or MGTOWs (understanding they do differ but also there’s plenty of overlap) who are currently functioning as “leaders” of sorts and spokespersons for their respective philosophies and/or political positions, and who have successfully attracted thousands of subscribers on a medium populated disproportionately with young adults and teens, and are spreading some seriously harsh and gender-divisive messages. Taken alone a video might not mean much, but people steeped in a regular diet of this sort of thing are likely to be impacted one way or another eventually. For young males seeking a group to belong to and identify with and who therefore spend a great deal of time listening to what amounts to encouragement for all men to turn their backs on women and to blanketly distrust us, scaring them with every negative story that can be found involving women’s behavior, drumming up the threat of feminism to where anyone remotely associated with the feminist movement (past or present) is shunned (except perhaps Erin Pizzey), and offering up pseudo-scientific narratives based on cherry-picked research from the fields of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology, plus distinctly flavored with Social Darwinism—all is being done with the express purpose to demonstrate to others that women are dangerous. And not only are we dangerous, but the claim is now that we’re far more dangerous than men and supposedly always have been due to our greedy, manipulative constitutions. These mouthpieces aim to paint this like an unavoidable reality that mankind must contend with.

The problem is these views are obviously heavily slanted and biased, and the next problem is that some of the followers of this stuff are very young and inexperienced while also a number of followers show themselves to be stupid beyond the pale. On that last point: NOT ALL AND I NEVER CLAIMED ALL, but enough to be noteworthy. The reasons this matters is that it appears to me (from viewing others’ videos, reading comment threads, and checking out a few forums in the so-called “manosphere” thus far) that some of the males following these trends are getting whipped into a frenzy worrying about being taken advantage of by women. Some not only talk about going their own way but refer to women categorically as the enemy.

Do people really think there will be no consequences to that? Every other movement or popular social trend that panicked its constituents into freaking out over their rights and safety in the last 100 years has wound up creating an incredible amount of problems. We see this in politics, in feminism, in religious groups, in nationalism and its calls for patriotism. When people get scared, they cease acting rationally (and it’s arguable if many are very rational to begin with) and they start looking for somewhere to turn to lay the blame and lash out. When animosities and anxieties rise, people aim to take some sort of action, whether it results in being in their best interests or not.

And then, of course, there are idiots to consider. As stated, my issue here isn’t with those merely possessing low intelligence, but rather that combined with a mean spirit. Those types of men have always existed, and women, children, and defenseless males have always needed protection from them. Yet here we have certain individuals gaining popularity through helping whip them into a rabid frenzy too. That may not be anyone’s express intention, but that’s what winds up happening many times over. Social checks and balances are what keep the worst among us under control to whatever manageable extent, yet today it feels like the ground is quickly eroding beneath our feet.

Apathy is sweeping the United States and has been coming for a long time. I hear it swept across France long before and is affecting various countries in Europe now too. People are getting to thinking that they don’t care at all for others who don’t provide them with some sort of direct benefit, and it’s that kind of mindset that’s going to do us in, folks. That is my opinion. It is not love and hate that are opposites but rather both of those forms of passionate engagement stand across the spectrum from apathy. Apathy is what the sociopath/psychopath operates with, and it’s what businesses today encourage in employees in the name of profit-seeking. Cold-heartedness in women is what breaks men’s hearts who love them, and apathetic parenting is producing damaged and neglected children. When we adopt similar strategies, THIS IS WHAT WE’RE AIDING AND ABETTING.

Hell is not some fictitious myth buried beneath the earth’s crust — it’s an option for life on earth. If we keep mounting wrongs against one another, where will it likely lead us? To better days? To a more meaningful existence? To more productive lifestyles? Or to more broken families, partnerships, communities, hearts and minds? Which do you figure is the more likely outcome if these are the strategies we embrace?

There’s already not barely enough love to go around, and pain has the nasty habit of paying forward indefinitely. That is, until the cycle is broken, and that comes down to us as individuals and where we decide to go in our own lives. If we want to believe we possess no more free will than a lemming, then we’re fools destined to a lemming’s fate. If we look out on the world and see more than half of the population as our enemies based on ideological reasoning, we will likely behave accordingly and wind up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That’s where we stand, so far as I can tell. And that’s the sort of things that have been on my mind in relation to all people, not merely men or men’s rights-related groups. It goes way beyond that in my eyes. I want us to think about what we’re doing and how that may play into where we’re headed. Though we might not be able to halt these trends already in motion, must we uncritically succumb to them? All individuals are capable of going their own way in terms of thinking for our own selves and doing what we can to get ahold of the reins in directing our own lives. If some people want to go off and be by themselves, I can understand the need to do so, but it needn’t transpire this way.

And as far as Bar Bar’s video and comment thread are concerned, the only reason it came back across my radar is because 3 months after bowing out of there, I received one more jab, this time from EZ M (dated from 3 days ago):

The problem with women talking about violence is that they 1)commit more DV than men do, and 2)flock to the violent types and eschew the nice guys. Also, Men Going Their Own Way, by definition walk away from situations involving women, so YES, that does default to non-violence. Detractors who are smarter than you have suggested that our problem is NOT facing women head on, and ‘giving up’. If boycott is not peaceful enough for you, (meaning you want to manipulate us,) then fuck off. Smh.

[All above quoted comments were copied and pasted as is with no alterations.]

So I decided to vent my irritations on my own channel since enough people there obviously had no interest in communicating with me anymore on this subject:

So there you have it.

A day or so after posting up my video, Bar Bar created one of his own that again sidestepped my question before dismissing me as a “little girl” not worthy of further attention. Cute. And then he blocked me.