Unfairness is entropic, indiscriminate, and thereby plentiful - it is the default state of the world, and so because fairness is rare beyond metaphysical claims about God and karma, it is in practical terms something only the most benevolently strong impose. There are situations in this world where good things happen solely due to the clout of a man who is feared as much as he is loved, thereby carrying both the desire to honour him, and threat of reprisal from him. It is this which underwrites the fairness he would impose that is otherwise lacking - a most perfect lock. Almost all practical fairness operates in this way, for it is the main purview of walled gardens - it is not naturally abundant, but a most beautiful construction. It is for this reason you must cast off your petulant expectations of fair treatment, and instead foster the spirit of the conqueror. Nature is a woman, and therefore bends only to the most potent and applied will: the most relentless, the most ruthless, the most pure hearted, indomitable, and penetrative force of being. Do not rely on grace or beg for mercy - pray for nothing but strength. Cultivate your lifeforce, scheme, calculate, envision, strategise, plan, and direct your will - be the arbiter of the fairness this world has deprived you, rather than the one who laments its absence - mirror the divine in your personal kingdom by ensuring it is what this world fails to be: beautifully just.

Then with all due respect, you are a very easily manipulated person because it is your bias to believe the person in front of you is a wounded animal who can be healed, rather than, in some cases: a wolf dressed as a sheep using you to prop up their victim narrative. What bar does someone have to clear for you to say "that is a sick monster who should be put down" rather than "this person only hurts people because they are hurt" - the snuck assumption being that somehow already being traumatised means it's somehow not quite as bad to harm others, despite possessing a personal frame of reference for just how terrible it feels, and then still choosing to inflict it regardless. If anything, that is worse, not better, because it is consciously selfish - it is to have full intimate knowledge of how horrible it is to be on the receiving end of a particular harm, and to conclude it perfectly acceptable to inflict it rather than ensure nobody else would ever have to experience the same pain you did. Perhaps I am being uncharitable and we are at cross purposes and you are talking about people who say, are generally well intentioned but push others away when they are scared and ruin things because the closeness they crave terrifies them, and that's another thing entirely, but realise what I'm saying is very much a thing too, and that sometimes, both these things can be present simultaneously. Not all harm is caused by one dimensionally evil people, no, I will concede that, but not all harm is caused by people clumsily panicking in their fear, either. If a pedophile walks into your practice, and they tell you the reason they touch kids is because they were touched as a kid, are they a cruel monster harming an innocent, or a wounded innocent reproducing their childhood pattern to understand what happened to them from the opposite perspective now they are an adult? You see how even the latter framing of my question is dangerous, because bad people can abuse that rhetoric to give a veneer of credibility and thus sympathy to what is an inherently sinful, disgusting and harmful act? The majority of the population would rightfully call them a monster who needs to be executed. You would probably say they just need help getting over what happened to them so they could be a better person and break free of their childhood pattern. Your bias is to see the best in people even where it does not exist, or it is otherwise extremely foolish and dangerous to others to offer them redemption given their failure comes at the expense of others. It's sort of like those who lament the rough childhoods and upbringings of criminals as they advocate for their rights - as if the rights of their victims do not trump theirs, because everyone is hurt by someone, and so they're just like you, right? Wrong. Everyone is ultimately harmed by someone at some point in life, but this does not give us license to go around harming others and then pointing to how we were harmed as evidence of our innocence every time someone points out how fucked up what we are doing is. You actually have to take personal responsibility for yourself if you are not going to reproduce your dysfunctional patterns, and that begins with admitting you have been a cowardly or self-indulgent piece of shit, and making a commitment to no longer being one. You say you know traumatised people whose pain leads them to inflict pain on others (but you say cause pain rather than inflict pain to subtly remove blame from them, as if they lack agency and it is their condition that just sort of spontaneously manifests the pain inflicting action rather than their deliberate conscious actions.) So if everyone is simply a victim of trauma, who is causing that trauma? Is it just two victims victimising each other? There is seemingly no abuser in your model, because if anyone was ever sufficiently mean enough to the so-called abuser, then they immediately become the victim because they're just reproducing their trauma pattern. In your model, seemingly everybody is a victim traumatising others because of their own trauma, so nobody is really actually evil or bad, just wounded and healable - and it is this very feminine model of looking at the world that is, as well intentioned as it is, extremely dangerous in how it can be repurposed into giving people who should be excluded, punished or otherwise categorically executed and removed from society moral cover. My point is that some people are genuinely sadistic, cruel, twisted, resentful, manipulative, and ultimately unrehabilitatable precisely because their wounds have festered and metastasised into a type of spiritual cancer, and rather than decide they want to break the cycle, they thought their suffering gave them license to be the absolute worst version of themselves - they are the weak power seeking souls who succumbed to their pain by letting it possess them, and now they hide behind victim narratives to get sympathy as they inflict themselves on others. If you are blind to evil, you will invariably enable it when you decide to forgive it, reason with it or attempt to heal it, rather than shine a light on it, expose it and smite it with the wrath of the heavens. Not everyone and everything can be purified. Many people can. A great number cannot. Who is to say who can be and can't be healed or redeemed? Other than God himself, probably only the very wisest, most intelligent and discerning men and women on this Earth. But definitely not one with the warm and fuzzy bias you have. I also think you have not had a client who was so terrible and vicious it made you question your profession and want to quit. Perhaps you live in a small town somewhere dealing with scared or children frustrated 110 IQ wives, rather than say, a genius substance abusing microdosing sociopathic C suite exec who feels genuine pleasure making people struggle. It is not my desire to put you down, I don't get the sense you are a bad person, but I do think you are something of a fool. I am also wise enough to know a single post on the internet is not going to change your entire view of reality or how you engage in your practice, but I am pretty sure you are used to being "the correct one" and not being challenged in this way, so whether you can appreciate it or not, see my efforts here as an impulsive gift to you: something for you to chew on and consider tentatively in your off hours. For what it's worth: I would like your worldview to be perfect and correct and for what I am saying to be cynical, objectively untrue and patently wrong. I just simply do not believe that is the case. I think you mistake a half truth for the full truth, because it is personally unpleasant for you to concede that not everyone is just a wounded animal waiting to be sweet and cuddly if only they are given enough love, patience and care, and that there are genuinely malignant beings who walk amongst us.

If u don’t follow IM you’re missing out on one of the best thinkers on this platform. For the first time in history u have access to a multitude of counselors at your fingertips

A woman should not seek the company of men. She should have one man she adores who takes care of all other men for her, meaning if a man for whatever legitimate reason has some point of order or business with her, he is not allowed to bother her by speaking directly to her but must deal with her husband rather than her, for her husband serves as the interface between her and men as a whole - he is her protective shield.

Combative women want men they consider unusually masculine, psychologically deep and intellectually penetrating, but those are precisely the kinds of men least likely to tolerate contempt. So when she feels insecure and tries to regain a sense of internal power by reflexively degrading the man, she disproportionately selects herself out of access to precisely the type of man she claims to value. This is her structural trap. She appears to think her contempt can function as a kind of leash: I will lower him, withdraw admiration and criticise him, and in doing so, force him to engage with me. But with the type of man she wants, it actually has the complete opposite effect. She seemingly fails to understand a very basic principle: that disrespect will not widen the aperture and create more access through negative attachment - but will lead to the complete collapse of whatever limited access she had otherwise up until that point been permitted. Antagonism is momentarily cathartic for her in so much as it allows her to vent her frustrations and trauma dump - but more crucially, such indulgence is spiritually ugly and unseductive, and thus pertinently antithetical to her intended aim of winning him. She is not a conqueror of man, because she does not "know her enemy", meaning she is self-absorbed to the point she seems to have no theory of mind as to the nature of man's psyche and his underlying dignity, and thereby like a bull in a china shop, presumes she can just inelegantly trample all over him, repeatedly humiliating herself by imposing herself unpleasantly, under the idiotic belief this will somehow get her what she wants. For the supposedly emotionally intelligent sex, this is profoundly retarded - but it goes to show that even in otherwise at least moderately clever women, ego can prove such a blind spot it renders them functionally moronic. And because she apparently does not understand that disrespecting the man she wants is why he keeps cutting her off every time she manages to force access to him, she keeps interpreting his resulting exclusion as "another move in the dance" - further evidence that something psychologically profound and meaningful is happening between them, rather than recognising the much simpler but less flattering and more self-indicting causal chain: She behaved unpleasantly toward a man who had no obligation to tolerate her, so he removed her.

The woman who adopts the best traits of men without losing her feminine warmth, who is brave and stays true to her heart is the only woman that always wins. Other women may envy her, attempt to sabotage her or ridicule her - but she is their superior in every manner conceivable.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." — Frank Herbert

When the pendulum swings, it doesn't just settle into a stable equilibrium, but instead violently oscillates to the opposite extreme, bringing peace and prosperity in the transitionary period, which at least initially seems like evidence of the rightfulness and superiority of the directional change, only for it to inevitably go too far and eventually cause the very opposite problems that the change in system initially looked to solve. The problem is that the competing systems (the two opposite extremes, if you will) are equally capable of resolving each other whilst still needing to be resolved. To put this in simpler terms: you end up trading one set of problems for another. System B resolves the issues in system A, but now system A asserts its own set of problems which... you guessed it, system B solves. So without a better system that can effectively resolve the tension points of both systems A and B, you oscillate between systems, the period of time spent within any one particular system being contingent on two variables: 1: The capacity of the system to defend itself once entrenched/dominant. 2: Your capacity to endure the drawbacks, costs and suffering of that system. When 2 overwhelms 1, 1 collapses and the current system in power, eg: system A undergoes its transitionary period to be replaced by B, until B repeats into A, back into B, into A etc - we call this "the loop", "the infinity cycle" - whatever you wish to call it - it is an underlying and inherent property of reality true of both the individual (the micro), society (the macro) and the supermacro (the universe). The inability of a system or organism to hit the golden mean and thereby enter a "perfect steady state" is why it requires violent oscillations to approximate them, necessitating the contraction and expansion of energy in the pursuit of the ideal, which we seem doomed to overshoot. If we are to overshoot then, we should ask ourselves: how can we self-correct faster and overshoot less so that we stay closer to where we need to be, rather than being so wildly inefficient we drag out the dysfunctional and overcorrecting parts of our cycles?

Do you want to be prisoner to the elephant in the room, or a more formidable being? Denying a core part of who you are is the most asinine and pointless of exercises, because you cannot escape you, and so all efforts and attempts to do so are temporary and doomed to fail, for the most visceral aspects of your being you’ve been suppressing will always find a way to reassert themselves.

As a woman, it has never been more important for you to reject the female social world that normalises failure, and then tries to recruit you into it. You will have to learn to think for yourself, stand up for yourself against mean and cliquey women, and secure your own interests, and you will need to do that for yourself single-handedly until you can find a good man to share that responsibility with you.

Curation is distinction through selection until it is performance as self-preservation - your curated image is what you conceal, your curated selections are what you reveal.

You know they're an outlier when the entire sum of your previous life experience fails you, and they present a dimension of personality so novel, unorthodox and previously unseen that you have to pattern recognise and map an entirely new facet of personality and subsystem of being, just to accurately comprehend them. The sin of course, always being to mischaracterise someone you genuinely like and care for a great deal. And here is the thing: whatever this novel aspect is, they don't fully understand it either. They cannot articulate it properly either. They can *grasp* at aspects of what they are from inside it, under the influence of it without fully seeing it or realising it in their clumsy attempts to convey themselves to you. And yet, they know what the truth sounds (and feels) like - so when you correctly identify and articulate it to them, it resonates to them as a type of recognition, as if you have provided them with an answer they always needed but did not have but now do, because you truly saw them in a way not even they could, but needed to. Your gift to them was thus making the unconscious and subconscious fully conscious - to introduce them to a core facet of themselves they had grappled with, refining them through greater coherence so whatever shame or confusion they felt can be put to rest as their self-concept is updated to reflect deeper self-knowing - they have become more integrated through you. So you actually have to know them better than them, without being them. Your theory of mind literally needs to be so elite it can penetrate them and transcend the limitations of their self-awareness so you may describe them to them, and they can feel seen, become self-aware, and in that greater self-recognition, be in a sense, conquered by you by being known by you in a way none other does, has or can. One of the deepest secrets of the structure of their being that was a mystery to them, now resides as knowledge in you. That will always link you to them, and them to you - such is the violent spiritual beauty of seeing and being seen, for it marks the soul indelibly in both directions, as both the one who had to try so hard to reach in and perceive, and the one who was penetrated by the reordering depth of that perception in their becoming through better self-defining around your gaze.

Reduce attack surface, refine attack vector.

If you really think about it, and I say this very seriously: a society full of unmarried childless women over the age of 30 isn't just a fertility crisis - it is sort of akin to a very large cabal of witches that creates very hostile spiritual conditions for families, because essentially, you have a large group of frustrated, bitter women who will collectivise and engage in increasingly destructive behaviour at the systemic, institutional level, and employ whatever positions they have to impose their personal brand of spite. And when women like this because more than half of all women - when they "become the norm" they will take that *majority status* as legitimisation of their dysfunction, and pressure, propagandise and attempt to manipulate good women into copying them, so they can ruin their lives too. A society full of witches, and by witches I mean corrupt, negative older women who have twisted incentives for sabotaging other women whilst posing as the nice old lady is a very bad thing, and I don't think we've seen anything like it before. Historically, such women would be a tiny, likely sub 5% percentage of the population, if even that. Makes sense, because it is wildly inefficient and unsustainable for a society to underutilise its womb capacity to that degree, but now such women are expected to be as much as, or just over half of all women. Yes, the immediate fertility crisis is not good, but it is ultimately recoverable as the defective or otherwise uncooperative women are selected out of the gene pool, and women with more amenable genes to coupling reproduce in their stead - but the decades upon decades of rhetoric we will have to "look forward to" from the half of the mostly godless female population who are fundamentally dysregulated, ungrounded, petty and resentful "chiming in" and attempting to sabotage everything around them with their endless coping narrative propaganda is not the wholesome spiritual atmosphere families will want to raise their kids around. I don't think a society has ever before seen such a large group of aged out, unsalvageable and frustrated unmarriageable women before, and I don't think we as a society have even remotely begun to plot the order effects of such, or construct a strategy to deal with it. Men deciding not to date and avoiding women personally solves it for them, but it does not stop random mental women planting rotten seeds in your daughters head, as if her so-called "friends" weren't bad enough, because women often assume advice coming from older women is more neutral/less competitive/more informed, and in prior times when those women themselves were naturally married off mothers, this was directionally correct, but it will increasingly cease to be. Yes, the delusional single 35 year old single woman really will try to sabotage the 20 year old woman with her "advice" if they both covet the same man. What a time to be alive!

Reducing or eliminating consequences for irresponsible behavior punishes responsible people the same way that inflation punishes savers. It’s like a natural law. You need to understand it as intrinsic to the project.

Sophia, not to be confused with sophist (a person who rhetorically wields fallacious arguments effectively), is probably amongst one of the best female names, because it it is one of the hardest names for a woman to live up to. Etymologically it means "wisdom personified": sound judgement, pragmatism, shrewdness and cunning. It comes from the root sophos meaning "wise" and once appended after philo (to love) sophia (wisdom) it makes philosophia, or as we call it in English: philosophy.