Stephanie Guthrie is Great.

Vigilante Justice is Good, Apparently.

Gregory Allan Elliot must die.

Elliot is the Toronto man who in 2012 answered an ad for volunteers to produce art work and posters for the group; Women in Toronto Politics. The group founded by Stephanie Guthrie. Elliot volunteered to produce those posters for her. But the volunteer found himself in disagreement with Guthrie over her alleged plan to slander and blacklisted a software developer over her offence at satirical video game.

The game in question featured an image of feminist Anita Sarkesian, and included punching the face of Sarkesian’s digital image. Guthrie took to the internet, tweeting potential employers in Sault Ste. Marie, and contacted a local newspaper about the offending video game developer.

Mr Elliot disagreed with the planned harassment of a young game developer, and argued with Guthrie over the ethicacy of her plan via twitter. That argument extended to an ongoing disagreement over her politics lasting more than a year. Guthrie charged Mr Elliot him with criminal harassment. It’s the first case of it’s kind in Canada.

During Mr Elliot’s trial, Guthrie was asked about vigilante violence against another man, Hunter Moore. Moore had created a revenge porn website, which while not illegal, crossed boundaries of good taste and positive ethics.

In the example of Mr Moore, Guthrie was asked by lawyer Chris Murphy if she supported actions putting Mr Moore in physical danger.

“In this specific situation…in light of the actions he [Moore] took and in light the law’s inability [to deal with it], yes … depending on the case, yes.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Murphy later questioned Guthrie about her vigilante actions against game developer Bendilin Spurr.

“I put it to you that you wanted to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life?” he asked.
Ms. Guthrie replied “I was simply making people aware”.

Mr. Murphy asked, if those she made aware took action that ruined Mr. Spurr’s life?
“I would not feel sorry about that.” Ms. Guthrie said. “It would be because” he had brought it on himself.

It would obviously not be because she campaigned to vilify him. Gregory Allan Elliot’s lawyer asked Guthrie if the end result was ruin, “that’s okay with you, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Ms. Guthrie said, untroubled by the admission.

Gregory Alan Elliott had been a supporter of Stephanie Guthrie. Mr Elliot ran afoul of the political activist when he objected to her plan to conspire against the video game developer. Elliot characterized Guthrie’s intentions as “every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

As a personal observation from me, this appears a rather mild critique. A face-punch video game featuring a person’s image is far less harmful than an organized campaign to ruin a person’s employment prospects and life.

In March 2014, Judge Brent Knazan halted Elliot’s trial after receipt of a letter alleging a criminal conspiracy by Guthrie and two others.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-twitter-harassment-trial-halted-by-surprise-letter-alleging-fraudulent-conspiracy-against-accused

Knazan announced on March 20 that the content of the letter left “police and Crown counsel no option but to investigate,” and adjourned the case.

At the time of this commentary, Gregory Allan Elliot’s trial for allegedly harassing Stephanie Guthrie is over. A decision is expected on October 6th.

For many people, the summary provided above will be nothing new. Canada’s national post has covered the story extensively, and critically of Guthrie’s conduct.

In fact, many people have wondered why a political activist’s claim that disagreement with her would be entertained by the Canadian courts. A political activist’s pursuit of vigilante justice, and claimed victimhood appears a perversion of justice. That the case was not thrown out as a frivolous nuisance lawsuit remains a source of amazement. I know I will be accused of naiveté.

Court documents state: “Ms. Guthrie confirmed that, as far as she was aware, Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was libellous, threatening, or sexual in nature.”

But waiting for the decision of Judge Brent Knazan, many followers of the precedent setting trial believe that of course Mr Elliot will be exonerated.

This is a possibility, certainly. But, given that at no was this case thrown out based on it’s seeming frivolity Mr Elliot might be on his way to jail. Dissagreeing with a feminist in her hot pursuit of mob justice against a face-punch video game developer might now be defined in law as criminal harassment. But the decision of the Canadian court, waiting for the pronouncement of Judge Knazan doesn’t matter. Public, verbal or written opposition to social justice vigilantism is now effectively a criminal act. The possible ratification by the court is a formality. Stephanie Guthrie already has her justice, because Gregory Allan Elliot’s career is finished. He was fired from his job and publicly defamed long before stepping into a Canadian criminal court. Elliot is not a responsible adult opposing social justice vigilantes, no. He’s the criminal harasser of a “truly great young woman”. Those words being the characterization of Guthrie by Christie Blatchford, one of her critics writing for Canada’s National Post.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Mr Elliot must go to jail.
Miss Guthrie must not be inconvenienced with charges of criminal conspiracy, fraud, public mischief or criminal contempt. She is an experienced and accomplished political activist, and a feminist. She is female, and therefore the victim.

Why, in Canada do we even bother ourselves to pursue resolution of grievances by the costly and tedious criminal courts?
Social Justice is clearly faster, more efficient, and it is what people want.

That’s the article. What follows below is unimportant personal rambling.

Years ago, commenting on mainstream feminism’s opposition to due process, I made the following speculation. I guessed that that the public would come to regard the courts as incapable of redressing criminal grievance. I also guessed that removal of Habeas Corpus would drive people towards ad-hoc solutions to personal grievance. I guessed people, being adaptable would abandon law and would seek extra-legal alternatives. I though those solutions would include violent vendetta.

Vigilante violence appeared a probable outcome of removing due process and presumptive innocence from the western practice of law.

Although I predicted vigilante justice as an emerging social norm, I got it almost completely backwards.

I did not guess that the social justice ethic in centres of higher learning would be the active source of vigilante practice. Rather, I guessed it would be an exhausted public who lost faith in rule of law and sought their various cave-man alternatives. Silly me.

It is now clear in Canada that whether the courts have been perverted so that that opposing vigilantism will land you in jail is not even a relevant question. The non-feminist public doesn’t need to lose faith in the rule of law. Non social-justice-warriors and will have no opportunity to adopt extra-legal alternatives for dispute resolution.

The feminist and social justice mainstream has already done it, not reactively, but proactively. The vigilante, social justice of the mob is already normal. And Stephanie Guthrie is a truly great young woman.

Acquit yourself accordingly.

The Will to Unfreedom

“‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” ~Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

I’ve been asked many times to explain why I say “what we don’t want to do is go back to a traditionalist world” and I’ve made a few attempts to explain, but the problem has been that traditionalism as is referred to in men’s rights and in the MGTOW community (Men Going Their Own Way) has been limited to a discussion of traditional marriage.

There are many reasons why traditional gender-role marriages are bad for men, not least of which is that they traditionally bear the burden of being the protectors and providers for women and children. They do this at the sacrifice of their own lives and dreams. In compensation, this act of sacrifice has been given heroic qualities. He is the “good” man and the social rewards are many. This is the justification given by those who support traditionalism and marriage. Even in MGTOW, known primarily for rejecting the institution of marriage, there are some who are merely holding out until feminism loses ground and men are given their traditional respect in their role as husbands.

So the surface discussion rejecting traditionalism doesn’t go very far because the tradition has not been exposed for the fraud that it is. That is what I hope to do today. And, because I’m ambitious, I’m also going to discuss the reason why no political system involving a state will bring about equality. It is not the institution that is set up incorrectly, it is something inside of man himself that I will call “the will to unfreedom.”

Most people would agree that it is desirable for men to live in a state of freedom and prosperity. Our culture and all of our rituals are designed with that pursuit in mind. Yet, time and again, we fail miserably.

“Nobody was very happy with the way history and civilization had turned out, and many thinkers of that time supposed that if the first steps in the process of the oppression of man by man could be pinpointed, then the decay of civilization might be arrested and even reversed.”
~Becker, Escape from Evil. (1975)

To anthropologists, primitive society was largely seen as an egalitarian system lost in the annals of history, and some believed that property was a key element in the origin of inequality. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau noted in his famous essays, stirring revolutionaries for centuries:

“The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
~Rousseau, First and Second Discourses (1754)

It was assumed that social inequality and the propensity for man’s inhumanity to man was rooted in social inequality caused by hoarding of resources by the powerful, and that if these resources were redistributed equally the inequality and suffering would disappear. But this theory failed. Miserably. Many times. There was something deeper in the psyche of men that created a will to unfreedom and Rousseau’s statement gives us a key.

It is not the declaration of ownership by one man but the agreement from others that brings about inequality.

Becker points out in Escape from Evil,

“Social imbalances occur because of differences in personal merit and the recognition of that merit by others.”

The deference of power to others is, at its roots, religious. It is a fear of mortality and the systems we devised to keep that fear at bay. An anxiety with the overwhelmingness of the world around us, our vulnerability to it and the knowledge of our inevitable death. Through the use of rituals and symbolic meaning, each man tried to alleviate his anxiety and survive his own death through the symbolic world of his creation.

In primitive societies men felt a connection to the life giving elements of nature. If a hunt went well, food was abundant, men believed that sacrifices needed to be made to return the gift of life to the creator or source. Prosperity was a sign of approval from the gods and men wished to stay in favour. As such, the bounty of the tribe was shared openly and the surplus given back to the Gods to renew the cycle of prosperity.

Awareness of the fragility of life was kept at bay through the symbolic world man created which would elevate the meaning of his life. He would survive his death by taking part in the rituals and reinforcing the symbols of the tribe. The survival of the tribe assured the immortality of its members.

Objects such as the tooth of a shark were invested with mana power because it was part of the life giving force of the creature. The scalps of slain enemies gave the life force of the previous owner to a man and he carried these trophies around as testaments to his ability to both deal out death and defy it. Symbols of death defiance were worn or displayed by men in order to strike fear into others who would challenge him.

But just being a good hunter isn’t enough. You need other people to see that you are a good hunter.

The accomplishments and symbols required to overcome fear of insignificance can’t be achieved in isolation. It is the acknowledgment of others towards your achievements that proves your worth. In other words, a man requires other men to assert his value and to alleviate his anxiety. Without a mirror man has no reflection or sense of self. So clever systems were put in place to facilitate this system and conveyance of meaning.

Rituals were invented in which every member of the tribe could participate as a life giving force, and rites of passage were created to alleviate anxiety over mortality.

Becker emphasizes:

“Let us not rush over these words: ritual is a technique for giving life.”

He goes on to say:

“… ritual could generate not only bears or yams, or the life of the whole universe, but the individual soul as well. This is the meaning of the “rites of passage” rituals which took place at birth, puberty, marriage, and death: by means of symbolically dying and being reborn via ritual the individual was elevated to new states of being.”

Of course these ideas seem silly to modern man. We no longer believe we can create brown kangaroos by making specific words and gestures over a fire. Yet the symbolic rituals remain the same, only in re-envisioned forms.

The worship of invisible deities was replaced by tribal leaders who were seen as the physical contact point of the Gods. Religious leaders, in older times often epileptics, would have religious fits from which they would come back with visions and the tribe believed they could communicate with the life giving force that caused food to grow and animals to be born. The bounty of the tribe was a reflection of the good relationship the chief had with the creator deity. And if the bounty did not come, if there was a drought, the chief would even offer his own life in sacrifice, or be killed.

How does this differ from the religious devotion current society holds for their leaders? We may not think of them as representatives of God, but we build grand houses for them to live in, we protect them with vast security forces, and we mourn their deaths with disproportionate grief.

Culture, as a death denying fixture, is so deeply rooted that men will die in droves to protect their nation. The survival of the state trumps men’s own self preservation. While many people believe that survival and procreation are the innate driving forces, we find many people throughout history who have taken vows of celibacy in devotion to a god. In a modern context, we find the current homosexual community fighting intensely for public legitimacy, not so they can procreate but so that they may join in the symbolic life of their culture.

As humans, we need to attach to something bigger than ourselves in order to survive our own deaths. We seek this in order to ensure our significance in a world of meaning.

And if you think we are still just talking about primitive society, look around you.

In the ritual of marriage, we can readily see the devastation visited upon “good” men after devoting themselves to family life only to have the family courts strip them financially and emotionally, treating them as cogs in a machine and cash dispensers for women. Yet men still want to get married. They defend the tradition as a life giving force. The symbolic meaning of the ritual is more pressing than the reality.

The MGTOW community is repeatedly asked how they can judge men who choose marriage because aren’t they in favour of men choosing their own paths? And if a man chooses marriage then he is somehow still free. The usual response is that slavery isn’t made okay because the slave gives up his freedom willingly. But why would a slave give up his freedom in the first place? Why do men, knowing the dangers, still choose to get married?

It is a fear based behaviour.

Those who believe marriage is necessary claim that the ritual of commitment somehow solidifies the relationship. They fear that their partner won’t stay unless that ritual is performed. You can see the irrationality of this thinking, given how easy it is to get divorced. Marriage is a commitment “forever”. As if a devotee to the institution can determine the future by performing that ritual. This is magical thinking perpetuated by a desire to organize the chaos of life. Marriage is an immortality project, to be accomplished by binding yourself to something bigger than you. You think you are no longer alone. No longer vulnerable.

In fact, we hear the rebuttals to the MGTOW rejection of marriage phrased thusly:
You’re all going to die alone.

Traditionalists invoke knowledge of mortality to coerce men back into the tradition of marriage.

But will these symbols (marriage, the state) bring about freedom and prosperity? History tells us they won’t. If we elect the right government will inequality disappear? If we marry the right person will our life be made significant? There are many people reading right now who want to answer “yes”.

But until we recognize the fear that makes us believe in these institutions, and reach a point where we don’t need them anymore, we will never be free. We’ll have our illusions, but we will continue to destroy each other out of fear. And the symbolic world will continue trump the needs of the mortal man.

So, we vote in elections, we slaughter others who threaten our way of life, and we make vows to one another based on fear of being alone. We do this, and worse, needing validation that our life has meaning.
And then we wonder why we are not free.

We mock or try to destroy those who threaten our symbols. And when our symbols fail us, we look for the nearest scapegoat to slaughter.

Trust Women

Guys, you’re screwed.

You might think you’re the ones doing the screwing. After all, this is the story repeated to you, and about you in almost all current mainstream discussions of male and female sexual interface. Rape culture is a fantasy about your sexuality. The so-called objectification of women is widely protested. And if you’re unclear about just what that is, it’s you, brother, turning women into non-person things for your gratification. It’s certainly not the conversion of you into a cash dispensing appliance, in which femininity is used to manipulate your spending and behaviour.

And when it get’s down to actual humping, who’s the gatekeeper there? Who is in charge of whether boy and girl get down on a saturday night. If you think men are calling the shots, you’re delusional. Men canvass, and beg, and maneuver and manipulate, and pay, and pander to get a leg over but it’s when she wants to screw that you’re going to get some. And when she doesn’t want any, you are going to be patient, and say that’s ok. And if you don’t like that, we have jail for guys who cant take a hint.

But women don’t just control sex. They also have the only legal voice in reproduction. After all, it’s her body, and therefore, her choice. That jargon is still widely used in the political argument over access to on demand abortion. Left out of the popular political rhetoric is that if it’s his wallet, it’s also her choice. It’s his semen, but also her choice, and his desire to not be a father against his will, that’s her legal choice too.

Did I mention, guys, that you’re screwed? And not in the fun way.

Because what if she uses your semen to get pregnant, whether she stole it from your condom, whether she lied about being on the pill, or whether it was actually just accidental. Why do we will still describe her choice to become pregnant and her choice to remain pregnant with the words “he got her pregnant”.

There is no self actualization in that for her, she’s a passive receptacle of your all powerful sexual organ. And that this bears no resemblance to the real power dynamic of sexual gatekeeping doesn’t matter at all. This is the unexamined myth. The story that you are the decider. Why else would we have myths like rape culture, patriarchy theory. Why do we have an idiotic concept that men sexually manipulated by pictures of perky boobs are turning women into objects, rather than those men being exploited?

But screwing and baby making are barely even the beginning. We also have the courts, the education system, entertainment industry, government and family courts all informed by female-centric ideology. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that this ideology includes an irrational malice towards men.

Based only on the accusation of a woman, our society will destroy the life and livelihood of any man of who it is whispered: rapist. Conviction in a court of law is not needed, accusation is guilt.

Domestic abuse in which the victim does not leave after one incident means it is two people, and not just one responsible for the continuation of a violent relationship. To presume that an adult woman in such situations are powerless is to cast for her the role of a child.
And intimate partner violence’s propaganda, in denial of equal commission by men and women, uses the misleading term violence against women.

Due to populist myth and scorn of male identity, women face little consequence for the use of lies about threats or violence to strip men of their freedom, property or children.

But, of course, in observing this obvious fact – we are told that of course women don’t lie about such things. Because, um, what they’re innately innocent or something. But this rebuttal denigrates women – denying them their full humanity, which includes the capability to be just as evil as the next villain you can name.

But to conclude that women are simply, or innately evil is to miss the point entirely. Women as a group are neither inherently “bad” or “good”, just as men too are also simply people. Some are malicious, some are good, but all are flawed to some degree regardless of their sex.

But, where advantage can be taken by individuals within a system, it will be. Because of this, and the climate vilifying of men elevating of women; the greater incentive for allowable exploitation lies with women. So while there are many women of amoral character, it is the socially and legally tilted playing field of social reality which invalidates men’s ability to trust women. Not the positive, negative, or the indifferent character of individual women.

As a relationship fails, each person exiting that relationship is going to evaluate and pursue new paths to meet their financial and emotional needs. The same needs which were formerly being fulfilled by that relationship. For women, casual theft of the man’s income is one of the easiest options, without a negative stigma, and with public institutions to enforce his compliance. That so many women take this path should surprise nobody. If men had the same options to exploit women with the cheerful participation of the courts and financial system, then men would earn a reputation equal to that of women. Where advantage can be taken, it will be.

The odds in this system are stacked against any outcome except betrayal and destruction. Certainly, many women are not unethical, nor are seeking to exploit men’s sub-person status in society. Unfortunately, many women are quite pleased to exploit male destructive outcomes on an opportunistic basis. There is no social or legal de-motivator for those who would exploit the system women now enjoy.
But worse than lack of disincentive for harmful behaviour is a social narrative which provides positive feedback for antisocial conduct. That narrative relies on on a maintained belief in the victim status of women. Attack rhetoric about toxic masculinity and the suffering of women justifies her retaliation against an endless male war against women.

The reality of no actual anti woman war is of no consequence, in social reality. The woman filing a false accusation is noble – standing up for her rights, and not simply a predatory criminal exploiting the credulity of the public and the courts.

In the system where all men are bad, and all women are good, she is a heroic. She becomes the brave victim who turned the tables on a predator when she stole your house, or had you jailed on a fraudulent charge.
A quirk of human behaviour is that people given positive social feedback for an action will believe that action is noble, even if it is objectively monstrous.

So why would she even feel guilty, when her social group lauds her heroism for what is arguably criminal, predatory, and amoral opportunism?

And men can’t reasonably trust women in this system.

But that social system, or the social reality contributing to this problem is built on a set of overlapping myths. The first of these is the idea of the innate goodness of women. This fairly simplistic conception rises out of the attitude of worship by small children of their mothers.

Where a child’s mother is the primary caregiver, the first source of nourishment, it’s easy to see how the female becomes a universal good.

This shows up in many ways, including the tender years doctrine, in female goddess rhetoric, and other idiotic but still popular ideas.

The idea that women are innately innocent and non-threatening helps tilt the playing field on which all fault is male, and all victimhood is female. And yes, I know it sounds stupid when expressed in simple terms. It sounds stupid because it is stupid.

For some men shedding their cultural programming replace myth of women’s innate victimhood with the idea of female innate evil. And departure from the naive belief in the fundamental good and innocence of women can inform a more self preserving behaviour in men. But it is not a step towards comprehension to replace one innate behaviour with simply another innate behaviour.

But the problem of trust in relations between men and women is still unanswered.

If men and women are going to carry on together (and they are) and end up in each other’s lives, beds and dwellings, (and they are) then an alternative model is needed. And this model must depart from the vision of female innate purity, and malevolent male aggression.

And it will not be women now in control of social reality who make this change. Why would they, when a myth of their own innate innocence and natural goodness serves them as a social caste so well?

The problem of trust in relationships is a problem for men, which men will have to solve.

One approach is to treat women as if they are men.

Whatever she is doing, whatever she is saying – here is the question for you to ask yourself.

Would you accept her behaviour if she was a man?

The Trap of the Hero

You are a hero, and that’s your problem.

That probably needs a bit more exposition, so this article will have to be longer than 8 words.

You’re not the Man of Steel. You aren’t more powerful than a locomotive, or faster than a speeding bullet. You don’t have super hearing, or super strength, and you’ve never leaped over a tall building in a single bound. You also can’t fly, except in a straight line towards the ground – once.

Nonetheless, you’re a hero and that’s why you’re screwed.

Your heroism isn’t the capital letter insignia of a cape wearing man in red and blue tights, your heroics are written lowercase. You might sit in a car in grid locked traffic for hours each day just to get to the job you work to pay for her house, groceries and lifestyle. And don’t let your name on the mortgage confuse you, that’s her house. This is part of what makes you a hero. And that commute of yours is heroic too, in case you wondered.

Despite your modest heroism, you have all the super qualities of that capital S emblazoned comic book myth. You weather abuse and indifference to your own pain with almost the noble silence of a Kryptonian. You routinely put your own needs after the needs of those you serve. And if you imagine that deal is reciprocal, you are in error. But your service and self sacrifice does have one benefit, you get the provisional public identity as a “real man”. So long as you don’t rock the boat. Superman doesn’t complain about the burdens of being a super man.

Of course, Superman is an imaginary character from a comic book. By contrast, you are a real person. The fact that you are an actual man living in the real world is of course why your day to day heroic qualities are small. A real man can’t compete with an imaginary fellow who flies and deflects bullets.

Superman doesn’t exist. He only exists as an imaginary heroic figure to put your small-H heroism into his shadow. And your sacrifices of comfort, of your health, of your own needs behind the needs of those you serve, comprise your real world modeling of the hero archetype.

Why are so many men driven from their own homes to a basement or a garage? If modern transportation still used horses you’d be sleeping in the stable, rather than the main house. It is not that you are banished, rather you have banished yourself in a bizarre gesture of self sacrifice. How stoic of you, it’s only too bad a cape is not in modern fashion. After your important bills are paid, what fraction of your disposable income do you spend on yourself, and what fraction on those you serve?

The sacrifices made daily by men on behalf of others, viewed only as “positive masculinity,” are small scale heroism. Compared to the idealized hero, your heroic character is small and unimpressive.

Next to Superman, or Hercules, or some other legendary figure, you will always be inadequate. You are not Friedrich Nietzsche’s Ubermench or a member of the DC comics Justice League.

He is the pure, idealized image of what you cannot be. You are not an indestructible strong man from outer space. He doesn’t need his basic humanity, his pain, or his fatigue recognized. He doesn’t feel fatigue, he doesn’t have human needs, and he will never fail in being a hero – because he is imaginary. You are not imaginary.

But you’ve been conned. You bought into the hero identity. You work hard to maintain your conferred identity as a good man which is small scale writing of the word hero. That’s what keeps you in your service role. It’s what keeps you working for somebody else’s dreams rather than your own. It’s what makes you believe somebody else’s goals are your own.

Superman lives a life of never ending errands. But they’re not for him, he runs from urgent task to urgent task for others. Imagine your own job and the tasks your boss puts on your desk. Now imagine each one comes with priority: urgent. All tasks are top priority urgent. You cant prioritize tasks because your just an employee taking orders.

To be superman is to be a slave.

So why do you still esteem the conferred identity of “good man” or “real man”? Are you so foolish and weak minded that you see no other possibility for yourself?

It’s obviously not quite so simple. Departure from the assigned role of hero comes at a great cost in pain.

When Dr. Warren Farrell spoke in Toronto in 2012 about problems facing boys in the education system, conformists and authoritarians chanted “Shame!” Dare you consider men or boys as anything except service automatons who have un-addressed needs? Shame! Shame!

When a crowd of sixty shouts that at you it is withering, even if you are following your conscience. No coherent reason is offered other than that you have deviated from your assigned service role.

The word shame is the revocation of your good-man dues-paid card. And it works to put you back into your harness because, in your life, you have unconsciously modeled the hero archetype.

But what are you going to do with this knowledge? The concept, possibly new to your consideration that you have modeled the hero archetype for your entire life? Heroism is a mental trap, making your human worth dependent on conformity to a destructive ethos of self abasement.

It is not enough to recognize our own modeling of the hero archetype and the blockage it creates for self determination. Human beings are social animals and we live in a world of created meaning. We don’t live in a world of concrete survival challenges on which to focus, we live in the context of a human created social reality. So how does a man exist without a model for himself in that world of symbolic meaning?

He doesn’t. Having value within a world of meaning, which is to say, having social value is a basic human need. The most obvious answer for men is to reject the hero archetype and to select an alternative. One possibility is to replace the super hero with the super villain. The super villain is not affected by a consensus of public opinion on his status as a good man. He is not controlled by disapproval. Whatever model we choose, it should be based on the recognition of heroism as a scam and a tool of control to be dumped by anyone who seeks self determination.