I have been working on a long piece about “Red Pill” ideology — which provides a useful vocabulary for discussion, even if their theorists have sealed themselves in a dissent-free grievance bubble. But the news compels me to comment.
The recent psychotic murder spree in Isla Vista has brought some of these online subcultures into the public eye — PUAs (Pick Up Artists), which the crazy young man (Elliot Rodger) had added to his hate list when their pickup techniques failed to work for him, and “Red Pill,” which some ever-opportunistic writers have tried to drag into the killer’s misogynist (but really misanthropic) obsessions.
First, let’s observe that this young man was crazy. Like others of his type, he generalized blame for every ego slight he suffered on a group of people regardless of their individual natures, and chose to kill as a final effort to feel effectual. This sense of entitlement to the regard of others without any accomplishment is malignant narcissism, and the lack of empathy and understanding of others — seeing them only as instruments to serve him — is psychopathic.
His dysfunction is less rare than it should be; we know rates of maladjustment rise dramatically in broken families and rootless lives, with his affluence only adding to his sense of entitlement to the respect of others. He is a fine example of why it’s misleading to talk of “poverty” as the cause of violence and social ills; very poor people in stable families with good social ties rarely go on killing sprees, and their happiness depends more on the regard of their community than their material possessions. Progressives currently are obsessed by inequality of wealth, when it is inequality of respect and love that makes for a sense of injustice and anger — and in that they are the ultimate materialists, thinking that an unearned government transfer of wealth will make the less favored feel more a part of the society.
Let’s also note that this error of treating members of a group as guilty of all the sins of a few members of the group is seen everywhere, even in many supposedly advanced thinkers. Progressives are so attuned to racism (which is now seen in even trivial prejudices and category errors made by others) that many commit the same error of failing to treat the individual person with respect, and some feminists are so eager to correct the thinking of everyone about gender issues that they slip into facile generalizations that treat men as the enemy instead of as necessary partners in creating a better future.
Like men, women can be strong or weak, responsible or passive, effectual or parasitic. No one deserves to be labeled and pigeonholed for their gender, race, wealth, class, profession, or tribe. Yet the human tendency to seek safety in groupthink is everpresent. Mollie Hemingway takes down the hashtag #YesAllWomen, which lit up with grievance bubble generalizations. The irony of women demanding equal treatment and recognition for their strengths and abilities, then demanding special protection and the suppression of any tendency to masculinity that might be perceived as threatening, is being noticed but it’s a peep amid the roar of “we’re righteous victims” politics. Having large groups of men and women at each other’s throats for perceived aggressions against each other is not a sign of a healthy respect for other human beings.
In Bad Boyfriends I lay out the attachment types and their flawed extreme versions. What happens when the people who are good at being married or coupled find each other, leaving about half the population to deal with partners who are selfish, cruel, avoidant, thoughtless, or just unreliable? Or in thrall of the “fairy tale” model, making them feel the center of their own personal universe, with others just accessories to support their entitlement?
Those less emotionally able interact, collide, grow bitter as they are hurt and hurt others, lose access to their children and find themselves abused and controlled, and band together in groups to nurse their grievances. To the extent that these groups help their members find strength to grow and develop themselves as stronger and better people, this is good; but more commonly they grow their bitterness and think that because they were hurt, all other men/women are hurtful.
To Elliot Rodger, murderous young man: I’m sorry the world did not give you exactly what you thought you deserved. There was something terribly wrong with you, and despite a loving family’s many efforts to get you help, nothing could reach you. I don’t know why you lost the basic humanity you should have had — organic mental defect you were born with, bad parenting, looming schizoaffective disorder — the reason doesn’t matter. May your example serve as a warning: if you’re a loser in life, work on accomplishing something concrete, no matter how small. If you can’t bear it, don’t take innocent people with you.
I’ll be back with some more thoughts later.
Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations
[From Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations, available now in Kindle and trade paperback.]
The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game. Here’s the condensed version; view the entire review here.
Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of “Death by HR”
Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat… It is time to turn the tide against this madness, and Death by HR is an important research tool… All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.
The Latest from Jeb Kinnison:
[Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations, In Kindle and trade paperback.] The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game.
Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of Death by HR
Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat. For it is now fairly impossible for any company not to erect an HR wall as a legal requirement of business with the sole purpose of keeping government diversity compliance enforcers as well as unethical lawyers from pillaging their operating capital through baseless lawsuits… It is time to turn the tide against this madness and Death by HR is an important research tool… to craft counter-revolutionary tactics for dealing with the HR parasites our government has empowered to destroy us. All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.
Divorced Men 8 Times as Likely to Commit Suicide as Divorced Women
Life Is Unfair! The Militant Red Pill Movement
Leftover Women: The Chinese Scene
“Divorce in America: Who Really Wants Out and Why”
View Marriage as a Private Contract?
Madmen, Red Pill, and Social Justice Wars
Unrealistic Expectations: Liberal Arts Woman and Amazon Men
Stable is Boring? “Psychology Today” Article on Bad Boyfriends
Ross Douthat on Unstable Families and Culture
Ev Psych: Parental Preferences in Partners
Purge: the Feminist Grievance Bubble
The Social Decay of Black Neighborhoods (And Yours!)
Modern Feminism: Victim-Based Special Pleading
Stereotype Inaccuracy: False Dichotomies
Real-Life “Hunger Games”: Soft Oppression Destroys the Poor
Red Pill Women — Female MRAs
Why Did Black Crime Syndicates Fail to Go Legit?
The “Fairy Tale” Myth: Both False and Destructive
Feminism’s Heritage: Freedom vs. Special Protections
Evolve or Die: Survival Value of the Feminine Imperative
“Why Are Great Husbands Being Abandoned?”
Divorce and Alimony: State-By-State Reform, Massachusetts Edition
Reading “50 Shades of Grey” Gives You Anorexia and an Abusive Partner!
Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
Gaming and Science Fiction: Social Justice Warriors Strike Again
Culture Wars: Peace Through Limited Government
Perfect Soulmates or Fellow Travelers: Being Happy Depends on Perspective
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
“The Science of Happily Ever After” – Couples Communications
Progressives currently are obsessed by inequality of wealth, when it is inequality of respect and love that makes for a sense of injustice and anger
Good point, but I’d say it’s hardly Progressives alone who believe this. All too many people from all sides of the political spectrum seem to regard money as a panacea for all society’s ills.
That’s true. It’s just a focus-group-tested issue being used to distract voters from other topics the current administration wishes to avoid, so we hear about “income inequality” from all of their mouthpieces. Corrupt corporate-government ties which have been much more damaging to average citizens, not so much.
I’ve been reading and appreciating your postings, BTW. Not much time to comment lately.