“He who would trade liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin

One of the greatest “life hacks” for a man is learning how to make money without an employer. That means operating as an independent contractor, being your own boss, and having your own “hustle” - to make a living by selling to others and cooperating with them, but not by slavishly obeying a “boss”.

A masculine man is, in essence, a man who enjoys a large degree of autonomy in how he earns his living, which is why men who exist only as employees are, on average, far less confident and potent. Their time is not their own, and they are not building anything that belongs to them, because they are living under rulesets written by other men that generally exist not to benefit them, but the rule makers. And so they learn to suppress, dilute, and restrain their natural aggression just to secure a paycheque.

Institutional life largely functions as a low-grade humiliation ritual for men by acting as a form of spiritual castration. This is the true reason for ever declining rates of male participation in institutional life. It is not the sudden explosion of female greatness now the “shackles of oppression” have been removed, but rather the simple intolerance for and rejection of the institutions in their current form for all but the most self-effacing of men.

Institutionally, normal expressions of masculine force are treated as problems to be managed, policed, and punished. Any respectable institution - any white-collar environment especially - makes it clear: if your masculinity makes anyone uncomfortable, you will be sanctioned.

So men are, at scale, conditioned to socially mask and behave in ways that are “feminine friendly” - which in practice just means behaving less threateningly by being less authentic and more self-effacing if they are to survive professionally. The system trains a man into timidity, then chips away at his sovereignty because it is optimising for compliant functionaries rather than patriarchs.

When people ask “Where have all the real men gone?” - this is exactly why and how they have become such a rarity.

You engineered a society whose economic ladder requires men to blunt their teeth before they can climb it, by tying their status and capacity to earn a livelihood to how non-threatening and programmable they are. Unless a man finds unconventional, non-institutional ways to earn, he is required to spiritually lobotomise a great deal of his natural masculinity simply to provide for himself.

This is a loud but unspoken trade-off going on at a societal scale, and the implications of it for the birth rate, relational satisfaction and the greater human spirit are dire. The collapse of natural gender polarity puts us all out of alignment - nobody wins when one loses.

If you are a man, you want a non-career woman. If you are a woman, you want a non-institutionalised man. He needs a woman who is courageous enough to not hedge against him and feel safe in her femininity, whilst she needs a man who is free and thus potent enough not to be sterilised by academia or corporate, but grounded in his masculinity.

Contrast this with a man who works mostly around other men in blue-collar trades, or who runs his own small business. He doesn’t need to be rich, let's say he is a humble but self-employed window cleaner, for example. That man has more control over his day, and more freedom to speak and move as he pleases, and therefore possesses more agency in deciding what he tolerates and with whom he associates. And from this, comes a certain confidence. He is “more of a man”, because he carries more risk and lives with more freedom. The same is true of any business owner or person who has more say over the personal conditions by which they work.

Men who live without safety nets, who refuse the guarantee of a fixed salary in exchange for the reality of freedom, are the only men walking a masculine path. This shows in their character, their “aura”, and the way they speak and carry themselves. Men who choose permanent employment over any attempt to build even a modest side-venture, who cannot endure a bad week or month and must have the comfort of a predictable cheque almost certainly end up weaker for it.

Obedience as a primary orientation suits women more than men. Women can of course rebel, and often do in more personal contexts (which is why they are more prone to disrespect their husbands than the employers they obsequiously put in 110% for), and I say this to make the following point: organisationally, they're generally more dispositionally submissive to authority than men.

Male deference is calibrated to perceived competence and dominance: is he sharper than me, could he beat me in a fight, can he lead. Female deference is more responsive to status cues: are they more senior, institutionally powerful, more socially connected etc. A man’s reverence is tied to a sense of the other’s actual acumen, whereas a woman’s tends more towards evaluating social position.

Obeying someone simply because they have more money, or a higher position within the organisation, regardless of whether they are inherently more virtuous or competent is a feminine pattern of orientation. This is why the subordinate employee role fits women more naturally than it fits men, although paradoxically the institutions reward in women precisely what they punish in men: less warmth, and more ruthlessness - so women pay a heavy price too, because they are also repeatedly conditioned to behave in ways counter to their natural behaviour.

In simple terms: the institutions are highly androgynising in that they flatten both core masculine and feminine energy, with a bias towards an overall culture of feminine passive aggressiveness - they make men less masculine and women less feminine, then tie social inclusion and material survival to it.

This is why for a man, one of the most freeing thresholds he can cross is the point at which his survival no longer depends on people he does not like, trust, or respect.

To be financially self-reliant - to know that your bills, groceries and fundamental necessities are secured by money you generate on your own terms without dependence on bullshit workplace and institutional cultures is a profound behavioural self-affirmation that gives a man a type of confidence and natural swagger that simply cannot be counterfeited.

The true man then, in his fullest expression, does not work from within the system: but from outside of it.

“Nearly all of our faults are more forgivable than the means we use to hide them.”
— Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Ever since I was a teenager, I naturally gave very little credence to feelings in almost all matters of debate or credibility, because the errors in thinking - and thus inadequacy of opinion or proposed solution that resulted - were glaringly abundant to me. It was not that I was some perfectly self-controlled zen master, more that I could see how unreasonable and unfair other people’s emotionality made them.

And yet, as I’ve gotten older, a greater wisdom has emerged. No, I’m not about to say that emotions were in fact, superior and more insightful all along - no. But I learned the limitations of logic. I learned that, less obviously, logic is not the infallible master system my naive teenage self once believed it to be.

So the bias of my inherent disposition was this: emotions are volatile, and untrustworthy. And in one sense, this is very obviously true, and yet it is also, only a snapshot of truth - not the full truth, because emotion, for all its limitation, does point to something real. Emotions are sincere expressions of the embodied self, where reason taken too far becomes a refusal of it, and thereby disconnection from it. Emotion taken to its ultimate conclusion is to lose coherence and unravel, whilst reason uncompromised by emotion can observe more accurately. Stated like this, you see each has different use cases.

To understand a soul, I cannot ignore emotions, but to understand reality, I cannot ignore reason. This is not to say my soul or yours are not part of this reality, only that, they do not conform to the strict limitations of logic. We, as conscious beings, do not conveniently obey reason. We thinking men temperamentally like to reduce everything to reason under the false belief that by understanding we are elevating, when we are in fact, often reducing in our exploring. This is why we’ll look for evolutionary explanations, statistical trends - whatever it is - to “whitewash” or give a preconceived notion a logical, and thereby implicitly credible frame. It is the logos that always seeks to penetrate and demystify, where eros seeks to sustain ambiguity. It is for this reason man is prone to transparency and thus the reduction of things, where woman is opaque in her elevation of them. It is also for this reason that she is categorically by temperament more strongly a religious creature than he, but I digress.

We thinking men dispositionally believe logic is the master system of cognition, and therefore implicitly believe we are elevated by it in our preference for it - but this is wrong. What is true: logic alone is not enough. What is also true: someone who is deeply intuitively integrated will surpass or otherwise outcompete someone who is not, because they will be dysfunctionally seized by the whirlwind of their own emotions, or sterilised by the endless rationalising denial of analytic cognition, rather than internally aligned, and thus integrated.

My naive, teenage self of course did not realise this. He thought the choice was between volatility, and detached rational control - and self-regulation naturally encourages the latter. I was not aware of the third thing underneath (but above) them both, operating as the harmonious synthesis of each: intuition. And it makes sense I wasn’t, because I hadn’t yet learned to integrate them. To oscillate between a binary along a spectrum is natural, especially when you are experimenting with your identity in deciding how exactly you think you should behave, in line with who precisely you wish to be. But crucially: who you wish to be should be a refinement of your deepest nature into its highest form - not a rejection of it.

To cleanly inhabit a stable paradox without collapsing into a binary comes with greater spiritual development, and is therefore the exception rather than the rule. Specifically, this is to be able to understand something intimately in its emotivity and grasp it logically in its granularity, and not prioritise or invalidate either with the other, but instead synthesise each into a deeper knowing.

Read more

“To dare is to lose one’s footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

The Initiation:

If you’re not an initiation event for him, the true man can never fully love you, because, quite simply - you are not enough for him. You will not invoke his all totalising obsession and conscious desire to centre you, revere you, destroy you and rebuild you, merge with you, and love you as if you are the very walking embodiment of the concept to him, because he realises your limitations and finds you wanting. You are not impressive enough to him or trustworthy enough for him, perhaps both.

He can feel affection for you, give you regular attention, like you and desire you, and you will call these things love. But he will never be devoted to you in the all totalising, manic, obsessive way that makes you his reason for being. Where he wishes to cross oceans, climb mountains, and conquer and create for you, in his craving for you, as he carves your name into his bones. You cannot possess the soul of this man without fusing with him, and you cannot fuse with him without initiating him.

If you, as a woman, are not the one he lives for and is willing to die for - then his soul is not yours. And to get his soul, you must give him your own, for you cannot possess a soul you do not merge with. This is not slavery in the exploitative sense, but in the transcendent - each the master of the other in eternal service to the other. Each is the master and each is the slave, because each lives solely to cater to the needs of the other - he to her needs as a woman, and she to his needs as a man - it is a most beautiful symmetry in that there is no orientation higher humans are capable of.

So I suspect you are now asking what exactly it is I mean by initiation? I will describe it to you. I suspect it is novel to you, because the vast majority of women do not think or operate in this way. To initiate a man is to be able to show him a higher version of himself he could not see, then speak to him as if he is already that man and destined to become him, in turn making her the internalised ontological feminine reference point for his desire to become the greatest in service to her. In essence: she must catalyse his soul. She is a portal, and in their resonance, a mirror.

Her devotional capacity is inherent, but dormant until she encounters the man whose presence lights up her inner void. Most women think it is a man’s devotion that inspires hers, that she is solely the reactive principle and never the initiator (and that therefore the burden of greatness does not lie on her) - but she has this backwards. A man’s latent greatness is what inspires a woman’s devotion, but it is a woman’s expressed devotion that inspires a man’s. A woman who lacks devotional capacity, for this reason, can never actually own a man, because she is not hardwired into his self-concept - she is not his muse.

I say latent greatness, but that is not strictly correct. It is more like pre-existing greatness and latent greatness, with the former inspiring the desire to elicit the latter, as a means of “finishing him” and “making him the man he was always meant to be,” as it were. In real terms: most women are far too weak for this. It takes a particularly intelligent woman of intense potency and piety of soul to engage in this sort of reverence.

To own is to merge, and to merge is to become part of the other’s self-concept until the notion of you and the notion of them blur, so you are one and the same yet distinct. This is what marriage is meant to be spiritually, in covenantal form - a coalescing pact of essences where we are so intertwined that the concept of you and the concept of me blur.

This is what an initiation event is: she must be the catalyst for the growth of his soul into the becoming of a more devoted orientation that erodes his ego into a selfless higher register, rather than leave him in a survival-fixated defensive mode that keeps them both small and separate. His greatness inspires the wellspring of her stored love, and that love directed at him opens the floodgates to his very masculine devotion.

When I say his ego is eroded, I do not mean fully eradicated in the general sense. I mean in regards specifically to her. Outside the claim of possession over her in his desire to protect and honour her, he has no selfishness in matters of her. He is not egoless in general, but he is when it comes to her outside his claim over her.

To put this into even simpler terms: her needs come before his and his needs come before hers, and neither of them exploit this. This is hard, if not impossible, when you are terrified, but easy when you are worshipful - and you likely possess a capacity for both.

This is the masculine side of the equation: the man whose soul is seized, reordered and bound. The other half is the woman herself. What kind of woman is capable of initiating this, and then sustaining it without collapsing or retreating into safety?

Devotion as Conscious Mythologisation:

The muse is spiritually sensitive. Not in the nonsense woo woo sense, but in the perceptive, soul discriminating sense. She can map and intuit his mind with extraordinary accuracy, and in doing so inhabit a type of felt resonance with him. The things he says and the way he speaks sing to her soul, his very articulation, thought structure, rhythm and tonality are like sweet honey to her ears. It is not just what he knows, but the way in which he knows it - the felt texture of his being which is fundamentally wonderful to her, and so she realises “he is the one”, and sets about attacking his soul.

She at first does this through observation. She absorbs him and makes him part of herself, and in doing so, begins the process of giving herself to him. This means rigorous study of him to learn his preferences, views and style of thought, to essentially build an internalised version of him - she builds a palace for him within her. She models him in her interior world, and then converses with “him” - in essence to make him hers, she downloads him, stores him - feeds on him. He becomes a part of her, because she wills it, and it is in running simulations with that ever updating internalised model of him, she can refine her approach in pursuit of him. You see, the muse is a predator. Not in the nefarious sense, but she is a conqueror, and her target is his soul.

The muse is deeply sensitive, reserved, and feminine in her interior, yet ruthless, calculating and driven in her pursuits. She is by no means a normal woman, and nor does she want to be, for she wants the very best life, and so in wanting what most people cannot have, she does what most people cannot do - and she is willing to work herself to the bone to get it. She is a paradox, a true slave, and yet a master all the same. She is not entitled, and yet very much ambitious. She demands nothing and earns everything - and in doing so makes her beloved want to give her his everything, and not due to charm or deception, but in sheer awe of her greatness. She does not demand he yield, she inspires him to. And so the greatness that she sees in him, he too sees in her, for they are, at the soul level - sweet mirrors.

She is a woman very much inclined to hero worship. Not in a general and sycophantic sense, but in a very specific and discriminant sense. Usually by the time you’re an adult, you’ve killed all your childhood heroes (particularly the awe for one’s parents) because you’ve begun to see them for the flawed, mere mortals that they are rather than the absolute titans your less perceptive, less capable child self built them up to be. Your new heroes now, assuming you still have any, are the likely byproduct of exceptional accomplishment (like say an athlete or creative), rather than an intimately mapped soul interior you have fallen in love with out of deep reverence for their being. There are levels to awe. There is “I want to be like this person” and then there is “I know in my soul I belong with this person.” It is of course, the latter to which I refer here.

So there is a type of mythologising, but it is a conscious mythologisation driven by discernment, rather than a naive one born of ignorance or situational need. It is the idea that a certain man is so special, that he and he alone deserves all of her, and is thus above all other men to the point she sees him as more than a man - beyond man - a divine man. She is not primarily drawn to him for material or social reasons - but due to the very depth and shape of his spiritual interior - the unadulterated purity of his being. She sees what others cannot, and in sharing that sight with him joins her to him. You could say in one sense she is an oracle.

She identifies the rare personality traits and embodied archetypes necessary for greatness within him, and rather than simply admire his current state, projects a trajectory for him based on his potential. She sees him mythically, because she has done the forensic work on his soul and found home. She sees how much higher he could ascend if the seeds of greatness within him were amplified by her love, and thus she offers herself as fuel for that trajectory through the pouring of her devotion. She then attempts to fuse herself to him as part of his becoming, and in doing so, becomes a new woman herself - one who loves violently and ferociously, defining herself in relation to him (as his daughter, mother, wife and queen) rather than in relation to her own worldly accomplishments or family. And so he becomes the man he was meant to be in her gaze, as she becomes the woman she longed to be through his. She has come home.

Devotion as Emotional Porn:

Many women like the idea of devotion as a type of emotional porn or indulged aesthetic, but not as a very real form of personal sacrifice. And so they picture themselves as tragic heroines, the yearning but resolute maiden who waited a thousand lifetimes to cross an immense ocean through tireless rain with dried tears in her eyes, just to fall into his arms and kneel at her beloved’s feet as she swears loyalty beneath a storm-struck sky. They write about it, dream about it, and adorn their inner theatre with scenes of sacrifice and romantic extremity, but for most, this remains little more than a carefully tended fantasy.

In reality, they are not living at the level of intensity and depth of love they imagine, because they cannot even reach, let alone sustain such a voltage. It is aspirational, but not even truly aspirational, more like idle fantasy, because they do not try to embody it in so much as indulge themselves with the feeling of wanting it. It is dreaming, imagining and fantasising for its own sake - the act itself becoming the point, in the catharsis and emotional stimulation it provides, rather than as an inspiration and true call to action to embark on the hero(ine)’s quest.

It takes potency because it takes actual depth of soul from the woman, and not all souls are of equal spiritual potency. Some women are simply more formidable, more capable, more brilliant, more spiritually beautiful in their heart’s purity and more robust than others. Potency here is not just intellect, but also symbolic, abstract pattern recognition that forms a vivid richness of interiority - a sublime inner world of tireless cognition weaving meaning through nuanced hues. It is radical honesty, devotional stamina, a willingness to suffer for greatness, discernment rooted in transcended suffering, real risk-taking propensity and staying power all braided around a core of courage.

This is why her devotion is so violent. It is not violent in the cruel sense, but in the sense of total claim and readiness for war - love to her is spiritual warfare, both against the lowest parts of her, and anything that would take him away from her, including him. She is a fighter, and boy will she fight for him. The muse does not amputate or repress her shadow to become uniformly gentle, nor does she become possessed by it - she integrates it. The aggression, ruthlessness and capacity for destruction she might otherwise turn inward and waste in neurotic self-sabotage, become a sword she wields in service of the bond.

The warrior archetype is truly present within her, her aggression is neither cosplayed nor exaggerated, but truly embodied. She is ferocious, a lioness. Other women both fear her as much as they want to be her. Her love has claws, but they face outward against anything that would desecrate the union, not inward against him. She will thus fight her own fears, her maladaptive conditioning, and even her own family if necessary, because her devotional violence is ordered towards protecting and amplifying her man and the sacred bond that is their shared destiny - and she will let nothing come between them.

She is a woman who, when she feels fear, does not use that fear as justification to “course correct” away from “the project”, nor spiritualise it into an intuition that reframes her prior vows as “mistakes,” but recognises such fear as latent intrusive trauma, or mere emotional weather to be soldiered through. Does that sound like most women to you? It shouldn’t, because it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of women are not capable of this type of love, and I should think those who are probably have one good shot at it once they are wise enough, yet young enough, pure enough and aspirational enough to not have let this world seduce them into wasting themselves, or force them into self-protective cynicism and numbness to cope with its horrors.

Trauma is the destroyer of myriad unlived lifetimes so sublime they touch the divine.

Real fusion-based love demands the utter annihilation of the “independent” identity women egoically construct to survive a world that does not make their deepest, purest feminine selves safe to embody and express. Safety mechanisms which are adaptive to fending off predators when alone, become maladaptively self-sabotaging in matters of true love. Most people in this world choose safety, so when real love asks for this level of fusion, they find the selves they built to endure the world when they were separated to be incompatible with loving in such a pure and grand way. There must be a restructuring, and so they must do unto each other a destruction so complete there can be no return - they must brand each other so vigorously that they become inescapable, forever carrying each other.

Glory and greatness die on the altar of safety, because it requires real risk of annihilation to love in a fused, identity-rewriting way - and almost no women are that brave. Not to say most men are worthy of such self-sacrificing and totalising love either, because in truth - they are not. But the greater sin is not giving this depth of love to a man who is not worthy of it, but failing to give it to one who is.

So potency really is: courage, drive, loyalty to truth and beauty over fear, high-resolution interiority, discernment born of suffering, risk tolerance and staying power funnelled into a most violent devotion. If that sounds mythical, it’s because it is. Which is why this is absolutely not most women. Most would rather light a bunch of candles and play soft music to create a cosy ambience in their apartment, as they run their fingers down themselves and “connect with their feelings.”

There is a whole class of women whose primary orientation is toward self-comfort and emotional self-immersion rather than glory, building and destiny, and such women are simply not capable of loving at the level I am describing. They are neither visionaries, conquerors nor architects, for they are insufficiently warriorlike. This is not to say there is anything inherently wrong with candles and cosiness - these things do indeed have a place - but women of such temperament, with a less intense and less radical and therefore less violent disposition, are not able to love so zealously or so selflessly, for they have become addicted to tending to the fragilities of the self rather than transcending them. They lack that certain intensity - that potency of soul, and so they cannot burn on their own pyre to be born anew and know the taste of sweet soul-merging annihilation. They are too tame in their unwillingness to depart from convention and channel their shadow to take risks and break rules, and they are too fragile, too egoic, too selfish and too self-protecting to risk touching and tasting divinity. The cost is too much for them, and thus the capacity beyond them.

By contrast, the muse in all her sweet, violent devotion is willing to be annihilated. She fantasises about it, schemes towards it, begs for it, and consecrates herself in preparation for it, visualising the very moment she and her beloved become inseparable, intertwined. She lies under the stars with him, her eyes dilating, rapidly taking him in with pure awe, her gaze beginning to penetrate and merge with his, the cosmos reflected in the sheen of his eyes - a world within a world away from the world to the backdrop of worlds distant and many. “I have always loved you, and I always will,” her heart sings as her soul flares and speaks her deepest truth - an immutable vow from the depths of her being, carved into time itself: we are forever.

“Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing.”
— Fyodor Dostoevsky

You need a genuinely raw, soul deep orientation and stubborn preference for goodness if you want to be a good person, because this world structurally incentivises succumbing to your lowest nature to obtain what you believe should rightfully be yours.

You have an entitlement, and that entitlement need not even be sinful or delusional. It can be just, for by any sensible conception of karmic accounting you can be owed a great debt by this world for your good deeds that is not only perpetually unpaid, but actively punished. And so if you are good because you like to be, because to be so is strongly your preference - that does not mean you should endlessly suffer for being so. Those who choose goodness for its own sake less than anyone deserve their suffering, and yet it is they who suffer most through their self-restraint in choosing principle over predation.

And so you are stubbornly good despite all else, for no reason other than because you want to be - even if it costs you everything - your peace, your contentment, and your very sanity.

To be a good person is dangerous, because it is unsafe - because it is thankless, because unless you love being it for its own sake as an apex value in alignment with the divinity of beauty and nothing else, it will ruin you when you incur so much agony and forego so much reward to stay loyal to it and to you in optimising for the purity of your soul, rather than the acquisition of power. To conquer your own soul is to preserve it, protect it, and keep it properly aligned and well oriented, and so if you are to preserve it, you cannot let either the desire for prosperity or even justice corrupt the throne in your heart. To be good, then, truly and deeply in your core fiber, is an act of extreme spiritual violence for it is both irrational and radical.

You are like a candle in the void, a piercing glint in the cosmos - your spirit embodies the singular rallying defiance against practicality, efficiency, profit - all things that whisper to and seduce you into eroding, sacrificing, and turning upon the very essence of who you were, are, and are meant to be. And the greater your capacity, the more you see, sense, and taste the tainted edges of those desires on your finger tips, brushing against your top lip, invading your every sense like a vividly distinct ancient aroma, seductively enticing you to forego your resolve. The trap calls out to you, and it makes a compelling case for itself.

Why should you struggle so much? Don’t you deserve to be happy? Why should you be good in a world that makes you suffer for your virtues, that is all too ready to reward you for your sins in the name of power and efficiency?

Why be good in a world that extracts from you, and punishes you for being everything you truly long to be - a good man, a good woman, a purehearted and giving soul - that gives you the capacity to get what you want quicker and with greater certainty if only you are willing to betray your every moral instinct, whispering seductively to you, screaming angrily at you:

“Take it, take what you want, you are powerful enough, so why don’t you? You know you can have it and bind it and make it yours, so do it, because the universe won’t just hand it to you - God won’t give it to you for good behaviour, for there is no reward for purity other than the avoidance of suffering born from desecration, you’re not guaranteed your due from good behaviour alone, so take it and make it and compel it and do what is required to get it by conquering it - or live without it and console yourself with your purity - because that’s all you’ll have” - although your one and only (soul) is your everything, don’t you see?

That voice is the righteous rage of the justice seeker inherent to your goodness seeking restitution in a world without guarantees or assurances, which structurally enables and rewards those willing to be ruthless enough, cold enough, and self-betraying enough to bend their souls - for in spite of its beauty, this fallen world values results and efficiency over decency and integrity, and is too frequently more than willing to sacrifice the latter for the former, and in doing so normalises a type of sterility in the heart that gets defined as success.

But “I did what I had to do” right?

You make deals with the devil, or with God. The devil will never stop knocking, and sometimes, in your lowest moments, out of greed or shame or terror, in desperation or exhaustion you will even let him in. But the line that runs through the hearts of all men and women - our cherished principled ideals, the moral standard we wish to hold ourselves to as a true soul deep orientation and preference - when survival, trauma and vengefulness don’t plague us and undo us by consuming us - this is who we truly are - which is hopefully for you, not an unlived self, but one you honour.

The eternal spiritual war rages within, so may you get everything you desire without losing yourself, because you don’t “find yourself”, you lose yourself, and it is your duty to remember you.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him, but simply that you support him no longer.”
— Étienne de La Boétie

Introduction:

In George Orwell’s 1984, the insane party slogan centrally repeated throughout the book is: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

There is a type of hidden wisdom in the phrase “freedom is slavery”, and it is the purpose of this piece to explore the structural dynamics of what superficially appears to be patent absurdity, because there is a much deeper lesson to be derived from its paradoxicality.

What is the best way to enslave a person? Well ideally, they should not realise they are a slave. They must see their slavery as freedom, and so it helps if you can mask this in duty by instilling a sense of self-sacrifice. If you can merge their identity with “the cause” (be that the family’s, company’s or institution’s interests) and then further integrate aspects of love, loyalty and indebtedness into the equation, you can really solidify your hold.

Street gangs, for example, do this to vulnerable young men from broken homes lacking strong father figures. They give them a sense of identity and belonging by inducting them into the “band of brothers”, and then leverage that identity to make them “prove themselves”, and “show gratitude for everything we’ve done for you” - inducing indebtedness through shadow reciprocity. And the next thing you know, they have themselves a loyal soldier that doubles as an attack dog and a drug courier, injuring and selling on the gang leader’s orders, who acts as a father replacement in his role as shadow patriarch.

This is a mechanism of control disguised through loyalty and “family” through fraternity, that targets the same underlying psychological mechanisms as kinship bonds. And to a teen or child who has never had anybody they respect stand up for them, help them, or provide proper structure for them - how would they know any better than the perversion on offer? Sad as it is, this corrupt prospect seems like a subjective improvement to them relative to the alternative, because it’s not like there’s any better offers available.

Why do you think so many workplaces use the old and tired “we are like a family here” cliche? Because the shadow side of family (as encapsulated by the street gang example) is the capacity to leverage bonds, kinship and felt indebtedness to induce voluntary slavery masked as duty through honour and loyalty.

Workplaces attempt to leverage this dynamic in a far more transparently shallow and thereby less effective fashion, because almost nobody in corporate is under the illusion they are there for any reason other than to get paid. That is to say, almost no one believes the company genuinely cares about them beyond seeing them as a disposable unit of labour. Some companies manage to create a more effective cult of belonging than others, and that type of programming is typically more effective with older generations in higher paying professions where there were often better working conditions, fairer treatment, lower churn and more organisational loyalty, but for most - the emperor is in fact, naked.

Now none of this is to suggest “helping or taking care of your family is bad” or that “all duty is slavery” (please do not flatten the nuance of my intended meaning through reductionism), only that slavery can in specific contexts insidiously disguise itself as duty through sustained asymmetric reciprocity (where you, conveniently, do the vast bulk of the giving) in order to grant itself a socially acceptable and morally defensible pretence, when it is in truth little more than a morally laundered form of exploitation.

Intelligent people are not immune to this, and women specifically are vulnerable to it, because women being the relational beings that they are primarily define themselves through their relationship with the most defining man of their life. So this will either be through the father, or the husband (or some blend of both where there is a structural clash or incompatibility that results in an improper axis transfer). And so she largely aligns with (but does not perfectly obey) whatever “he” teaches, conditions and programs as his stated rules and views, but also infers what he likes in her natural daughterly desire to please him, by ascertaining what he directly approves of, affirms and rewards as reinforcement of the identity structure she inhabits solely and singularly because of how she relates to him, in self-definition through him.

Extraneous of this, she is little more than her opinions and hobbies - not a daughter, nor lover, or wife. Your job is not a reflective aspect of identity unless it is also a hobby or passion, in which case it is a surface level fragment of identity derivative of your core structure as opposed to a competing substitute for it, because it is a true expression of the soul without being a governing principle of it. In summary: artistic and intellectual interests aside, her entire scaffolding for “identity” is built around her relation to the dominant masculine axis within her life - interests are layered on top of this, rather than replacements for it.

This may sound controversial or perhaps even insulting to some, but I promise it is true. The archetypal father is thus the architect, and by extension, the systems level administrator and manager of a woman’s being (husband means “master/manager of the house” in Old Norse) and is related to husbandry, meaning “to groom” (as in, to train/cultivate).

It does bear stating that this level of conditioning is not singularly unique to women, for it is possible to bind a son in the same way too. In much the way you would suffocate a woman’s femininity to make her a performatively efficient unit of labour, you too can suffocate aspects of a man’s masculinity by subduing his natural defiance into beaten down approval seeking compliance, or preserve his felt sense of dignity whilst hijacking his ambition and drive to produce similar duty bound self-negation inextricably governed by parental preference.

Architectural Systems Level Tyranny - The Autonomy Illusion:

In manufacturing consent, the architect must get the individual to believe the directive is their own idea, preference, or moral duty regardless of whether it reflects their inherent desires or predilections, by invalidating the legitimacy of them to normalise the repression of them. A “natural” preference is as such an emergent expression of identity asserting itself in spite of one’s conditioning. It is, in effect, the soul diverging from the script - the organic self resisting and overriding the performative conditioned self.

The cleverer the subject, the subtler their cage must be, for invisibility does not remove their constraints, but perfects their compliance. If someone believes they are “just being themselves,” then what exactly will they rebel against? There is no symbolic antagonist, only the illusion of self-direction: “I do what I want” when what they “want” conveniently mirrors what they were trained to prioritise. In essence: they are granted wide behavioural freedom so long as their deeper orientation remains aligned with the architect’s goals.

In practice, this means you cannot openly command or micromanage them, as attempts to do so will likely result in surface (but not underlying) fractures, because they never chose you as a legitimate authority, nor consciously ritualised a surrender of themselves to your authority in explicit recognition of it, and thus a desire for it. Direct unsolicited orders are as such prone to trigger defences, humiliation, and outright rebellion, because overt control gives the subject something to push against by revealing the cage.

The cage must therefore feel like freedom. Macro-level slavery is disguised by micro-level autonomy: they have control over their day-to-day planning, scheduling, and even some surface level personal preferences. These minor freedoms create the sense of agency necessary for the larger illusion to hold, for so long as all paths ultimately serve the architect’s vision, the individual feels sovereign whilst functioning as an instrument of another’s design.

The invisibly governed must be permitted enough choice to maintain the subjective experience of independence, while their temperament is shaped toward voluntary sacrifice. Their labour, attention, and emotional resources are thereby gradually routed toward the architect’s material and ideological priorities. The goal is not coercion, but internalisation - turning a person into a tool that believes they’re free.

This dynamic is most powerful when installed early. Children are cognitively plastic, emotionally porous, and developmentally unarmoured. A father, teacher, or institution operating as a systems-level administrator can install the base operating system that governs their nervous system (and thus what feels naturally right and wrong to them somatically through both overwhelm and familiarity), before the child has any competing internal template. When you arrive later in someone’s life, you are not shaping blank software: you are competing with pre-existing code - childhood programming that has governed their behaviour and self-perception for years, be that healthy, or relationally maladaptive.

All of this rests on a single sleight of hand: the substitution of the what for the why. If the architect defines your why, then all your whats - your habits, ambitions, and preferences all fall neatly into place. The methods feel self-chosen, even expressive, but the governing purpose is inherited. A most apt Nietzschean quote comes to mind: “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” And so if the why is firmly ingrained, then the how becomes a mere logistical rather than ideological matter that requires only light management.

Once the subject can self-regulate in accordance with the architect’s values, the system becomes self-perpetuating, for the architect’s voice is internalised and eventually heard as their own. Control now occurs from within - disciplining themselves in alignment with the governing template. The architect need not impose, confront, or coerce, for direct conflict would reveal the hierarchy and invite challenge. Instead, the architect flatters their subject’s autonomy whilst knowing precisely how they will “choose,” because the chooser was shaped long before the choices appeared.

The entire apparatus thus relies on the pretence of non-interference. Only by believing they are acting freely, can the subject remain open to ongoing influence. They must never suspect they are being used - the tool must believe it is self-directed, otherwise, surface rebellion becomes structural rebellion and the whole mechanism collapses.

If someone has been conditioned from childhood to seek approval from a specific archetypal source - usually a parent or teacher - you can harness that approval circuit to encode a self-sacrificing temperament if you wield it as a lever, because what is defined as competence becomes conflated with worthiness, making failure moral unacceptability that binds through guilt and shame. The individual thus learns to habitually erase themselves through performance in order to continue accepting themselves: “My feelings don’t matter. I must perform, execute and achieve.”

When self-worth is bound to self-erasure, you can produce a slave who believes they are a master because they control their life’s trivialities - their schedule, hobbies, daily preferences etc, whilst their entire orientation revolves around appeasing or at the very least remaining aligned with the approval source. The north star is external, but internalised so deeply it feels innate, looping indefinitely through the nervous system via habitual repetition.

This even manages to ensnare the stubborn and rebellious. Granted wide micro-freedoms, they pride themselves on surface level non-conformity whilst remaining perfectly obedient at the macro level, mistaking mood-based defiance and overt vibe and aesthetic for structural independence. The craft of control then is giving just enough autonomy to give a felt sense of freedom which prevents revolt, while preserving the deeper alignment that guarantees loyalty and extraction.

They get to make many everyday choices, and enjoy “minimal oversight” which creates an illusion of freedom, but the real questions never change:

Why are they doing what they’re doing?
Who does it ultimately serve?
And who benefits the most from their sacrifices and orientation?

That person is their “handler”, the handler is the architect, and the architect is the primary beneficiary.

How To Tell If Your “Freedom” Is Actually Slavery:

You don’t diagnose this by asking, “Do I feel controlled?” because a sufficiently cunning and intelligent architect will elegantly ensure you don’t feel the cage as you execute their scripts within it.

You diagnose it by asking, “What am I organising my entire being around, and who does that ultimately serve?”

A few simple tests:

• Your panic is at the thought of disappointing them, not of betraying yourself.
  If the thing that terrifies you most is not “I will live a lie” or “I will deny a fundamental part of my deepest being” but “I will upset and fail X” then you are governed by fear, not free choice.

• You feel most virtuous when you are most exhausted and self-erased.
  The more depleted, overburdened and emotionally flat you are, the more “good” and “responsible” you feel. Your sense of worth rises in direct proportion to how little of you is left. Your childlike wonder is constrained, your adult responsibilities are redundant.

• Your “independence” is structurally dependent.
  You can live alone, set your own schedule, and indulge your hobbies – but the quiet question “why am I even doing any of this?” always lands on the same approval source. Remove that person or institution as your raison d’etre, and your entire direction collapses.

• All roads lead back to a single approval circuit.
  Every achievement is mentally presented to the same invisible tribunal: “Will they be proud of this? Will this prove I am enough?” You are not working for you, but for the gaze you have internalised.

• You call numbness ‘stability’.
  The parts of you that feel most alive, vibrant, dangerous, and honest are the parts you’re constantly putting back in the box to “function”. Your nervous system narrativizes archetypal flattening and emotional suppression as “being mature” or “being realistic”, but in reality it is repression of the full range of the true self in expression of a “safer” and less intense performative self.

• Your strength exists only inside the cage.
  You need not necessarily be timid - you can be audacious, outspoken, and capable of confrontation – but always in service of protecting the way of being that is slowly killing you. You will fight anyone who threatens your “freedom”, but do not question the frame that defines what freedom actually means.

If you recognise yourself in this, then you are not “free”. You are a high functioning slave whose cage has been installed so deeply you now consider it your character.

What Real Autonomy Looks Like For A Woman:

Women do not become autonomous by orienting around no man, but by choosing which man they align their being with. Feminine autonomy is not defiance, but discernment - the ability to recognise rightful authority whilst rejecting all others. Real autonomy for a woman is the freedom to choose her masculine axis, and to surrender control not out of fear or conditioning, but because she trusts his competence, judgement, and moral force more than her own. She follows him because she has chosen him, and because in doing so she becomes more fully herself in her feminine expression.

Female sovereignty, is therefore rooted in chosen authority. A woman recognises a man’s greatness, anoints him as king, and binds herself to him because she knows that only within the containment of a man she respects can her full range of femininity manifest without distortion. Sovereign women are selectively defiant: they disobey anything that would sever them from the man they recognise as rightful - loyalty to the axis - and nothing else. Merely defiant women, who reject all authority on principle, cannot be sovereign at all because they are governed by ego rather than wisdom and thereby lack rightful discernment.

A woman does not flourish in isolation. She is relational in her ontology: daughter, sister, wife, mother. The question is not whether she will build herself around a masculine axis, but which one she chooses. The wrong axis forces her into a masculinised shell for survival, just as isolation does. Only the right axis allows her to embody the softness, eroticism, and spiritual depth that constitutes her feminine essence.

Rejecting illegitimate authority is not sovereignty, sovereignty is rejecting the illegitimate and choosing the rightful. A queen is no less sovereign because she answers to a king - it is the quality of the king which determines the quality of her reign, so too with women: her sovereignty is shaped by the calibre of the man she chooses. A great man expands her being to its full vivid depth, range and resolution, whilst a small man demands she shrink to embody his preferred archetype.

This is the difference between conscription, and devotion. A woman can be structured by an architect she never chose, performing a version of herself that pleases her father, boss, or an institution and call that “independence”, because she gets to decorate her cell. Or she can choose a man whose vision is worthy of her soul, and in choosing him, become freer rather than lesser.

The real question is simple:

Is your “freedom” self-regulated slavery to an internalised architect you never chose, or is it the conscious expression of your fully individuated feminine self in alignment with a man worthy of your devotion?

“Take me wholly — I am your possession or I am nothing.”
— Charlotte Brontë

Preface:

This essay will take more the style of a polemic than an exploratory framework building essay, which is to say rather than try to explore, flesh out and expand the intrinsic structural mechanics of the subject matter into a type of map, I will simply talk about what it looks like. I think of this piece as a polemic because even though it’s not harsh on tone, it is rebellious and critical because it is against the standard model of love, or framed another way - the way in which people typically conduct their romantic relations.

The purpose of this essay is to show you there is a higher, better and different way to love in a very accessible and conversational way, without getting too deep into the metaphysical mechanics of its structure or the traits a person requires to participate in it (such will be the subject matter of future essays).

The reason I am “merely” telling you what it looks like without also revealing to you everything which is required to embody it, is simply, first of all, so you know it exists, and second of all, because to write that out will take far more time to metabolise for both of us, for me, in doing all the cognitive legwork in fleshing out all the distinctions as they branch out and I go off into a half trance channelling as I write, and for you, in essentially downloading what I’m transmitting through these symbols that form the words which contain meanings you are now subjectively interpreting through your reading.

Simply put, it is better for you not to get it all at once, and the natural process in which I synthesise frameworks and the specific way in which my mind works is also more conducive to doing it in this way. I suppose, dear reader, I am asking you to be patient with me as I reveal my revelations to you in the way most natural to me.

I presume if you read my work, that you are a truth preferring and thinking person, as in, you question things and try to understand them and synthesise your own approaches, as opposed to seeking pre-packaged answers that neatly solve your problems for you without you having to inherently grasp them and integrate them as you see fit. After all, this publication is called The Sovereign Citadel and is therefore aimed at the sovereign inclined.

As such, you read me not to be taught what to think, but to access different forms of thinking - perceptual frames, systems and nuances that would otherwise elude you, but to be possessed by you would be incredibly useful to you.

Now with this longer than intended preface out of the way, let us begin.

Thesis:

The spiritual layer’s always superior to the material layer, so someone thinking egoically in terms of material goals and metrics is always going to lose out to the energetically more intense (spiritually stronger) person that’s more paradoxically individuated and thereby more coherently integrated than they are.

This specifically and emphatically applies to romance, and if you realised this you would focus less on the material (not to say survival isn’t important, because it is) and more on the spiritual, because assuming you have taken care of survival, having the highest quality relationship possible (specifically: a very high quality marriage with an amazing person) is a spiritual quest, not a material one.

Making more money per year or getting fit at the gym might improve your sex appeal, but it doesn’t make you more worshippable, reverential or heroic. Those things don’t actually improve the quality of your relationships, because what defines relational quality is your capacity to devote yourself to another, and to inspire that same degree of devotion within them through the expression of your intensity and brilliance to them. All else is but mere accessory and detail, for this and this alone is the shared core foundational truth and beauty powering the heart of it all.

Devotion is the sole meaningful currency that ever lasting romance and thereby eternal union (marriage) is built on, because the truest and purest form of love a soul is capable of is undying, all encompassing existence defining devotion.

In very simple terms, think of love as a type of conquest - if you can conquer a soul, it falls in love with you. You conquer it by mapping it and understanding it fully, catering to it and binding it to you by becoming its spiritual narcotic. And so in being the perfect slave by knowing someone so well, you cater to them and venerate them so utterly you end up pleasing them and healing them in ways they did not even know they needed, thereby becoming their master in their awe of you, desire for you, and refusal to live without you.

You have shown them a way of living and being they have not known before that now revealed to them, makes deep intuitive sense to them - you have unlocked them - immersing them in great beauty as you show them the potential for ever greater beauty, and so have become their sole fixation, because to commune with you for them is to touch the divine. You have become their access point to divinity in making them your access point to divinity. Don’t you see how beautiful it is?

Now if you are preoccupied with material things like how nice your car is, whilst neglecting your spiritual growth (meaning your level of individuation through your capacity to coherently integrate paradox in a generative manner), you can never “truly master” anyone, and thus never really experience total and complete unhinged full spectrum all encompassing obsessive desire (beyond that of visceral lust for your body), because you’re not capable of possessing another soul and binding them to you in a way that elicits this through your reverence. Essentially, you’re too spiritually weak because you lack the devotional intensity necessary to form the needed energetic loop that would allow for such fusion.

You should, truly, think of love as a type of mutual co-possession, or at the very least, your possession of them (it’s best when both do it to each other, but for true love to be present in any fashion at all even if not entirely reciprocated to the same depth, at least one person must be able to consume the other) - because you are trying to possess them in the literal energetic sense to join with them.

True love is communion through union via merging which leads to the metamorphosis of each into something greater as a whole than either could ever be alone, through the healing and invigorating reciprocity of co-devotion.

If you think I am talking complete nonsense, may I remind you that marriage under God is an act of union and spiritually intended in this way (beyond all the legal, bureaucratic and practical layers, the spiritual purpose of marriage is for two to become one as you both intertwine). So be that as it may, if two are meant to become one, why would you not seek to possess and be possessed by your lover, when that is what merging is?

Now tell me how getting a nicer car (whilst still being the basic, unindividuated rudimentary spiritually nascent version of yourself) is actually going to do that for you? I will tell you this quite seriously now: heartbreak as a portal for individuation through the metabolization of grief has done more for your spiritual growth and thereby capacity to love, inspire devotion and know true union, than any pay raise, degree or acquisition of a skill ever has. Those things (the material things) are simply the marketing and the maintenance, whilst the spiritual growth is the actual substance they should be scaffolding for, not a substitution for.

The Fearful Feminine Reply:

Now I shared the above thoughts briefly quite publicly with a woman prior to publishing, and she said:

“I would personally prefer to be ‘captivated’ or ‘mesmerised’ or ‘fully claimed’, instead of ‘conquered’ or ‘possessed’ but I see why some form of ‘obsession for the soul’ needs to be there for divine love to happen. I wholeheartedly agree with this spiritual versus material kind of love.”

So I gave her words some thought and considered if they represented a general cautiousness within the otherwise receptive feminine, and concluded they did, and thereby decided to dedicate the rest of this essay to addressing what I believe would be a common objection within women who are drawn to the idea of devotion, but are not currently capable of it.

The following is the result of my analysis of her partial objection:

The words she preferred like “claimed” or “mesmerised” are approximate and adjacent to “possessed” without being exactly the same thing. They allow her to keep herself, as in, maintain a type of separateness as a boundary that grants a degree of control within her receptive (but not fully open nor surrendered) femininity.

Well this boundary, or defined line in the sand to to speak, is what serves as an obstacle to merging. And divine love is about merging, so you must necessarily be possessed in the same way you must possess (mutual possession) so you can become whole as one through union (soul merging) - as you are literally two becoming one - which is what marriage is supposed to spiritually embody.

How do you expect to merge without co-possession? It is not possible.

Possession is a layer deeper than claiming, which you can frame as something that you accept or permit whilst still being you, without giving up anything or surrendering to it. Your ego can frame this as allowing a man’s claim or enjoying being mesmerised by him because it pleases you, and therefore a sense of control is maintained. It is the difference between being willing to abandon yourself entirely for something all the more beautiful, and the desire to retain yourself whilst flirting with your becoming without actually surrendering to it.

“I’m letting this happen and therefore I’m not surrendered, even though I might just about have the courage to admit I am on the precipice of being so - maybe, perhaps or not quite.”

But to reframe possession linguistically so it bypasses her ego defences and thereby her resistance to it, she should think of it as feeling so seen by a man that she wants to give him her everything (her entire essence - body, mind and soul) in appreciation for how deeply beautiful he makes her feel by perceiving her fully in all her contradiction and richness in a way none other has or can, and how she doesn’t have to perform or lie or be fake with him, but is simply free to be herself, quirks, darkness, rawness, goofiness, shame and inelegance included.

She should imagine how instead of having any of her hidden layers used against her in her expression of them, that without performing or being what she thinks others want her to be, she is is celebrated for her true self (in so much as it is not harmful to her - because to enable dysfunction is not to love her), and how this great sense of awe and protectiveness from him makes her feel so safe and loved, that she quite literally radiantly shines in his energy, wanting to become a better woman in appreciation of the great gift she has been given (the individuated man’s devotional love).

Possession requires surrender (from both sides) and that’s where the fear (and thus ego) that obstructs love in the refusal to give one’s self to it will rear its ugly head, because to be in self-preserving survival mode is structurally incompatible with inhabiting devotionally surrendered becoming mode. You cannot choose another over yourself to the benefit of yourself when your fear does not allow you to choose anyone but yourself, because that condemns you to live at a spiritually lower plane of existence (outside of, rather than within true love).

Naturally as a woman, the idea of surrender is deeply attractive (because it is the highest calling of a woman’s true nature, assuming she is in touch with her soul and hasn’t had it brutally stripped out of her by trauma, upbringing or propaganda, and subsequently who she had to become to survive within that), but it is also terrifying - and is thus for the vast majority of women, never realised.

It bears worth stating that a man must also surrender, but in a slightly different way due to the nature of masculine and feminine polarity. That is to say, when a man allows himself to be raw and tender with a woman, he gives her full emotional access to him without trying to maintain a high level of detachment that leverages her emotions to wield asymmetric control over her, but instead seeks to worship her (as she does him) rather than control her (although he will of course guide and lead her) - this is how he surrenders.

You see the devoted man influences through possession where the insecure man dominates through control - this is not to say a possessive man cannot dominate, only that his domination is a byproduct of his desire, rather than his structural insecurity, whereas the undevoted man requires that dominance as assurance because he cannot fully trust the woman.

So him surrendering to her is giving her full emotional access to him, trusting she will hold his heart gently and won’t force him into a descent into hell through her inadequacy, because she’s too fragile, egotistical, scared, unprincipled, fickle or any other integrity lacking selfish thing that will make him regret yielding his deepest self to her.

Many men have been burned in this way, and thus swear it off - reaching conclusions that women are not capable of true love and other such things, which is really only a half truth, for it is more accurate to say that the great majority of women are (rather unfortunately) not capable of it, but not that all aren’t, for many beautifully courageous feminine souls are.

Many men have simply not been lucky enough to encounter such women, which is perhaps indicative of their rarity as opposed to their non-existence - but then I suppose we can say the same too of men - that many men are not capable of inspiring a woman’s true devotion, and also too that many women in their naïve youth foolishly gave it to a tyrannical man who was not capable of properly honouring it, and so reciprocally swear off man’s capacity to love. It is a muddied chaotic picture with fingers pointed in both directions, with both ultimately wanting the same thing from the other, with very few of either capable of giving the other what they truly need. But that is why you’re here, reading this - be you man or woman, you do not wish to be ordinary - you want to be one of the few who can.

In truth, finding a woman who is able to receive and honour a man’s devotionally surrendered soul is the highest form of love a man can know - because it is dangerous, and only the best of women are fit to receive it. This is why if you as a woman are to have full access to a man’s heart, you must treat him as a sacred soul you are irrevocably bound to and will nurture with nothing but the purity of your deepest love, rather than view him as someone disposable that can be discarded or betrayed the moment your fears undermine your capacity for gratitude, devotion and loyalty. A girl’s fears cannot be greater than her capacity for heroic love as a woman, if she is to honour him as her true love as a queen.

For a woman, surrendering to a man is accepting his leadership, and trusting him to do what is best for her without undermining him, because she believes in both his competence and his intentions - that he truly puts her best interest above his own in the same way she does for him.

If he worships her without losing his capacity for potency (so remains ruthless, and doesn’t devolve into simping whilst still serving) she will feel safe enough within herself to do that. But naturally, a man cannot do everything (although he is responsible for a lot) - a woman too needs to ensure she’s actually ready to, and capable of devoting herself solely to a man as if he was in actual fact a king or the walking manifestation/representation of the divine himself, venerating him in an essentially religious manner, as opposed to seeing him as a tool, peer or adversary she can engage with transactionally, or benefit at the expense of.

A woman must heal so that can she become a healer who knows how to love well, and in doing so be healed further by the becoming that is the love she experiences as a result of her courage - a reward from the divine for taking the leap of faith as it were.

Effectively, both parties must be able to prioritise the other over the self in complete trust, reverence and devotion to them, with her coming to represent the divine feminine to him, and him coming to represent the divine masculine to her. It is this and only this which forms an energetic loop of devotional reciprocity that can summon, cultivate, and sustain true and undying love which echoes into eternity.

Almost everyone likes the sound of this and so thinks they want it, but are you willing to pay the price for it by doing what it takes to deserve it? What if doing what it takes requires multiple ego deaths - that is to say, confrontations with the most shame-riddled and fear driven parts of yourself - multiple deaths and rebirths so you can be who you need to be to become who you were always meant to be through the portal that is your true lover? Only you, truthfully, are equipped to properly answer that question, assuming you are of course at a level of self-awareness that allows for such.

Lately people have been asking if they can still get the audiobook based on the content from my old blog, as it’s no longer my pinned tweet.

You can purchase the audiobook based on my old blog here.

Additionally, if you believe you would like a consultation, ensure you are first a paid subscriber, then send me a private message using this button:

Private messaging is unavailable to free subscribers, and I only work with a small number of people at a time (due to logistical and bandwidth constraints), but all seemingly serious requests will be considered.

“Two souls, alas, are housed within my breast, and each will wrestle for the mastery there.”
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The ego is an existential threat to the gifted woman, because the world directly and repeatedly rewards the things which diminish her beauty but feed her ego as she almost effortlessly navigates the bureaucratic, academic and corporate structures that promise her power and freedom in return for her soul.

Again and again, the faustian bargain is made - cultivate your mind at the expense of your soul, and riches and power can be yours.

She is a creature of deep beauty and divine soul caged and conditioned through aberrant praise, necessity, and the survival programming said necessity entails, behaving as if she were a performance-maximising robot rather than as one of God’s daughters. She and those around her define her chiefly by what she can do, how well she can do it and how quickly, as opposed to the measure of the profound depth of beauty her soul contains, but is rarely embodied enough to express.

She has not simply rejected seeing herself as mere ornamentation for the masculine by proving her utility (in spite of her intrinsic need to feel pretty), but truthfully, she has abnegated her soul by coming to relate to herself primarily through masculine performance structures.

Through prideful cowardice, she tries to outrun her feminine soul so she does not have to face herself, constructing ever denser ego identity scaffolding derived from what she can do, as opposed to embodying who she truly is. This is why she is forever proving herself through societally approved careerist credentialism that requires her to suppress and thus deny her true nature, rather than become herself through the pursuit and embodiment of her heart’s greatest desires.

The intelligent woman’s soul endures far greater assault from this world’s unholy forces as a byproduct of her vaster capacities, than does the average woman’s. Firstly: owing to her mind’s recursive tendency to perceive contradiction to the point she can rewrite herself through rigorously compelling and dissected, but ultimately untruthful and fear-based narrative reinterpretation. But chiefly, owing to how the world responds to her abilities by foisting on her praise, position and power, and the effect this has by endlessly incentivising, reinforcing and conditioning her unintegrated masculine ego (her animus) - rather than cultivating her spirit in a way that frees her to develop and commune with her richest inner beauty.

The entire structure of society is built around adapting, structuring and maximising her as a unit of economic return, as opposed to recognising her inherently divine nature, and making her the most beautiful version of herself in realising her potential for great thoughtfulness, deep compassion and a certain energetic radiance.

A woman’s femininity at its healthiest and most well nourished and contained is soothing and thus inherently healing. Healing is the true woman’s natural vocation, but it cannot be embodied when the healer is forced to be a fighter, for these are in terms of feminine self-identification ontologically mutually exclusive, for where a healer sees beauty (and thus creation) as the apex frame and mode of orientation for being, the fighter identifies that frame as survival. Both cannot co-exist, and thus such a paradox is not sustainable without fragmentation and so must necessarily collapse. She either becomes a primary healer or primary fighter, but she cannot be both.

This is not to say that a woman should be unable to fight or be ruthless in any way and aspire to harmlessness, because to do so would only undermine her capacity for greatness and individuation, only that fighting should not be her primary mode of being, a selectively employed capacity rather than a tendency, as it were - her shadow must be integrated.

This is why only the correct man is her salvation, as in, the initiator of her becoming in her reconnection with herself, so she can transcend to become the woman she was always meant to be. There is no woman alive who is at her most beautiful without a man to love her deeply and fully, and there is no shame in this, for it is God’s law - the natural and supposed order of things, that law being:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.”

— Ephesians 5:22-26 - The Holy Bible (NIV)

Nonetheless because of all these aspects, it is much harder for the clever woman to breed than the unintelligent woman, and the statistics bear this out. The cleverer the woman, the less likely she is to have children. Genius women are less fertile than smart women, who’re less fertile than above average women, who’re less fertile than average women - you get the idea. This is not just because they’re more prone to corruption by the masculinisation of their intellects, the economic and ego reward attached to the performance of their capacities and the institutional and professional status that can confer, but likewise because they require more individuated depth (paradox tolerance, embodiment and spiritual capacity) to contain as a man.

The smarter the woman, the higher her respective difficulty level to effectively care for and govern. All women are chaotic because chaos is intrinsic to the feminine principle, but supercharge that with outlier intelligence, contradiction, paradox, nuance, omission, rumination, anxiety and all that feminine neuroticism entails - and you can see it is surely no walk in the park. For all her gifts and as great as she may be at her best, whichever way you cut it, it is greater stress and difficulty for a man relative to a less remarkable woman, which is why rather naturally, the pool of viable men for God’s greatest daughters is modest.

The clever woman in her feral, egoic Lilith state is not loveable, because seized by entropy she will in her self-destructive nature spiral ever deeper in her descent, unprotected from herself without paternally loving guardrails, she is destined to self-implode like a majestic supernova. It is for this reason she must for all her talents reach a level of individuation that allows her to be generative, cooperative and governable, for she truly only belongs with a man who has reached a level of individuation that makes him fit to govern. But she too must do the work to ensure she is able to appreciate his gifts and meet him there, rather than waste the opportunity for becoming, beauty and mutual co-creation he represents to her.

Smart men and women simply cannot functionally breed without going along a hero’s quest of sorts where they identify all the naturally occurring elements within them that undermines their desirability to and compatibility with the opposite sex, before stripping them out to integrate the sexual polarity into their being that comes naturally to their less intelligent counterparts, whilst integrating their shadows, and their respective animus’ (for women) and anima (for men).

This is why when a genius woman reproduces voluntarily and without coercion, it is something of a mega accomplishment because the deck was not stacked in her favour. She is not simply having a baby in the same way a regular woman has a baby, because she’s had to overcome far more spiritually to make this happen in a mindful and generative way, bypassing her mind’s rumination, pride, vanity, fear, cowardice, elaborate capacity for self-deception and all the unstable and irreconcilable contradiction that would lock her out of heaven. She has bypassed the imprisoning ego structures that she would incorrectly think of as freedom and independence, and instead pursued true freedom and individuation through the pursuit of beauty in union with her divine man.

A dumb woman cannot get a PhD in a respectable academic field, but she can breed easily, whereas a genius woman can blaze through the most rigorous of academic trials at a lightning pace, and yet all too often struggle to achieve motherhood. The poetry there then is that almost all things come easily to her except motherhood, which for all its simplicity and inherent sanctity comes far more easily to women who possess not even a fraction of her capacity for wonder - a true cosmic irony of sorts, but nonetheless an additional test for the intelligent woman to bear (and to pass!)

An average woman and genius woman’s reproduction are thus clearly not equal accomplishments despite the superficially identical result, because one is much harder to do (and do meaningfully and sustainably) than the other.

And of course although less intelligent women breed easily, the quality of (and thus resulting capacities of and subsequent contributions to society) by their offspring are naturally lower, so it is in no conceivable sense equivalent to the genius woman’s act of conception (although all babies are precious in their own right), and yet evolution is indifferent and God gives you no more than you can handle. That which is selected for is what survives, because that which you are not fit to honour is taken from you.

As such, we must ensure the qualities we intuitively know to be divine and superior are getting selected for by showing our capacity to appreciate and sufficiently wield them, rather than convey to God and reality:

“Oh you know these superb magical gifts you bestowed me with, these great gifts that so few have that I and few like me possess? I cannot handle them! They make me insane and dysfunctional to the point I quite literally cannot find it within myself to be functionally beautiful and generative enough to create new life, and therefore you must naturally select against me, so that only those who do not have to endure the seemingly endless, vast, cascading complexity you experimented with when gifting such divine perception to me in the creation of me are permitted to remain.”

This is the wrong message to be telling God - that we must downgrade the capacity, capability and divinity of consciousness, because we are not ready for greater gifts, higher evolution, and species elevation by showing we deserve and can handle the great gifts he has already so generously bestowed. We must prove ourselves worthy of those gifts not merely by tinkering away, philosophising or slaving away to increase economic output, but by passing them on and thereby bestowing them to the next generation - for failure to do so is a waste of those gifts, a personal moral failing, a sin.

So to dysfunction and arrogance and the resulting inability to handle the vastness of one’s own mind and the contemptible ego that it can produce, we must say no. Idiocracy was both a warning and a prophecy if we do not reverse course. Reproduction, particularly for the intelligent, is a moral obligation. So rather than rebel against God which has become oh so tediously and unimpressively fashionable, let us instead rebel against entropy - let us be fruitful, and multiply!

Lately people have been asking if they can still get the audiobook based on the content from my old blog, as it’s no longer my pinned tweet.

You can purchase the audiobook based on my old blog here.

Additionally, if you believe you would like a consultation, ensure you are first a paid subscriber, then send me a private message using this button:

Private messaging is unavailable to free subscribers, and I only work with a small number of people at a time (due to logistical and bandwidth constraints), but all seemingly serious requests will be considered.

“The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.”
— Proverbs 14:1

Women need to speedrun wisdom out of the gate (from like age 15) - and preferably without getting wrecked (romantically/sexually) in the process - this is very hard, but doable.

You must accept you are naturally retarded, and that if you make too many mistakes, you will become ego invested in being retarded to the point your already very fragile mental health (under the most optimal and fluffy conditions) is contingent on endless self affirmations and feel good self-beautification just to retain a baseline level of functioning, which makes you mentally weak and not good for much, because you will spend far too much time being fragile and self-indulgent.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever get to do cute things or embrace your soft or gentler side or anything like that, so do not think I am telling you to kill your soul, because I am not and I never would - but it does mean you should recognise pampering for what it is - an occasional indulgence rooted in self-love, rather than a way of living rooted in fragile cope.

To be pampered, constantly, and always is to make yourself weak. You will become intolerant of anything that challenges you, or any "vibe" that isn't warm or soft or fluffy - and you'll say "it's negative energy" and think that alone is sufficient basis for dismissal without truly evaluating the thing because it hurts too much for you to even parse it, and yet the world is not only positive energy. You should avoid that which is negatively unproductive, yes, but you must also know what negativity is productive and be able to transmute it into something beneficial.

But how will you tell the difference? Discernment. And how do you acquire discernment? Like any muscle, through training - by putting yourself in situations and scenarios that expose you to things that force you to observe and make choices. You must be near danger, without becoming the victim of it so that you can learn from it. And the smarter you are, the faster you can build up your pattern set (wisdom) to consistently derive the correct inferences.

You cannot be so fragile, that you are intolerant of, and unwilling to handle any negative energy. Ultimately, as much as you want to be a child, and do indeed have the luxury of being one sometimes, you must also know how not to be one. You must be willing to be a woman, if you want to be brilliant enough to find a man who finds you worthy enough to carve out the freedom and beauty for you to let you frolic as a girl once more.

And look at the older women. The ones who married men you wouldn't want to end up with, or who didn't marry at all. Look at how they cope and behave - the ones who have clearly messed up in this life, and so have nothing but their egos to nurse in the licking of their salty wounds. Do you want to end up like them? Or do you actually want to be keep a warm heart, living a beautiful life with a respectable man? If you want the ideal life with the ideal man, then you mustn’t waste the great bounty of beauty, fertility and natural feminine warmth nature has given you - you need to speedrun wisdom.

You need to become wise enough and harden just enough to protect yourself, but not so much that you lose yourself. When I say harden I don't mean calcify and make the warmth frozen, I mean add a tough outer shell to protect the fluffy inner core. It is a tough balance to strike, but you can do it if you make it your priority, and apply yourself to the task rigorously with consistency.

You need to speedrun wisdom because you need discernment, because as much as your father or uncles or anyone else close to you may love you, it is still important you know how to protect yourself.

You must refine your judgement. You cannot be a liability your whole life, forever reliant upon the judgement of others. You, as a woman, to be worth anything as a woman - and to actually be meaningfully respectable (rather than just desirable, because for men these things are separate) need to become sovereign.

This doesn't mean you cannot or should not seek advice from your father or any other man you trust (and there shouldn't be many), but it does mean you need to be able to consistently make sound, well informed, clarity driven decisions. You should not get into the habit of deluding yourself - and you should get into the habit of being rigorously honest with yourself, even when it hurts. You shouldn't always have to think for yourself, and you should be able to defer to the central male figure in your life when you wish to, but you should also have the capacity to decide for yourself when you need to, when he isn't there, and you're the only one in the room who has your best interest at heart.

You must be able to truly be a good judge of character. And I don’t just mean “going by the vibes”, I mean actually be able to infer things accurately based upon what is and isn't said, and what is and isn't done - an omission should inform you just as much as an addition - you should be good at pattern recognising, because you can't afford not to be.

You must be both intuitive and analytical, and you must be careful not to mislabel your emotional whims as intuitions and spiritualise them, when really you are just being self-indulgent. Spirituality is real, but so is pseudo-spirituality - and it's very easy to cross into the latter believing you’re in the former. Ensure you are grounded in a set of values - self-honesty is painful, but the only true and noble path - and your capacity to master this and forge honour from it by disciplining yourself accordingly will distinguish you greatly from your would be competitors, that is - the women who are your peers.

You should strive to hold yourself accountable for your actions, and you should know shame, and you should be mindful to ensure you don’t let others weaponise the honour of that shame when they themselves are deficient in it. Being a woman isn’t easy. You are being endlessly sabotaged by people around you all the time, and if you’re pretty, and it will be your priority to be (because you realise it is your main source of power despite its own traps and pitfalls), most men want nothing but to penetrate the hole between your legs, whilst most women only want to sabotage you in competition for the few viable men you both seek.

You as a woman must be a fortress. You must know how to conceal your emotions (and get good at it), because you treat them as sacred, and realise they can be used as levers to manipulate you against your best interest. Ensure you share them minimally with none but those you love and trust, for being frivolously expressive with them and spilling them out everywhere for all to see will only bring you preventable and unproductive harm. Imperative too is being able to evaluate the world around you, without killing the warm, soft depth of your rich and vibrant inner world. You must know how to accurately discern things, people and situations, without becoming cynical. In essence, you must be something of a contradiction - but in a high functioning and beautiful way, rather than in a fragmented and dysfunctional one.

Be sensitive and worship beauty so you are empathetic and attuned to subtlety and nuance, but likewise difficult to offend and analytical so that you may be robust and penetrating. You must take what is best about the masculine, and add it to yourself. You must speedrun wisdom, become strong, and become sovereign - manage this, manage to avoid the pitfalls almost all other women make (which would almost certainly include ignoring the very insights of the man writing this letter that could quite possibly change your life in the best of ways), and the things they can only dream of and will forever lament can be yours. You can live a life that they envy, if only you put the work in and truly apply yourself - not because you want to rub it in their faces - but because you want better for yourself.

After all my dear, if you want what others cannot have, you must do what others cannot do.

Are you going to *truly* be the exception and become exceptional? Are you going to put in the work and diverge from the gaggling sisterhood and become sovereign in your own capacities - or are you going to say you're not like the other women as most women do, when in actual fact, you very much are. Do you truly want to be special, truly be different, truly be worthy - and for it all to just not be words and shallow performance?

Then acquire discernment and become a fortress whilst preserving your inner warmth - you must speedrun wisdom, my daughter.

“When the soul wishes to experience something, she throws an image of the experience out before her and enters into her own image.” — Meister Eckhart

1.) Introduction - Seduction As A Prison:

The siren is publicly, performatively and loudly seductive (in an almost caricaturish manner), for her main mode of being is to entrance and feed upon the souls of lesser men. She (quite unknowingly to herself), taints her essence as she feeds on them, extracting from them as she riles up the very desire and accompanying reverence she refuses to sate - all so that she can feed - on them, and on how they so desperately crave her, in order to harness their energy and take it as her own, living in rejection of her divine feminines’ need to be beautiful - she is succubus-coded.

This is the shadow side of the feminine when it is not pure in its ravenous, all encompassing desire for annihilation in the pursuit of transcendence through being erotically remade, but its corrupted form - a woman’s need to be desired turned into a form of entrapment and enthrallment - seduction as a prison for lesser men, with lesser meaning those men with weaker and thereby lower density souls - the less potent, less intense, less vigorous - and thereby more manipulable and easily bound.

If she is greedy and impulsive, she will devour her prey men whole until they have nothing left to give, before swiftly moving on to hunt for another. But if she is cleverer and thus more skilled, she will be a farmer - maintaining multiple male soul tethers so she can feed on their devotion sustainably in simultaneity.

2.) The False Goddess Mirror & The Origin In Fear:

Unlike woman in her pure and natural form - who always subconsciously seeks and longs for a master - her true master - the captain of her soul - the siren seeks servants, because rather than look to belong and revere, she seeks to extract and ensnare.

In terms of quality, the siren epitomises what it is to elect for quantity. You see in viewing herself as a goddess, she becomes the central figure in her internalised mirror, and thus in doing so, has overridden her soul’s divine need for surrender with her shadow’s ego need for domination. Her soul mirror has become corrupted. This is why she is aroused by the idea of spiritually penetrating (to act upon, enthrall and enslave men by overpowering and subverting their wills to serve her) - because she is the unintegrated shadow feminine, and so like any God, even if a false one, the metaphysics are structurally identical - more worshippers means more power, which translates to enthralling multiple men she is not subject to, rather than being devoted to the one she is.

As with all egos that monstrously balloon to the point they enable the shadow to possess, suppress and supplant the soul for dominance over the drivers seat of the conscious mind - her origin story is rooted in fear. The fear of being unlovable, unpretty, or somehow otherwise intrinsically defective or uniquely yet tragically imperfect, the fear of neglect, abandonment or betrayal, or the fear of being forever misunderstood or impossible to understand, and so perhaps a freak, deviant, aberration or mistake that does not and can never belong. And so despite her soul’s desire to be seen (to feel as if she has found home - by being loved fully, understood deeply and accepted unconditionally), her ego’s fear of exposure takes over until its vice grip chokes out her soul and possesses her.

As you are likely aware, monogamy is a woman’s natural preference - and so a woman who seeks to enslave multiple men rather than find one worthy of devoting herself to is atypical. But when existential terror meets the shadow of insatiable lust, and she doesn’t truly have to give herself in heart and soul to the men because the “relationships” are so asymmetrically one-sided in her favour - the instinct to belong is suffocated by the preoccupation with managing supplicant soul tethers.

You see by farming multiple men, she can preserve the self-corrupting parasitism that gratifies her ego without risk to her soul, staying safe and gaining without perceived risk, rather than give herself to her true counterpart - the only man she could ever worship, because that would require a level of all purifying ego death she is too scared to face, and is now quite possibly - too corrupt to. You see unlike the muse who is co-devotional, the siren is extractive. She seeks only to be worshipped, not to worship, for she wishes only to take without giving - specifically: to farm devotion as a source of power, rather than grow beautiful through reciprocating it.

And so in spite of her inherent, natural womanly attraction to apex masculine potency in all its majestic glory, she has adapted (been corrupted) to farm the weak - and in having done so, she is denied any true soul connection by the only type of man who could rid her of her wretched curse, because in his rightful self-protective discernment, the potent man avoids her where possible and rejects her when unfortunately obliged to deal with her, and so in living how she lives, she repels what she truly needs - the only type of man who could ever save her from herself. She is in effect, self-perpetuating her own doom as she leads countless men to theirs - a strike of cosmic poetry, if you will.

Unlike the muse, who does not seek to taint her spirit with the energies of myriad men, wishing to merge solely with the energy of the divine masculine mirror of a man her intuition led her to recognise, the siren likes to tether many men’s energies to feed her false goddess image. That is to say, fully possessed by her ego but highly lustful, she likes to cultivate devotional setups where men enthralled by her beauty worship her, whilst she spiritually feeds on them, leveraging her influence into material and even positional gain - you may think of this as spiritual pimping - because it is.

Read more

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.” ― Aristotle

1.) Why Sovereignty Matters:

Man is the primary, the penetrative and the predominant imposing will - serving as the architect and maintainer as both creator and governor of what we call civilization. Therefore it stands to reason that if man is in disarray, all things that flow from him or otherwise operate within the jurisdiction of his governance, will suffer where he fails.

Like our dear Atlas, a man requires sturdy shoulders, precisely because of how much they must carry. And so it is within this realisation we discover that man is the origin point of many butterfly effects - the pivotal turning points in myriad men’s lives foreshadow the very course of civilization as we know it.

To give a simple and relatable example - many people do not know their fathers - but how different would their lives look if they did? How much less would they need to play the game of catch-up - unlearning what does not serve, to replace it with a relearning of what does - given the context they now find themselves in as adults, and all the struggle and ambition that entails?

How would the world look if all the children who do not know their fathers, got to know them? And how would the world look if all the children who got a beaten down version of their father that failed to reach his potential, who neglected his body, education or earning potential, instead got the best, strongest, most successful and vigorous version of him - the man who became who he was always meant to be through the volition of his own intensity, rather than the lesser self he became in succumbing to the sterile inertia of aversion driven entropy?

Men are both the ordering, and the governing principle. And as such, the collective mental resilience, virtue, competence and overall potency of man is of existential species level importance. Simply put, the strength, capability and thereby mental stability of our men matters, and it matters deeply - for man is the reservoir from which all things flow. Poison the well, and all who drink from it fall violently ill.

You see if you convince enough men women aren’t worth the hassle, then civilization crumbles. Convince enough men virtue is a frivolous and inefficient indulgence rather than a heroic gold standard, and civilization crumbles. Align societal incentives in such a way that men wish to play zero sum games in order to protect themselves from indoctrinated and uncooperative women and an overreaching state? And that’s right, you guessed it - civilization crumbles.

There is no dynasty, legacy nor lasting beauty in this world without the prevalence of the sovereign man, for there can be no strong tribe, high trust civilizational golden age, nor cultural renaissance without scalable masculine self-mastery as the cornerstone and beating heart at the centre of it all. Think of a man as a tree, every time he grows big and strong, he provides oxygen, vegetation and shade, a place for birds to sing and make their nests with cleaner air (a higher quality of life) as well as protection from the sun on a hot day (insulation from, and assistance with life’s ugliness and hardships) for his dependants.

Every institution begins in the soul of a man. Not in policies, slogans, or collective dreams, but in whether when a man wakes up and opens his eyes in the morning, every morning, he makes the conscious decision to rule himself, and to apply himself most vigorously to the day at hand - each day its own battle in the wider war of life, a glorious chance to prove himself by improving himself, and therefore all that is within his domain.

Does he understand the importance of consistency and momentum? Can he resist the all sedating inertia of comfort? Does he build when nobody is watching, praising, believing in, or otherwise even really truly appreciating him - because he is internally rather than externally driven? Does he accept feedback from reality and adapt as necessary, whilst being maximally self-honest? And most crucially of all: does he lead his instincts, or allow himself to be led by them? Is he the superior man that’s channelling the beast, or the lesser man enslaved by it?

This is the first and most difficult domain of sovereignty - the self - and it is where everything else is won and lost.

A man who cannot govern himself cannot govern a woman, and thus by extension, a household. A man who cannot command his own attention, cannot command respect, and a man who cannot maintain order inside his own body and mind, cannot meaningfully impact the world when he’s already lost the war inside the one territory that’s inextricably his - himself. This is not moral posturing, but metaphysical law. That is to say, that which cannot be performed at a small scale, should not be attempted at a larger, for mastering the self is a prerequisite to mastering others.

Strong, non self-indulgent men are not incidental to strong families - but the precondition. And the brilliance and integrity of any one particular family can be summed up from a cursory evaluation of its patriarch. For you see, whilst the womb might be the biological mechanism which gives birth to life, it is the sun that celestially permits it. Every human life starts in a womb, but without the sun, the womb is but a fiction.

Do you understand? You must become the sun and aspire to the best of what man is capable of - a symbolic echo of, and representation of the divine within the masculine vessel. You should not think of yourself as but a mere man, but as an emissary of God striving to impose divine will on Earth. In order to be more than just a mere man, you must have a foot firmly rooted in the transcendent. You must believe you are meant for greater things, and pursue them with maximum vigour. Empiricism will help you build bridges, but it does not forge strong spirits. So if you want to build many strong bridges, you must first forge your spirit.

And that’s why every time a man pulls himself out of mediocrity and apathy - when he begins to train, focus, speak more honestly, and align more closely with the man in the deepest recesses of his soul he knows he was always meant to be - the world actually becomes more beautiful. Not just metaphorically, but literally, because like the sun he becomes radiant, and so he shines upon his kingdom where children laugh, women play, and flowers bloom (but I repeat myself thrice).

This is not just personal development, for although it is that, it is not only that, but more crucially - spiritual warfare. Every man is a battleground, and the outcome of the private war within him ripples across reality through everything he touches. This affects how he leads, how he fathers, and how the woman that matters to him can relax around him - not because he demands it, but because she knows she’s safe in the presence of true spiritual gravity - of his divinity.

You may feel invisible and unimportant and uncared about and irrelevant as a man, but believe me, you are not. Your unmet potential calls out to you, beckoning you like a siren’s song, except the destination is paradise, not the jagged wave crashing rocks frequented by predacious horny mermaids.

This is the mission: to build men so grounded, so principled, so capable - they restructure the very fabric of reality and bend the world towards beauty by the weight of their being alone. Your mission, if you choose to accept it - is to be the unstoppable force and the immovable object - the steadfast apex predator that serves as a bulwark against entropy.

This is where it starts. With one man, with you - right now.

2.) What Sovereignty Is:

Read more

"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry rot.” — Jack London

Ambition is the more familiar, less refined expression of what Nietzsche called the will to power - a force composed in equal measure of part spiritual drive, part sovereign intent. Put simply: the greater the ambition in its intensity and directed will, the stronger the will to power - for without it, the soul lies dormant, no longer bending the world to it, but being shaped by it.

Will alone is defined as the intensity of desire and metaphysical ability to reality bend through unwavering persistence, endurance and obsession. Your will is thus the driving force of your spirit, the engine of your soul that powers all that you do. It contains your dreams, your drive, your motivation, your intensity, and your capacity to be an agent rather than an object - to change reality and be the force that energetically shifts your environment, rather than being directed by and dictated to by the energy of your environment.

If you are a conqueror, you're an agent, if you're the conquered, you're an object. If you're the master, you're an agent, if you're a slave, you're an object. If you're the victor, you're the agent, if you're the victim, you're the object - there is a battle of energies, a winner and a loser - you get what you want, or you don't - which is why cooperation requires the alignment of incentives so both sides get what they want, but that is a separate topic altogether beyond the scope of this essay.

Applied will then is the idea that if you attack something for long enough by giving enough of your energy to it, whilst intelligently adapting your tactics as you learn it with full vigour and intensity, that it will eventually fall into your lap - or perhaps stated another way - God and the universe will grant you what you want because you have proven you are worthy of it through self-sacrifice and self-demonstration.

Competence endows rewards, and rewards are the fulfilment of desires you have shown yourself deserving of. Ergo you wanted it, you pursued the tools and understanding that would get you it, developed the skills that would allow you to employ those tools and execute that understanding - and the result is ending up precisely where you want to be.

Will in itself is not plagued by doubt or rational paralysis in probabilistic evaluation, because it is too obsessed with the desired end result to allow anything that obstructs it to dissuade it. To the will, logic is a tool that must serve it, not undermine it - so if logic can be used in the pursuit of will it is accepted, but if it undermines the will, it is discarded.

To one with a strong will to power, unlike say, the prototypical atheist, logic is not God. Logic to the man animated by a strong intensity of will is simply a problem solving tool, or when used to obfuscate or deceive in pursuit of one's ends - a form of sophistry - but never the determinant of what is true and right and to be believed in, or what is wrong, false, and to be rejected.

You could say in that sense the will to power is pathological - its own form of energy - an intentionality so strong it becomes a kind of primordial intelligence, directing you, living through you, spiritually augmenting you in the pursuit of your destiny.

Those less energetically charged do not believe in such things, for they allow logic to constrain them within the reductive limitations of systems thinking where the existence of destiny must be evaluated like a hypothesis, but because destiny cannot be falsified, logic as a tool becomes impotent. And so in the absence of proof, they default to disbelief - as though absence of evidence were itself evidence of absence.

Will alone however, as important as it is in the way that I have defined it, is not competence. So whilst will is important (think of it as the impetus, the spark, the ignition, the flame, the animating force, the propellant, the driving force, the engine, etc) it is a fundamentally necessary but not sufficient condition for paradise, if we define paradise as the idealised version of yourself doing the things that provide you with the most meaning and personal satisfaction in conjunction with the personal relationships (spouse, fraternity, children) that enable this idealised form.

Competence then is the vessel for this animating energy to find structure and create something useful from it - otherwise the will to power unchanneled becomes Thanatos - which in men amounts to a fascination with danger seeking (the outward pursuit of destruction - eg: skydiving, street racing, bare-knuckle fighting - flirting with death), whilst in women it manifests as spiritual masochism (the inward pursuit of destruction, which is self-loathing and thereby vibrationally negative and self-sabotaging in that it is energetically depleting).

Both seek to destroy themselves or at least bring themselves close to self-destruction, just through different mediums - men, being the force of action and penetration, outwardly and externally, women, being the force of passivity and receptivity, inwardly and internally.

Competence in practical terms is thus orderliness in discipline guided by intelligence in planning to direct the will towards the construction of what it seeks. It tempers it enough to shape it without trying to extinguish it. If you have a strong will but insufficient cognitive ability, you will have the energy to do, but know not what to do, or if you know what to do, are not able to do it. If you have strong will but low discipline, you simply end up engaging in Thanatos. So competence then is the will tempered by discipline, directed by intelligence.

The feminine doesn’t express the will to power in the same way, because she does not seek to penetrate the world, but to enchant it. Her spiritual force, when rightly ordered, is not conquest, but magnetism - seduction in the highest form - the power to pull paradise toward her through beauty, receptivity, and truthfulness to her deepest essence. But when misaligned, that same force profoundly implodes in a most masochistic manner.

What in men becomes domination, becomes self-loathing in women - an unconscious hatred of her own need, her own depth, and her own yearning to be possessed by something greater than herself. She (in a way she cannot articulate) fears ego death, and so sees her progressive becoming as a regressive undoing, and so she punishes herself, starves herself and sabotages connection - because somewhere deep down, she believes she is not yet worthy of the ecstasy she secretly craves.

Needless to say, the will to power takes on a destructive rather than constructive form if not given structure, and not creative destruction, as in "we'll tear this down to reconstruct it better" (which is orderliness loose enough to allow for the expression of chaos whilst being robust enough to contain it) but in the sense of:

“I am consumed by my intensity to the point of all possessing and unrelenting madness (manic possession) and therefore want to live on the edge of existence tempting fate by repeatedly flirting with my mortality, or in the case of women: endlessly self-flagellate for all my perceived inadequacies by denying myself my truest desires, whilst pursuing self-worth through endlessly hollow but self-imposed slavery that optimises neither for potential or meaning, but allows for the most basic of dignity.”

This is what happens when the will to power that constitutes your ambition is in a raw and chaotic state without the appropriate structure to contain and thereby direct it. It is chaos without order, intensity without stoicism, attachment without reciprocity.

So ambition on a basic level is simply desire, but when sufficiently intense, structured and layered in a metaphysical and thereby spiritual sense, it becomes the will to power.

Now one of the greatest issues plaguing westerners in their social decline is listlessness, apathy and depression - all of which are byproducts of the same core deficiency - an insufficient will to power.

All of these things are a spiritual malady, in the sense that people in these hyper intellectualising, self-victimising and otherwise cynical states of self-limiting ideation (perpetual belief your limits are far below where they actually are) are weak souls, or stated another way - energetically depleted, and therefore in a sort of self-fulfilling way don't actually reach their potential, because they lack the requisite energy to do so and thereby get stuck in a negative feedback loop.

"I'm not successful because I'm low energy, but I'm low energy because I'm not successful" - so the key for these people in this "negative energy prison" is to focus on small wins that will give them energetic momentum that allows them to increase their frequency, or put in less esoteric terms: to become more positive, moralised, and higher energy off the back of the proof of their self-demonstrated capacity to succeed in one form or another, and therefore better able to implement their will and reach their natural God given potential.

This is why not getting depressed or demoralised irrespective of all else gives you a pronounced competitive edge, in the sense that those who lack the mania you do won't be able to last as long as you, assuming they can even motivate themselves to begin with. Motivation for you is not even required, because you are so spiritually animated you actually find it harder to stop than get going - where their hose sputters and cannot maintain a flowing stream, you are trying to find a way to direct an overflowing hose.

So to summarise: the will to power is an unwavering pathological intensity. It is a natural antidote against cynicism, faithlessness and demoralisation, constituting its own form of self-perpetuating and meaning bestowing belief system. It makes you energetically charged, and thereby ambitious and achievement seeking without being confined by the rules of logic, which it views merely as an evaluative tool, rather than as a replacement for God as the ultimate authority.

Men without ambition never go anywhere in life. But men with ambition and no skill destroy themselves in their unfulfillable desire for all this life has to offer, owing to their structural inability to fully implement their will. Those who find paradise then are those blessed enough to be able to marry the soul engine of vision, faith, drive, and animus, with competence, wisdom and self-discipline to successfully complete the trials that will enable them to not only know where they want to go, but to arrive there.

You have one life - one pulse of time in which to prove your vision was real. And that vision - if it’s true - must be proven in blood, sweat, and demonstration - not just in procrastinating abstract thought or in idealistic longing. That which is beautiful and can be imagined, must be realised. The world always kneels for those who burn, but only if they first become the sun - burning long enough and bright enough to make their fire generative.

This essay was originally published on Twitter, but has long since been buried by the algorithm. It has been lightly remastered, and added to the citadel for your reading pleasure, and archiving convenience.

“The greatest tragedy in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
— George Bernard Shaw

If you think a 22 year old woman and a 35 year old man can't have anything in common, why do you think a 140 IQ man and a 110 IQ woman can?

There is all this outrage over age gaps, but precisely none over IQ gaps. Do you think a non-autistic man two standard deviations in cognitive ability above a woman cannot manipulate her to the most insidious and absolute of degrees through just the sheer breadth and magnitude by which he outclasses her? Because I assure you, he can possess her in ways her opposite sex peers could only dream of.

He can perceive and plan, encode and employ in myriad ways she is blind to, his capacity for dominance transcending her mere comprehension of the concept, able to recondition, rewire and rearrange her in ways she didn't even know possible. She may read inane magazine grade fluff pieces, misattributing cathartic armchair psychological jargon like "narcissist" to him in an attempt to seem aware and informed when she's upset, but she doesn't actually have the capacity to perceive what's going on, nor penetrate the depths of the mind of the man who can comprehend her singular fullness in ways not even she can.

Now before you panic at this realisation, you need not worry, for when the intelligence gap is too wide, the less intelligent person becomes something akin to a pet. That is to say, a type of affection can be felt for them due to an appreciation for certain moral qualities or traits they might possess, like courage, conscientiousness or compassion, but ultimately the one C that matters most - comprehension - is absent. And so he is a forever obscure and impenetrable depth to her, an unsolvable puzzle - which may prove tantalisingly agonising for her, but ultimately unrewarding for him.

His self-expression, breadth of being and depth of thought is never truly appreciated by her, because she cannot grasp it. Colour and vibrancy is lost in the air between them as it travels from his mouth to her ears, as her mind naturally gives rise to an ineffable gulf in its habitual dilution of his complexity, blinding her tragically to his totality, thereby rendering true connection impossible.

IQ does not merely reflect abstract reasoning ability - it sets a ceiling on one’s capacity for psychological development. The higher the IQ, the more complex a person's neural architecture becomes. Emotional maturity, depth of self-reflection, capacity for abstract pattern recognition, and spiritual integration are all constrained by the limits of one’s processing power.

A woman with a 110 IQ will plateau at a certain point cognitively, relationally, and spiritually. No matter how good her intentions, her mental bandwidth limits her ability to keep up with a man who lives several layers above her in perception. Her emotional responses will feel sincere, but to the high IQ man, they will often appear simplistic, recycled, and insufficiently individuated.

This is why mental age is the far more pertinently relevant metric than biological age. A 22 year old woman with a 130 IQ will be closer in maturational structure to a 35 year old man with a 140 IQ, than a 32 year old woman with an IQ of 105. Without this parity in abstraction, one partner will inevitably become a teacher or a caretaker rather than a true complement, and thus the relational dynamic is doomed to collapse into instruction of her, compensation for her, and boredom with her.

Such a woman is unable to properly intuit him and give him what he needs, because she cannot map his crevices and indents and subtle patterns. After all, how can she engage with what she cannot perceive? Truly then, soul deep connection is not possible between the intellectually dissimilar, because dominance without resonance comes at the cost of depth. Yes, the man can rule more easily with less challenge - but at grave cost, and for an ultimately less fulfilling prize. To use a grotesque metaphor that drives the distinction home: it is like being the king of a dump rather than a palace, infinitely easier, yes, but exceptionally less rewarding and infinitely more pointless.

Some disordered, shallow and insecure men who prioritise control over depth of connection may relish in these kinds of relationships, as they look to maximise the power differential at the expense of all else, whilst some women may enjoy them, because irrespective of their insecurity and how small he effortlessly makes her feel, she sees him as a sort of high status all knowing magician she can treat like ChatGPT. To her, he is a pattern recognising problem solving demigod she can go to with all her problems and questions, where he always responds with something "smart sounding" she doesn't really understand, but feels assured by because "he sounds like he knows what he's talking about". For the woman, this is akin to having a direct connection to divinity, a splash of water to the face and a breath of fresh air in a desert of dry and comprehensible dimness, but for the man, it is utterly underwhelming and banal, for she is completely incapable of bringing him anywhere near to his limits - she is in all her most tragic essence - underwhelming - insufficient.

Just think of it, for all their familiarity, such a man would be a stranger in his own bed with the one who is meant to be closest to him - and so if you would speak of love and connection and the capacity to exploit power differentials, why do you never speak of this? Why do you always speak of age gaps, but never of intelligence gaps?

High intelligence, when not constrained by cowardice, but applied with full intent to the totality of the pursuit and mastery of another being, is the ultimate form of dominance. If this is not the case, then why do we fear the capacity for artificial intelligence to manipulate us and take all our jobs? Because it is. That is to say, the natural hierarchy of society is in large part an intellectual hierarchy - and all societies have as such since the dawn of time stratified their population by cognitive ability through the complexity tiers of their professions.

This is why I am of the (what should not at all be) rather controversial position that an age gap couple of more proximal IQ is more ethical than a similarly aged couple with a much wider one.

Of course, women don't get insecure about how other women are smarter than them - only about how much more desirable, fertile and physically attractive younger women are. And so due to this motivation alone, there will never be the cultural energy and outrage for the IQ gap that there is for the age gap, in a feminised culture where the opinions of spinsters, divorcees and relationally dissatisfied reason-deficient women are cacophonously centred in public discourse to our collective detriment.

This is why - most uncoincidentally - the attitude of a culture towards age gaps is indicative of how patriarchal it is. Any culture that sees them as a good thing is patriarchal, and any culture that doesn't, isn’t. Why? Because in non-patriarchal cultures, the family unit has collapsed and divorce has become normalised, dare I say, routine. This means older women who should have long since been permanently removed from the market, continue to see younger women as competing potential wives to be sabotaged in their pursuit of seeking a masculine axis to orient themselves around, rather than as daughters to be mentored from a solidified position of wifehood.

Truly, if people weren't just being manipulative and self-interested, but were actually operating from principle-based thinking, they would see there's a lot of merit in what I’m saying. IQ gaps near categorically allow for an equal, if not even greater power differential than age gaps, with no capacity for mutual soul fulfilment. And yet there is relatively little outrage over IQ gaps, and vast hysterics over age gaps, despite being the historically demonstrated proof of concept with the capacity to generate deep mutual fulfilment. This isn't to say age gap relationships can't come in a predatory flavour - because they can - only that they often aren’t, and need not necessarily be, whilst an IQ gap relationship almost always will be, even if not intended to be due to the structural irreconcilability of the dynamic.

Power flows naturally to the one who sees more, thinks deeper, and understands further. His perceptive bandwidth eclipses hers, so even in kindness, he will be forever out of reach, experienced by her, but never truly known to her, because no resonance can exist between the comprehended, and the incomprehensible.

“To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.” - Søren Kierkegaard

A man’s emotional availability is not his default setting, because it is existentially risky for him to bear his purest and most naked self to a woman who is unwilling or unable to appreciate it in its fullness. And yet, modern relationships all too often teach men in action that openness will be punished as weakness, whilst detachment will be rewarded with respect and obedience, despite overt protestations to the contrary. So now we will dissect why this is the case, and what women can do to ensure a man will want to remain emotionally open to them.

The fundamental reason many men avoid relationships, is due to the sheer effort and vigilance required to maintain one in a healthy and functioning state. As its leader and foundational pillar, a man is tasked with sustaining a dynamic that should ideally invigorate, rather than drain either side.

Think of a relationship as a kind of spiritual energetic exchange. It can both nourish, and deplete. Sometimes it gives more than it takes, elevating both partners to new heights, and at other times, it takes more than it gives - holding you back because it requires so much. Nonetheless, there can be no ledger, because there is no transaction - only union. In union lies beauty, gratitude, trust, and the full flourishing of the masculine anima (his inner feminine) intertwining with the woman’s feminine (her soul, as opposed to her ego). And so long as each is respected, protected, and reverently considered, no harm is done.

But harm is done when that reverence collapses. Especially for a man, whose engagement with his anima is a more existentially risky act for him than it is for her to bear her feminine soul, in much the same way a woman offering her body sexually is a more existentially risky act for her than it is for him. A woman is at her most vulnerable when she gives her body - a man, when he bares his soul. Full emotional availability then, is, for him, the equivalent degree of spiritual penetration - it is soul-level exposure.

When a woman enters a relationship with a man of intelligence and depth, she is asking a logic-preferring being to tap into and embody a part of himself he rarely accesses. This is as tantalising as it can be destabilising for him. She wants his emotional attunement, not only for the joie de vivre and colour it brings to her, but likewise because it reassures her of her power: that because he has given her his heart and soul, he cannot hurt her. You see, she too is afraid. And yet she often asks for, expects, and simply requires this of him, without realising what it costs him - how repeatedly pulling him out of his ego and into his soul can erode his clarity and performance, and thereby his capacity to lead.

And if, in that vulnerable state, she misbehaves with inconsistency, obfuscation, dishonesty, or even subtle emotional games, she wounds him in the very place he exposed himself by trusting her. She asked him to open up so she could feel safe, and then in doing so, punishes him for it. When framed like this, a man's reluctance to fully bear his naked soul makes perfect sense, for most women cannot properly honour what they ask for. You see, as a woman, she effectively has to convince him "Yes, I am worth the hassle, and no, I won't abuse your heart" - and that's a tall order to meet - one many women treat cavalierly, and yet in practice often fail to uphold, inviting the very thing they dread: his withdrawal, distance, and loss of devotion.

This is something akin to a mosquito injecting anaesthetising saliva through its proboscis, before extracting blood. A woman who punishes a man for his patience, empathy, and sacrifice, through neglect, cruelty, or betrayal, is enacting the spiritual equivalent: dulling him mentally before extracting from him emotionally.

And sometimes, it’s not even intentional. Many women are simply less conscious - distracted, selfish, self-absorbed, or emotionally unaware, and thus fail to realise how their actions are actively conditioning him away from soulfulness. Damaging does not even require malice, merely negligence or carelessness. And trust, once fractured, may accept an accident as a mitigating factor, but not as a remedy. It may explain the wound - but it does not heal it.

Then comes the predictable complaint: that men are immature, scared to commit, or emotionally stunted. And sometimes, that’s true. But in many cases, it isn’t. It’s not always immaturity, sometimes (often even) - it’s simply earned distrust. She has demonstrated, often repeatedly, that she cannot be trusted with his inner world, because she lacks the maturity or reverence to honour his vulnerability. And when he gave it, she didn’t uplift him. She made him feel stupid for loving, weak for trusting, and foolish for hoping. She betrayed him. Not necessarily in intention, but almost certainly in action, and so his soul was made to bear the cost.

And betrayal is not always dramatic or carnal - it is often quiet, ambient, and cumulative. It can be flippancy: treating his reverence as excessive, mocking the very parts of him she once claimed to crave. It can be inconsistency: asking for his heart then vanishing, oscillating between warmth and withdrawal until his nervous system learns her love is conditional and unstable.

It can be disrespect: diminishing his judgement, mocking his mission, or failing to speak of him with admiration when he is not present to defend himself. It can be emotional withdrawal: retreating when closeness is needed most, using distance to punish, silence to disorient, and absence to reassert control. It can be shadowed cruelty: using sacred confidences as weapons in conflict, reaching into the softest parts of him to hurt him rather than to hold him.

It can be sexual neglect: expecting emotional presence while denying the embodied love language that makes that presence sustainable - demoting his appetite from devotional to crudeness. It can be public disloyalty: making him small in the eyes of others, by failing to honour the man she privately depends on. And it can be neglect of appreciation: acting as though his efforts are baseline, his beauty invisible, and his sacrifices forgettable. Betrayal then for a soulful man is not just what she does - it is what she stops doing once she believes she’s secured his devotion. It is through these subtle betrayals, she teaches him his depth is unsafe, his effort unrewarded, and ultimately, that his love was misplaced.

Read more

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero

There’s an entire society of fools trying to stop people like you from listening to people like me. They’ll tell you I’m dangerous or deranged, and they’ll ridicule me with baseless slander, not because they can prove me wrong - but because they’re desperate for you not to listen.

They’ve wrecked their lives and their civilization. Broken families, godlessness, antidepressants, birth control pills, promiscuity, debt, and childlessness are endemic - all evidence of decay, rather than prosperity, and yet they think themselves an authority.

And they will not fall into the abyss quietly. No - they want to drag the young down with them, clinging to every wrangled privilege and grubbily obtained cent on their way out.

They are impotent custodians representing the final impotent throes of a dying civilization - defeated not by its incompetence, but by its hubris - their lifestyles and values the very cause of its decay. And yet despite their dysfunction, they do not learn, relentlessly rallying against any wisdom that offends their all too delicate sensibilities.

They are a failed generation of people, trying to breed more copies of themselves - gatekeepers who squandered their inheritance, speaking with the arrogance of sovereigns unfit to preside, and history will render judgement against them as such.

They do not have better arguments. They are not pro-truth. They are not pro-reason, and they have desecrated and squandered much beauty.

They have nothing to teach except what not to be (via negativa) - and yet their preachings are the loudest and the hollowest. This is why they favour censorship. Their ideas cannot compete. When you cannot compete, you must engage in protectionism - whether economic or ideological, "SHUT IT DOWN!" is their rallying war cry.

Their bodies are dying, and their ideas with them - and yet they won’t go off into that gentle night quietly. And that’s why they want you - the young - to believe what they believe. Not because they care about you, and not because they want to help you become stronger or build a better life - because the wisdom required to functionally manifest such benevolent parental aspects is at scale absent, but because they are ideologically possessed - members of a godless religion they want you to be part of. And like a virus, they need new hosts before the old ones perish. Except many of them don't have children (or too few) and so they can only live on by corrupting other people's.

That makes you their target host.

And it is for this reason that these fools - whether maliciously or unwittingly - all too often act as saboteurs rather than guides.

Do not trust those older than you, simply because they are older than you. The modern world allows many fools to reach old age - it is no longer proof of wisdom. An elder was not historically esteemed simply because they were old, but because it was implicit that to reach that age required a certain level of skill, from which could be inferred a certain degree of insight and understanding of the world.

In the modern world, these assumptions collapse because advancement into one's older years is no longer contingent upon wisdom, and because society changes at an ever greater pace for which they did not come of age in, are not adapted to, and subsequently cannot keep up with. This is not to say there are not timeless (dare I say, immutable) fundamentals inherent to human nature that can be passed on, and still remain as true today as they were 2,000 years ago - but it does mean that someone who made their money or dated say, 20, even 10 years ago cannot give you solid advice on how to replicate the successes they had, because the world they achieved those things in is so vastly different from the world you're trying to achieve them in.

Good advice today becomes obsolete tomorrow - this is the unfortunate downside of the beast that is a socially decaying but rapidly technologically advancing society, initially catapulted by the revolution that is the internet, followed by the hyperconnectivity of social media, which has at present culminated in the fever pitch that is the emergence of AI. You never really get a chance to catch up, because you're in a process of infinite adaptation. And so just as you've adapted, all of a sudden you're maladapted again. Not because you've changed, but because the environment has.

So always be sceptical, and always think for yourself. This isn't to say you cannot value the opinions of others, but it does mean you should try your hardest to think as rigorously as your mind and courage permits.

When most of your elders are spiritual failures - dilettantes in religion, consumed by self-worship, promiscuity, and materialism - they are not fit to lead you. They are failing as the stewards of civilization, as protectors and providers of their children, for they have left you a most heinous mess - spiritually, socially, and quite often - financially.

You are the generation told to become everything - while being given next to nothing to become it with, and to compound matters, they are trying to actively program you with value systems that will destroy you - to say the pressure on you is immense, is to quite frankly, egregiously understate it - because you, in no uncertain terms, are paying the ultimate price for the failures of your forefathers.

As society crumbles, safety nets vanish, and tribalism rises as opportunistic foreigners taste blood in the water and seek to pillage (both sexually and economically) the rotting fruits of a once great society, the young as they burst in their nascence into adulthood find themselves in a brutal, winner takes all game.

There will be many casualties - people who, without the sense of fraternity, community and social scaffolding of a high-functioning society, will perish in the chaos.

But those who not only survive, but transcend - they will be some of the greatest men and women to ever live, and in being so, will create some of the most robust and beautiful families - think pioneer spirit - think founding stock.

You see, even though you might not realise it, and although some conveniently deny it with fingers in their ears as they wilfully ignore social rot and marvel at all the technological progression - you are in fact in the "hard times create strong men" phase. You will have to learn everything for yourself, build a great deal by yourself, and utilise every immediate resource at your fingertips just to even be in with a chance of having a good life.

The most capable among you will become formidable precisely because you had so little, and precisely because you had to do and become and be so much just to have the opportunity to stand in this world rather than crawl along it. Gone are the days of paying for your university with a summer job, or buying a house with a mere three years of manual labour.

And yes, at times it will seem bleak. The apathy of nihilism will whisper to you: "What’s the point? Everything’s broken. Life is hard. I've messed up too much." People always thinks it's too late to become something irrespective of age, because regret is self-condemning and cowardice seeks exit ramps - but in truth, it never is. It might get harder as you get older, yes, but with sufficient will, improvement is never impossible.

Tides always change, and the pendulum always swings. And you are part of that shift, a part of that cultural return - a once (and latently still) brilliant people, who must lift themselves out of perdition through a return to greatness, clarity and beauty. Where there is not only dysfunction from inversion and delusion and destructive chaos, but also structure and order and chaos in its generative form, so that we may reap all the coalescing beauty that comes from the perfectly harmonised relationship between these dualistic tension generating forces as a microcosm of the ideal union between man and woman - but I digress, forgive a man for his poetic indulgence.

Some of you are depressed. Some of you are angry. Others are just apathetic. But you should know that despite the injustice, selfishness, and sheer unfairness - you are alive now. This is your chance. This is your war. This is your opportunity. Every generation has its defining challenges, and this is yours - to make something out of nothing whilst being sabotaged by almost everything - to be the rose that grows between the cracks in the concrete.

You have the internet. You can find kindred spirits, make money, build, and learn in ways your ancestors could only dream of. Unlike them, you are not trapped by tribe or geography - you are not limited to the fifty to one hundred people you grew up around, doomed to work the same profession your father had, or date one of the only 3-30 viable (but often far from ideal or even desirable) people from your local town or village.

There are traps everywhere - distractions, propaganda, poisons. Your task is to navigate this labyrinth of sheer fuckery, and find your way out. Be sure to bring string - you will need it.

Do not get brainwashed - deprogramming is expensive. What was adaptive in the past can be maladaptive in the future. Learning is hard enough - you do not want to forfeit too many years unlearning.

It is, for example, easier to never buy into self-destructive narratives (like gender equality), than to deprogram them later. Your goals - strength, prosperity, excellence - are not aligned with the goals of the dying generation. Their goal is not to help you win (in a proper mentorial and custodial role, as is their divine duty), but to maximise shareholder value, while ensuring their values live on, even if it ruins you in the process. Be acutely aware of this conflict of interest in your dealings with them.

I likewise say the following out of realisation, rather than from vanity: people like you need people like me to speak sense to you - because most of you are forced to suffer fools, which is why you're here reading this. And they don’t even want you to have that. They don’t want you to reshape the failed reality they've built by learning from dissidents, philosophers and other associated "dangerous thinkers" or "radicals". They want us to disappear, and for you to be anaesthetised, compliant and ignorant.

So do not blindly trust what society says, or blindly accept what you are told. Do not rebel purely for its own sake, but to determine what is true, correct, functional, meaningful, and beautiful.

Thinking for yourself has never been more necessary, but neither has collaboration ever been so advantageous (because so many are so isolated), nor come at such a premium (due to how much societal trust has fallen).

Build relationships and alliances with people who prove their integrity, and demonstrate a capacity for resourcefulness and higher thought. You will need all the allies you can get in the coming times ahead, for as great as you may be, no man or woman is an island. So waste nothing, and waste nobody. Think hard, work diligently, cultivate peace, and as always, in the grand chaotic mess of it all - be beautiful.

This is the resurrection of the archive, and the establishment of a new stronghold for the work ahead.

You probably know me from Twitter, and you might have read my now retired blog, Illimitable Men. For a long time, I have written essays on a variety of dynamics - power, masculinity, gender differences, metaphysics, and even macro level civilizational patterns. My philosophy is not rooted in sterile academic abstraction, but in grit, insight, and lived experience.

Much of my work over the years has been scattered or lost. Much was buried by the algorithm, some was paywalled under systems that no longer serve the vision.

That changes now.

Why This Exists

The Sovereign Citadel is a signal tower for those who do not wish to be ruled by tyrants, and who know that to rule others (and do so benevolently), you must first master yourself.

Here you’ll find:

• Remastered (overhauled) essays from Twitter and the Illimitable Men archive

• New philosophical writing - uncompromising and lucid

• Strategic insights on power, war, women, and becoming sovereign

• And possibly… the beginnings of a deeper curriculum

This project is independent.
No sponsors. No investors. No paymasters.
No ads. No appeasement.

If you want it to exist, you make it exist.

Membership Tiers

You can support The Sovereign Citadel in three ways:

• $10/month – Full access to paid essays, commentary, and archives

• $100/year – Same access, discounted

• $300/year – Founding Member
  Founding Members are early backers. You believe in the work and want to see it thrive. You’ll receive early previews, dedicated replies, and a role in shaping what this becomes.

What’s Coming

In the days ahead, I’ll be posting:

• Select pieces from the original archive, restored and improved

• New material, behind the veil - available only to members

The algorithm cannot suppress what is direct.

This platform is mine - and now, yours.

If you ever found my work valuable, this is the moment to step forward.

→ Subscribe now
→ Become a Founding Member

Welcome to the Citadel.