You Won't Like Him When He’s Angry
why school shootings happen and how to fix it
Editors Note: In some ways this is a “why the right always loses”—an appeal to understanding why your strategy is doing more harm than good—but directed at the libs. And also for understanding my political-extremist incel bros.
The belief that anger is destructive is primarily a result of women, who dont feel nor use anger in the same way as men, developing social power over the last century and then being fooled by randomness (particularly non-normal or counter-intuitive distributions). 1 As well as broken men, largely a result of the fatherlessness that has coincided with this rise in female social power, who were never taught how to control it seeing what happens when they, or other similarly broken men, lose control and explode.
But the truth is that every man who has built anything of value was first angry.
The one in one thousand acts of anger that are “destructive” (murder, rape, violence, what have you) are singled out and fixated on. While the nine hundred and ninety nine generative ones (pretty much everything else men put effort toward) are ignored.
Just as with guns: if you ignore all the times they were used positively, which is several orders of magnitude more than negatively, you come away with not only a very inaccurate but ultimately harmful view on the situation.
And even these “negative” times are ambiguous. Rarely is anything “all good” or “all bad”. This is literally what all the movies are about. the trolly problems and “man struggles with fighting for good without becoming a monster himself” and “bastard with a heart of gold who uses aggression and violence to seek redemption” and all the rest. The optimal amount of anger and aggression to maintain the perfect balance between order and chaos is not obvious.
Social order fundamentally requires the implicit threat of violence to maintain any stability at all. What is being tall and strong but an implicit threat of violence? What is the word no but the implicit threat of violence? The actual occurrence of violence is simply when these boundaries and implicit threats are disregarded, turning the implicit explicit.2
Everyone Loves Violence. As Long As They Dont Have To Do It Themselves
If a salesman comes to your door and you say “thanks I’m not interested” and he holds the door open, refusing to allow you to close it, and you try to push him, so he resists and just continues to not take no for an answer, it will inevitably come to the point where you (or the police—more on this in a moment) will enact violence to stop him.
Fight or flight.
It’s simply that women and weak men, because they are physically weak and thus likely to lose, choose flight. To run away from rather than subdue this pushy sales man. But what everyone ignores is that they can only do this because they expect strong men to come along and do the subduing part for them.
“Senseless anger or violence” in the eyes of women or weak men (henceforth referred to as “the libs”, given that they are pretty much synonymous) is actually just “anger or violence which I cannot be bothered to examine the second order effects of”.
All the libs who claim to hate anger and violence and guns love to wield the guns and violence of the state. It is not that they hate violence or guns. In fact they don’t mind ten times more violence or guns which the state clearly brings. All they mind is ever having to look at it directly.
“Violence is good, as long as it is cold and calculated and is enforced by canon fodder peasants who I never have to see.”
Libs get off on this magic secret violence so much that it is literally the first solution they ever go to in the event of any and all problems. When have you ever heard a lib suggest a solution to a social problem that wasn’t “There ought to be a law! Regulators! It should be illegal!”? Very rarely at best.
As long as they are allowed to run away, and the violence is outsourced to the strong men (laws enforced by the police), they are happy to live in their lala land where “anger and violence and war are icky and bad and unncessary!1!”.3
This is partly why the labor class (conservatives) intrinsically prefer a smaller state. Labor class men are higher testosterone. More “primal”. More practical. Less idealistic. And most importantly are the enforcers the libs rely on. If you are part of the enforcer class already, why would you call on your brothers (fellow police, firefighters, blue collars, etc) to solve your problems for you? You take care of that scumbag salesman yourself. And if you and the boyz are enforcing the protection of all your shit yourselves, why the hell would you want a bunch of weak-chinned, pip-sqeuak, soy-milk-drinking, city-slickers asking for half your paycheck to do a worse job? Libs are literally too privileged to even grasp this.4
This is also why there is like one libertarian chick for every thousand libertarian dudes (and she always has Aspergers).
Because it is only men and their anger, men capable of or even aware that “fight” is a personal option, who can look into the abyss of something like the state and see it for what it is—just one giant gun. Simply the male role of guarding the perimeter from the barbarians, outsourced and abstracted.
If a woman confronts the truth of what the state is, a giant gun wielded generally by a bunch of charismatic psychopaths, it means she either needs to defend herself (scary) or submit to men around her to defend her (restrictive). If she is not high T herself or surrounded by strong-yet-loving men who she trusts to submit to, the delusion of the “magic gun” of the state which allows her to feel powerful without having to feel afraid or dependent is a drug too good to pass up.5
Lastly, this is why all “girl gamers” either play The Sims or are titty streamers seeking to acquire a harem of beta orbiters to farm resources and attention from. Because the primary purpose of vidya (and most sports) are to simulate violence; to be a non-consequential place to channel combat and competitiveness during “peace time”; to train and master the art of aggression and force so that when war inevitably comes, and it is time to “fight”, you can protect the innocent and the weak whose only option is “flight”.6 And why the hell would women have any interest in that?
You Cannot Build Without First Destroying
It is almost universally men (see footnote 1) and their anger who are ever willing to make things worse at first to make them better in the long run. Anger is the force which faces the unknown, tearing down the old and insufficient and rebuilding anew. Disagreeableness is the foundation of personal agency.
Tough, “blunt” conversations that address the elephant in the room or bad behavior in toxic relationships; or telling the consensus to eat shit and die and going out on your own to pursue some new idea or business are the forte of disagreeable people. Aka Men. Angry, testosterone-filled, men.7
Every CEO is angry. Angry that this problem is not already solved. Angry that entropy is constantly tearing down the order and structure he has worked so hard to create. Without anger, without this drive to destroy and recreate the world in his vision, there is only entropy. Only death.
All growth first requires death. To avoid complete death, we need periodic minor death. For you to live and grow, some of your cells must die. For your economy to live and grow, some companies must die. For you to become who you could be, some of who you were must die. For your city to be safe and productive, criminals who wish to burn it down must die.
A primary force which drives all generation, building, and growth is anger. And it’s suppression is a primary cause of our unhappiness, stagnancy, and degeneration today.
How The Libs Created The School Shooter Generation
The libs (really the modern west as a whole but the libs are in charge) see men angry and violent and believe they must be stopped for fear they will burn down the forest. What they fail to understand is that male aggression cannot be deleted, only suppressed.
And what happens when you prevent forest fires for too long in your aims to protect it? The kindling builds up and up. Until it becomes so dense that the next fire rages so big and hot that you lose control of it and destroy the whole forest for generations to come.
When you try to stop the unstoppable all you do is make everything infinitely worse.
We fail to understand that “senseless male anger and violence” is largely a symptom of our suppression; our cure actually the disease. All these men with all this generative angry energy, wishing to fight for something told instead to sit down, shut up, and be good little girls.
We wonder why we are stagnating and degenerating and somehow seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that a good quarter of our population is basically out of commission; their most powerful generative force turned off because it is believed to be vestigial, unnecessary, and universally harmful.
To be fair to the libs: It’s not their fault that the world is becoming so peaceful. It is the fault primarily of technological innovation. Changes which have caused our warriors—formerly some of our most important and “productive” members—to no longer have anything valuable to do.
All the libs are trying to do is have a society. Fair enough.
But their methods are superficial. Failing to address the root of the problem. Which is actually making the problem worse.
When a man’s mission is taken from him—when his grievance is legitimate—but you scold him whenever he acts out as if it were not, all you do is make him angrier. And more likely to do it again.
And so when he finally discovers his power, when decades of pent up rage comes flying in which he has never been trained to channel and control, it only leads to self annihilation. Or worse, to seek revenge on the forest that he feels rejected him; to ignite it all just to watch it burn.
There is a reason “senseless acts of violence” are on the rise. School shootings for example. This problem everyone is so aghast about yet seem too horrified to even begin examining that all they can muster is to shove platitudes and old failed political initiatives at it (never let a good crisis go to waste, I suppose).
There is a reason school shooters are always young loners from single moms who “seemed like nice boys” that “no one ever suspected”. They are literally the archetypical example of exactly what I’m talking about.8
As usual, most everyone, fooled by survivorship bias, ignores the fact that 99% of them just commit suicide instead.
“the loser killed himself? big deal. who cares!”
And further that there are a hundred if not a thousand times more of them who just haven’t yet snapped, instead cooming-in-wait, alone in their rooms, playing vidya, and finding some edgey political philosophy online to screech about to let off some steam.9
“Get a job you retard. God, why are you so worthless?!”
All your attempts to crack down, to make boys obedient, to “protect” them, to get them to sit in chairs and shut up and stop wrestling and “will you just fucking behave?!”, does not “disarm” the bomb. It simply buries it under the dirt, hiding the fact that it is a bomb. It’s destructive potential not resolved, simply in stasis.
So when a bus full of school children drives over it and explodes in a shower of shrapnel and lost futures, who, I ask you, is really at fault? The bomb? Or the ones who buried it?
When all you care about is “out of sight out of mind” all you do is get everyone killed.
I invoke such horror not to shame you10, only to shock you out of lala land and help you understand what’s at stake here:
You aren’t helping. Your ill informed attempts to “help” are actually making the problem worse. And the longer it takes you to accept this—the longer you keep burying these things, likely out of terror at confronting the possibility that you are at least partly to blame for creating them—the more you put us all at risk.
What To Do Instead?
If you want to “fix” men—or even just stop the anxiety of not knowing when the next one will detonate and bring us all one step closer to hell—the solution is not to try and suppress their power. It is to train them how to wield it. Have you people never seen Star Wars?
Sadly, women will never do this. At least not the overwhelming majority. And with them, the castrated simps who placate them in hopes of manipulating out some pathetic dead fish sex.
And it’s not even because they don’t want to. It’s because they literally physically can’t. The drive to tame men is hard coded into female biology. And trying to suppress it is just as foolish and counterproductive as trying to suppress aggression in men.
And even if this weren’t true: How can you help someone solve a problem you have never had and cant even begin to understand? Only men can help men do this. Ideally, strong men who have overcome it themselves. And there is nothing that can be done to avoid that it will make women, and their beta orbiter resource farms, uncomfortable and whining on the internet, media, and TV for it to stop.
Which is exactly why things like the Red Pill—or my preference, the Burgundy Pill—are so important. If you cant say no to women, (without wishing to destroy them) you cant ever build anything of lasting value. Or even protect that which we still have. 11
Whether you like it or not, the libs—nor your mom—will ever read this. And even if they do, they will reject it. At least the overwhelming majority of them. And they are in charge. So the likelihood that your power will ever be returned to you just because you throw a tantrum about it is basically zero.
Your only hope, as far as I can tell, is to become what you are capable of. To become a man. To sort yourself out. To cultivate a mission toward which you may funnel your masculine energy. To achieve power not in some abstract social or political sense but in a concrete personal one. To go through your anger phase (applies to more than just TRP) as soon as possible. And voluntarily. Rather than only once it backs you into a corner with no way out.
You must willingly pull off each little cell of the bomb you’ve been turned into, one by one, and detonate them carefully and individually over the years, so that it leaves perhaps only a few faint scars, rather than a giant smoking crater full of bodies. And then direct the future explosions toward something positive.
A rocket is just a giant bomb too. How you direct the flow of it’s violent power determines whether it is used for destruction (murder, war, etc) or generation (going to space, launching satellites, new discoveries, etc).
Sure, it will be hard work. And you will suffer. But you’re used to that. You’ve been suffering for as long as you can remember. And you will continue to. The question is not “are you going to suffer?” The question is:
Are you going to suffer as you seek vengeance and annihilation; to become a demon dragging everyone downward with you into pits of hell?
Or are you going to suffer as you seek salvation and creation; to become a hero dragging everyone upward with you into the kingdom of heaven?
Choice is yours, anon.
A great example related to this is how both men and women have normal distributions on trait agreeableness which overlap significantly to the point that if you guessed any given man was less agreeable than any given woman you’d only be right 40% of the time. However what matters is not the median but the tails. If you took a sample of the ten thousand most disagreeable people, 99% of them would be men. And if you took the ten thousand most agreeable people, 99% of them would be women. And this is why all the executive boards and jails are mostly men, and all the school boards and shelters for victims of rape and abuse are mostly women.
This is something the anarchocapitalists get wrong. They turn violence into a binary (the NAP) when it is actually a spectrum. They ultimately come to the right conclusion, that moving us leftward on that spectrum (less violence) , but this distinction of the state vs not the state is cherry picking. A law and the word “no” have the same escalation path. The whole "if you treat the state like it were the mob trying to rob you you’d get shot” thing is a great argument until you say the same thing about treating a pushy salesman the same way. The distinction in kind is useful, but ultimately arbitrary.
The libs hate the police because “police brutality” ruins their little utopian idea that enforcing order through violence can be perfectly managed. They want to be able to use guns to make everyone “be good” and “follow the rules of the utopia” without the ickyness and difficulty and ambiguity around how best to use it. “It should just work!!!1”. Libs hate the police because police reveal to them that their perfect solution isn’t actually a perfect solution.
The same reasons the conservatives dislike a big state is the same reason lower class blacks hate the police. Ironically, blacks hate the police for the exact opposite reason their “allies” the libs do.
As usual: Not jews. Nor globalist brain washing. Just some good old fashioned self deception and an insatiable drive to get more for less.
Which is why violent video games actually reduce rather than increase male violence (and why boomer women, due to their complete lack of testosterone, can’t phathom how it’s not the opposite). Porn also serves a similar function for the rape drive in men. It is not an intentional simulation for “keeping you sharp”(though may one day be) but it is certainly a relief valve for sexual aggression in the way that sports are for combat aggression.
“Dark Triad” people are not always angry, but they are always using force as if they were angry. Whether a man says no because he is kind but angry or whether he is simply a narcissist or psychopath who cares only about him and nothing for your feelings, both result in the same disagreeable assertiveness.
Everyone in TRP understands this. The dark triad guys who have no moral compass have no such danger of pressure build up. They just take what they want when they want. And when they can’t get it, they learn how. It’s the nice guys you have to worry about. The guys who are actually capable of love and empathy and compassion—who try so hard to fit in and do the right thing and be good people, the ones who could be heroes—those are the ones you have to worry about eventually getting beaten down so bad that they snap and become villains.
which attempts to “crack down”, no matter how well intended, on the only outlet most of them have, being rightwing misogynistic edgelords, has the unintended consequence of only making them much likely to say fuck it and go full Elliot Rodger or Brenton Tarrant.
I am probably not as objective as I could be, and probably am at least a little bit trying to shame you. Because I was one of these boys. I never shot up a school nor even thought about it but I did at one point consider rather strongly how I could get away with murdering my parents and also spent years of my life in and out of mental hospitals and rehabs for suicide attempts and drug abuse. It took years of hard work, education, reading, writing (thousands and thousands of pages), tens of thousands of dollars in therapy, and much more to get to the point where I am today, and now I am on a mission to help men who are where I was.
My mom reads my work. She was one of my first subscribers in fact. But our relationship took years of effort, after years of no relationship at all, to get to a point where we could confront let alone resolve our dysfunctional relationship. Many others may not be so lucky.
im interested in the correlation (if any) between decrease in violence and increase in suicide rates particularly in oecd countries. seems like its always two sides to a coin.
Hmmm... My mother perceived this article (when I read it out to her) as patronizing, misogynist and even extremist. (I can't say you didn't warn us, but still.) Somehow her threshold of "extremism" seems mild to me, though (she also said that of a somewhat-blunt statement that school isn't really about learning; which shouldn't even be that far off, given that it was definitely a net negative to myself). Patronization has fuzzy boundaries anyway.
It's likely (though wasn't directly said) that she presumed you to be right-wing (considering that she doesn't read this herself, nor did I have time to read any other articles to her), but you can't get away with being as presumptuous about heterodox views as you can in the mainstream, so whatever.
I grant that your statements about female emotions are meant to be empirical, not normative. (Although the data's probably fuzzy enough that you can bend it either way to a fair extent.) Whether this can be made clearer without becoming awkward, I'm not sure. And I'm sure you're right that mainstream, punitive responses to alienated youth acting-out (be it physical aggression, adopting radical ideologies, etc.) don't help (which even she agrees on the substance of).
It ultimately depends how far we truly plan to take equality, I guess. (I like big girls, if that helps my case.) I'm more than happy for women to play action games, although the consensus seems to be that those women just get on with it and don't make it into their identity.
Truthfully, I've leant on my mother more than I really want to, because so few other people have the necessary intelligence for a productive connection. (And my father was too maladjusted himself to stay with, even before he died.)
Anyway, I do achieve many things, but that brings its own problem: Being substantially better seems to repel normies; they only like you if you're marginally better than average (or exceptional at something of trivial real-world importance).