A few weeks back I wrote a piece called Nihilism and Beyond for the Zeta Male in which I argued that men should make connections between each other without regard to women. Defining one’s self to be outside the dominance hierarchy is necessary because white knighthood does not serve us and it no longer serves humanity as a whole. The world is changing, I said, and we can’t stop it or make things go back.
I stressed the importance of making social connections because isolation is simply not a good alternative to being part of traditionalist mainstream culture. I try to write about things I’ve done or experienced myself, and isolation is one of them. At the time it was quite deliberate, as I reasoned that because I could live happily my own head, things would be good if I simply cut myself off. After six months, everything seemed fine although I sensed a little emptiness creeping in. After a year and a half, however, I was struggling.
Isolation is nihilism. A life of solitude is not a viable alternative for a zeta male.
A major point I wanted to make in the article is the idea that men should use the word “we” when referring to men in general. Here, I want to expand on this a little.
Some time ago it occurred to me that women have no problem with using “we” to refer to other women or women in general. Then I realised that men, even here on AVfM, never use the word “we“, but refer to ourselves only as “men” or “other men”, and never “we” or “us“. However, when I tried to use “we” and “us” in my writing, it felt uncomfortable and awkward — like I was doing something wrong. So I decided to keep doing it.
It may have felt strange at first, but after a short while it became natural and second nature. Now I try to “quietly” slip it into Facebook comments and discussions in a way that’s almost invisible. It can be kind of fun to change things on people without it being noticed.
I suggest you try it out in the comments section.
No, this is not some ridiculous or grandiose plan in which we are all meant to come together somehow to form a “collective” or “hive mind”. It’s nothing of the sort. It is simply a self-identifying term intended to foster an in-group way of thinking. It doesn’t mean that, all of a sudden, we are subscribing to some NPC-like collective. Given our individuality, there is no danger of that.
I like to think that I’m individualistic. I’m not particularly keen on being told what to do or think. I’m guessing that if have come here and are reading this, then you don’t either.
To use the word “we” is such a small thing to do, and yet so powerful — the language we use frames how we think.
As a general example of how everything is switched around by our choice of language, a few days ago, my girlfriend mentioned in discussion that, “A guy had sex with a maid when he was twelve.”
“No he didn’t,” I replied instantly. “She had sex with him!”
Suddenly I had power to change the narrative. According to our gynocentric culture, he is a boy-philanderer exploiting his poor maid, but switch it around, and we see him as a child victim of a pedophile. See how language from a different perspective changes everything!
And change is what we need. Women have an in-group preference (they have pro-female bias), whereas we not only lack it but, if anything, we have an out-group preference (we have pro-female bias too)*. This is a theme promoted by AVfM’s Jewel Eldora, and if she’s right, things can only go bad for us. I think she’s right, and suspect she has more to say on the matter.
Personally, however, I’m sick of wringing my hands over how bad things are. I’m more interested in solutions.
Using “we” represents only a tiny step in the right direction, but it is an easy step to take on a personal level. Always remember, when you use the phrase “other men” to refer to ourselves, other men use the same language to refer to you. This language keeps us powerless and in the dark. It’s something that must change.
Use “we” instead!
Publishers correction: An earlier version of this article said, in error, that “David Niven had sex with a maid when he was twelve.” That error has been corrected at the author’s request.