“When a leftist gets involved with a rightist, it reifies the leftist’s power; when the rightist involves himself with the leftist, he knowingly puts himself at risk. For the leftist, it isn’t about submission to a would-be ubermensch, but in dominating someone who poses as strong while lacking real social power.
It reminds me of another online phenomenon: women who become attracted to incels. It often begins as narcissism masked as a savior complex—they alone can see the person’s true worth. Or worse, they offer the poisoned validation of being “one of the good ones,” “not like the other.” And in turn, they get to feel like the “only one” who ultimately understands the outsider. But they don’t want to save them, not really. They want to have power over them.
Far from victims though, the outsiders are willing participants in their own eventual humiliation. The outsider divulges secrets, compromises their principles, even betrays their communities... for a taste of sex, a taste of playing the rebel for the establishment, for the unique joy of being an exhibitionist watched by a voyeur, and also, maybe perplexingly, for their position as a loser to be validated by their dangerous lover.”
I love the way you use your connection with K to reveal yourself a little. What you reveal about yourself is very sexy, your thought processes and insights show great understanding and kindness which is usually lacking in a journalists approach. Keep it up, I’m hooked.
I think this is a fantastic example of the unacknowledged desire young men have for emotional intimacy, and how the rejection of women in general, particularly liberalised women, is further contributing to extremisation of young men. I think it's clear from K's conversations he desires intimacy more than his political ideology, unfortunately such ideologies are probably a major contributing factor as to why he can't get the intimacy he so obviously craves. As a 24 year old male myself, I can sympathise with the willingness to forgo political differences to get female attention; a hungry dog will eat whatever is served. Poor guy just wants to be loved...
It's unfortunate, but the willingness to forgo political difference in a potential partner probably indicates that his political ambitions are driven by his lack of emotional intimacy. As one wouldn't so easily look past what they desire unless what's on the other side is perceived to be of more value. I'd like to think people have more conviction in their political stance, but it appears to have been adopted as a reaction to unfavourable events and not because it supposedly offers a better way forward.
Stella, after reading part 3 of this mundane yet very relatable ongoing detached romance, I posted a comment and you responded. I typed up a response to your response but I decided to hold off because I felt I may be jumping too many steps ahead. After reading this instalment, I changed my mind. That response I never posted turns out to be on point, especially after K revealed "I love things I can never have". Here it is (you may need to revisit my first comment and your response for better context):
"I can now better figure out what's in it for K. I think it's a matter of longing for something so tantalizingly close yet permanently beyond reach. I doubt very much he'd have had any chance at all if he had met you at a place and time when you're in your more urban sophisticated element. You on the other hand is not so easy to figure what you're getting out of this. That you're getting something out of it I have no doubt. But if I were to make a guess, I'd say it has something to do with the regressive feeling your engagement with him evokes. What you described as the feeling of being transported back to the teenage years and the innocence and simplicity of feeling that characterize its intense passion. But in this case, K brings you the gift of passion and rewards you with the feeling of power.
I think he's right in realizing that you'll soon grow bored of him if he doesn't keep making himself interesting. And when you said he's wrong, I think it partly suggests that you've drawn the line as to how far it's possible to go with him. It's good for both of you but he won't like it."
K is a lofty capital R 'Romantic'. His tragedy is that he lacks the capacity to realize his romantic ideal in real life. It is the reason why he is right when he said he can never be ultimately satisfied with any girl once he 'conquered' them...he immediately starts longing for something higher and stirring. Something more exotic. What is truly captivating about you for K is not you as you are in real flesh, blood, and mess. It is the idea of you. That's exactly what makes him a true Romantic and why he's kinda doomed.
And the greatest mistake you can make with him is mistaking his infatuation for something concrete. But I suspect you already know this, at least subconsciously because the decision you've made, the line you've drawn already reflected this knowledge.
Interesting, so you're saying that he's in love with the idea of love thus making it impossible for him or at best difficult to have a real relationship, romantic one.
I accused K in a few of my comments a couple of days ago of being a poser, putting on a mask, a performance for Stella because he thinks he's found an angle that works. Not saying I'm right but to often the 'hopeless romantic ' or the ,'bad boy'end up being masks that are worn for various motives
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's why Stella was actually very accurate when she accused him (I think in part 2 or 3) of projecting his fantasies unto her. Romantics like K have to project positively and exaggeratedly precisely because their often heavily configurated feelings of love is incapable of being aroused by an ordinary object. Hence, they initially respond to an object with the shape and outline of the almost impossible 'ideal' they seek and then increasingly replace in their mind the picture of the real object (the real person) with that of the ideal they crave. They achieve this through 3 means: intimate distance, exaggerating the positives, discounting/minimizing the negatives. K has absolutely exhibited all the strategies so far.
But as is the case with all Romantics, I think he'll soon become disillusioned. I think my initial assessment (that Stella may soon grow bored with him) is less correct. I think it is more likely he becomes disillusioned with the real her because he is building her up unconsciously precisely for such a fall from High Grace. And it is the reason why I said in my last comment that Stella is right to have drawn the line with him. It'll be a terrible mistake on her part to succumb to the temptation of revealing herself to him as she truly is. That'll spell the end of her magic in his cloistered and infantile imagination.
Lastly, K is like that Dostoyevsky's character (In The Brothers Karamazov, I think) who declared that he cannot love a particular human but 'humans' in general. The former is always too real and messy for the Romantic's highly developed sensitivity to imperfections. The latter is abstract and therefore infinite in its potential for purified rendition in the Romantic's imagination.
He's putting her on a pedestal. Worshipping the 'goddess " if that makes any sense. Agree the disillusionment will set in for K at some point. I find this series of interest because I was much like him at that age. The hopless romantic heart on his sleeve type who idealized women rather then seeing them as flesh and blood humans, individuals.
Romantics are by nature "beautiful souls" which oftentimes render them naive, innocent, and appealing to the more worldly-wise (I guess this is part of K's appeal to Stella). The real problem for K's kind isn't that they fall in love too easily and intensely with an idealized object, but that it's impossible for them to stay in love. And the reason is in part because what they love is not the real thing but its idealized representation. I also like to think of Romantic Idealists as a more healthy version of the borderline personality. They're borderlines without all the projective and externalized chaos and carnage.
Growth or maturity for romantic idealists (if they desire it) often entails a bold venturing out into the real messy world purposely to expose their romantic idealism to the deadly miasma of reality. If it survives, then they've earned the right to live by its codes and expectations. But most likely, the idealism will die or be transmuted to be replaced by something more placid, and therefore more attainable and sustainable.
You said you used to be like K and I wonder what the process was that changed you?
Hey! I'm loving the comments in this thread. Do you have any reading on this topic? I feel this information relates to me and would like to take a closer look, something that's not in the context of this conversation however.
Honestly, can't think of any material or link off the top of my head. But if you're a fiction guy, you can check out most of the work by Dostoyevsky. His books often accurately depict K's type in all their psychological complexity and naivete. I think this is because Dostoyevsky himself was a Romantic (though a romantic realist rather than idealist).
Merci beaucoup Stella for sharing these lovely talks with K. i wish K to accept himself and grow up beautifuly. He deserves better than his current loneliness.
Quite aside from choosing personal politics solely to be provocative, it is sad to see how a low quality internet information diet stops a person from being able to understand others or what their motivations are. Every person he refers to is attractive or attracted to him based on being “high status” or identity characteristics. Nothing about chemistry or personal style. Being this sort of incel is a downwards spiral of cluelessness. He can see how trapped he is, but he has no option but to self reinforce.
I would def not put K in the basket of men who fail to identify or create chemistry, and I meet many for those. I also don't think he is an incel, based on both my observation of his behaviour and the stories he tells me. An incel would not travel as he does to meet people. He is willfully misrepresenting information online and other people's motives though and that is what is stopping him from connecting with more people, or more deeply.
It's been interesting reading this "Conversations" series. Today's episode sparked a few thoughts:
1) The internet has created new dimensions of parasocial relationships. Back in the Golden Age of Television, it was said that some people would get all dressed up to watch their favorite shows because the characters were "family" and they wanted to present themselves properly - regardless of the fact that the TV broadcast was a one-way transmission. Social media - with its potential of two-way interaction - can vastly increase the parasocial effects. You noted correctly that "K" is in love with the image of you that he created from your writings, and thus assumes a familiarity that doesn't truly exist. He's in love with the idea of a glamourous international media personality and the associated lifestyle, which brings me to my next observation -
2) His self-professed simping is a desperate cry to escape his provincial surroundings, and he's projecting that onto you. His desire to "shock the normies" and his self-professed attraction to foreign women is (to me, at least) a shout that says "I want to be anywhere but here and anyone but me." He needs a mentor who can take his innate cleverness and harness it into some kind of productive and challenging activity, and who will also enforce some discipline upon him to aid in accomplishing his goals. It seems as though he doesn't have anyone like that in his life, and no inspiring examples of which to take note. He may not want to work in a freezer forever, but also may not know how to take the first steps to move in a different direction (or even know what that direction is.)
I was conflicted about whether to call my relationship with K parasocial or not and I concluded that it is not parasocial. Even if we had not first met in real life, our interactions through chatting or on calls are entirely bilateral. He is not talking into the void; he is speaking to me and I am responding in earnest. I think we all want to escape ourselves from time to time, even the most content of us. He does need a mentor though, not that his life is meaningless as is or that there is anything wrong with just chilling with your friends in your 20s and working dead end jobs for a bit, but where does that leave you in your 30s onwards.
"not that his life is meaningless as is or that there is anything wrong with just chilling with your friends in your 20s and working dead end jobs for a bit, but where does that leave you in your 30s onwards." It either leaves one content with working dead end jobs in one's 30s (as many are) or leaves one bitterly regretful over opportunities not taken - and that will not likely be offered again. K seems as though he would fall in the latter category if he never took the chance to make changes in his life.
Chatting shit. Perfect. Your friend ,K maybe an incel? I've watched YouTube stuff of those guys, pick up artists, dating coaches etc. I think they're full of shit. What do you think of their whole thing?
I want him to read Models by Mark Manson, because he is a moderate guy who used to write dating advice before he pivoted to life skills advice. I wanted to send him the book but he refused to give me his address. I wonder what he'd make of it. I don't think K is into pick up artistry as he is social enough to be able to talk to women.
He's a smooth operator, after all K has gotten you hooked on doing a so far 4 part series on him. You've gotten him hooked too. In a way you're both 'picking each other up" Have to admire his finesse
didn't have that when I was 24. No jealousy as I have no wish to emulate him or pua in general. Already spoken for.
Or he really is a lonely soul who's trying to truly connect with himself by opening up to people, mainly women because usually they're the most receptive. Cynic in me says bullshit. I've seen way too many guys use that shtick. Used it myself in a different style decades ago.
Have you read this piece?
https://default.blog/p/the-forbidden-fruit-of-politically
“When a leftist gets involved with a rightist, it reifies the leftist’s power; when the rightist involves himself with the leftist, he knowingly puts himself at risk. For the leftist, it isn’t about submission to a would-be ubermensch, but in dominating someone who poses as strong while lacking real social power.
It reminds me of another online phenomenon: women who become attracted to incels. It often begins as narcissism masked as a savior complex—they alone can see the person’s true worth. Or worse, they offer the poisoned validation of being “one of the good ones,” “not like the other.” And in turn, they get to feel like the “only one” who ultimately understands the outsider. But they don’t want to save them, not really. They want to have power over them.
Far from victims though, the outsiders are willing participants in their own eventual humiliation. The outsider divulges secrets, compromises their principles, even betrays their communities... for a taste of sex, a taste of playing the rebel for the establishment, for the unique joy of being an exhibitionist watched by a voyeur, and also, maybe perplexingly, for their position as a loser to be validated by their dangerous lover.”
Well this all works in the reverse in Russell Brand's case.
Hmmm 😆
I love the way you use your connection with K to reveal yourself a little. What you reveal about yourself is very sexy, your thought processes and insights show great understanding and kindness which is usually lacking in a journalists approach. Keep it up, I’m hooked.
I knew it! He's in love. Hmm wedding bells in your future. Could be an interesting match!
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves
Of course, joking. Just my goofy humor
It’s all good, comment section is a safe space 🧘♀️
Good to know. Some online spaces aren't. Like Twitter. I left that one years ago
We all chat shit amicably here 🙏
I think this is a fantastic example of the unacknowledged desire young men have for emotional intimacy, and how the rejection of women in general, particularly liberalised women, is further contributing to extremisation of young men. I think it's clear from K's conversations he desires intimacy more than his political ideology, unfortunately such ideologies are probably a major contributing factor as to why he can't get the intimacy he so obviously craves. As a 24 year old male myself, I can sympathise with the willingness to forgo political differences to get female attention; a hungry dog will eat whatever is served. Poor guy just wants to be loved...
It's unfortunate, but the willingness to forgo political difference in a potential partner probably indicates that his political ambitions are driven by his lack of emotional intimacy. As one wouldn't so easily look past what they desire unless what's on the other side is perceived to be of more value. I'd like to think people have more conviction in their political stance, but it appears to have been adopted as a reaction to unfavourable events and not because it supposedly offers a better way forward.
Stella, after reading part 3 of this mundane yet very relatable ongoing detached romance, I posted a comment and you responded. I typed up a response to your response but I decided to hold off because I felt I may be jumping too many steps ahead. After reading this instalment, I changed my mind. That response I never posted turns out to be on point, especially after K revealed "I love things I can never have". Here it is (you may need to revisit my first comment and your response for better context):
"I can now better figure out what's in it for K. I think it's a matter of longing for something so tantalizingly close yet permanently beyond reach. I doubt very much he'd have had any chance at all if he had met you at a place and time when you're in your more urban sophisticated element. You on the other hand is not so easy to figure what you're getting out of this. That you're getting something out of it I have no doubt. But if I were to make a guess, I'd say it has something to do with the regressive feeling your engagement with him evokes. What you described as the feeling of being transported back to the teenage years and the innocence and simplicity of feeling that characterize its intense passion. But in this case, K brings you the gift of passion and rewards you with the feeling of power.
I think he's right in realizing that you'll soon grow bored of him if he doesn't keep making himself interesting. And when you said he's wrong, I think it partly suggests that you've drawn the line as to how far it's possible to go with him. It's good for both of you but he won't like it."
K is a lofty capital R 'Romantic'. His tragedy is that he lacks the capacity to realize his romantic ideal in real life. It is the reason why he is right when he said he can never be ultimately satisfied with any girl once he 'conquered' them...he immediately starts longing for something higher and stirring. Something more exotic. What is truly captivating about you for K is not you as you are in real flesh, blood, and mess. It is the idea of you. That's exactly what makes him a true Romantic and why he's kinda doomed.
And the greatest mistake you can make with him is mistaking his infatuation for something concrete. But I suspect you already know this, at least subconsciously because the decision you've made, the line you've drawn already reflected this knowledge.
Interesting, so you're saying that he's in love with the idea of love thus making it impossible for him or at best difficult to have a real relationship, romantic one.
I accused K in a few of my comments a couple of days ago of being a poser, putting on a mask, a performance for Stella because he thinks he's found an angle that works. Not saying I'm right but to often the 'hopeless romantic ' or the ,'bad boy'end up being masks that are worn for various motives
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's why Stella was actually very accurate when she accused him (I think in part 2 or 3) of projecting his fantasies unto her. Romantics like K have to project positively and exaggeratedly precisely because their often heavily configurated feelings of love is incapable of being aroused by an ordinary object. Hence, they initially respond to an object with the shape and outline of the almost impossible 'ideal' they seek and then increasingly replace in their mind the picture of the real object (the real person) with that of the ideal they crave. They achieve this through 3 means: intimate distance, exaggerating the positives, discounting/minimizing the negatives. K has absolutely exhibited all the strategies so far.
But as is the case with all Romantics, I think he'll soon become disillusioned. I think my initial assessment (that Stella may soon grow bored with him) is less correct. I think it is more likely he becomes disillusioned with the real her because he is building her up unconsciously precisely for such a fall from High Grace. And it is the reason why I said in my last comment that Stella is right to have drawn the line with him. It'll be a terrible mistake on her part to succumb to the temptation of revealing herself to him as she truly is. That'll spell the end of her magic in his cloistered and infantile imagination.
Lastly, K is like that Dostoyevsky's character (In The Brothers Karamazov, I think) who declared that he cannot love a particular human but 'humans' in general. The former is always too real and messy for the Romantic's highly developed sensitivity to imperfections. The latter is abstract and therefore infinite in its potential for purified rendition in the Romantic's imagination.
He's putting her on a pedestal. Worshipping the 'goddess " if that makes any sense. Agree the disillusionment will set in for K at some point. I find this series of interest because I was much like him at that age. The hopless romantic heart on his sleeve type who idealized women rather then seeing them as flesh and blood humans, individuals.
Yes, it makes absolute sense to me.
Romantics are by nature "beautiful souls" which oftentimes render them naive, innocent, and appealing to the more worldly-wise (I guess this is part of K's appeal to Stella). The real problem for K's kind isn't that they fall in love too easily and intensely with an idealized object, but that it's impossible for them to stay in love. And the reason is in part because what they love is not the real thing but its idealized representation. I also like to think of Romantic Idealists as a more healthy version of the borderline personality. They're borderlines without all the projective and externalized chaos and carnage.
Growth or maturity for romantic idealists (if they desire it) often entails a bold venturing out into the real messy world purposely to expose their romantic idealism to the deadly miasma of reality. If it survives, then they've earned the right to live by its codes and expectations. But most likely, the idealism will die or be transmuted to be replaced by something more placid, and therefore more attainable and sustainable.
You said you used to be like K and I wonder what the process was that changed you?
I grew up, it's as simple as that. Made a decision that unless I wanted to die a bitter lonely old man something needed to change
Hey! I'm loving the comments in this thread. Do you have any reading on this topic? I feel this information relates to me and would like to take a closer look, something that's not in the context of this conversation however.
Honestly, can't think of any material or link off the top of my head. But if you're a fiction guy, you can check out most of the work by Dostoyevsky. His books often accurately depict K's type in all their psychological complexity and naivete. I think this is because Dostoyevsky himself was a Romantic (though a romantic realist rather than idealist).
Merci beaucoup Stella for sharing these lovely talks with K. i wish K to accept himself and grow up beautifuly. He deserves better than his current loneliness.
Quite aside from choosing personal politics solely to be provocative, it is sad to see how a low quality internet information diet stops a person from being able to understand others or what their motivations are. Every person he refers to is attractive or attracted to him based on being “high status” or identity characteristics. Nothing about chemistry or personal style. Being this sort of incel is a downwards spiral of cluelessness. He can see how trapped he is, but he has no option but to self reinforce.
I would def not put K in the basket of men who fail to identify or create chemistry, and I meet many for those. I also don't think he is an incel, based on both my observation of his behaviour and the stories he tells me. An incel would not travel as he does to meet people. He is willfully misrepresenting information online and other people's motives though and that is what is stopping him from connecting with more people, or more deeply.
It's been interesting reading this "Conversations" series. Today's episode sparked a few thoughts:
1) The internet has created new dimensions of parasocial relationships. Back in the Golden Age of Television, it was said that some people would get all dressed up to watch their favorite shows because the characters were "family" and they wanted to present themselves properly - regardless of the fact that the TV broadcast was a one-way transmission. Social media - with its potential of two-way interaction - can vastly increase the parasocial effects. You noted correctly that "K" is in love with the image of you that he created from your writings, and thus assumes a familiarity that doesn't truly exist. He's in love with the idea of a glamourous international media personality and the associated lifestyle, which brings me to my next observation -
2) His self-professed simping is a desperate cry to escape his provincial surroundings, and he's projecting that onto you. His desire to "shock the normies" and his self-professed attraction to foreign women is (to me, at least) a shout that says "I want to be anywhere but here and anyone but me." He needs a mentor who can take his innate cleverness and harness it into some kind of productive and challenging activity, and who will also enforce some discipline upon him to aid in accomplishing his goals. It seems as though he doesn't have anyone like that in his life, and no inspiring examples of which to take note. He may not want to work in a freezer forever, but also may not know how to take the first steps to move in a different direction (or even know what that direction is.)
Maybe the next episode reveals more?
I was conflicted about whether to call my relationship with K parasocial or not and I concluded that it is not parasocial. Even if we had not first met in real life, our interactions through chatting or on calls are entirely bilateral. He is not talking into the void; he is speaking to me and I am responding in earnest. I think we all want to escape ourselves from time to time, even the most content of us. He does need a mentor though, not that his life is meaningless as is or that there is anything wrong with just chilling with your friends in your 20s and working dead end jobs for a bit, but where does that leave you in your 30s onwards.
"not that his life is meaningless as is or that there is anything wrong with just chilling with your friends in your 20s and working dead end jobs for a bit, but where does that leave you in your 30s onwards." It either leaves one content with working dead end jobs in one's 30s (as many are) or leaves one bitterly regretful over opportunities not taken - and that will not likely be offered again. K seems as though he would fall in the latter category if he never took the chance to make changes in his life.
To each their own
Chatting shit. Perfect. Your friend ,K maybe an incel? I've watched YouTube stuff of those guys, pick up artists, dating coaches etc. I think they're full of shit. What do you think of their whole thing?
I want him to read Models by Mark Manson, because he is a moderate guy who used to write dating advice before he pivoted to life skills advice. I wanted to send him the book but he refused to give me his address. I wonder what he'd make of it. I don't think K is into pick up artistry as he is social enough to be able to talk to women.
Perhaps you're right he doesn't need it.
He's a smooth operator, after all K has gotten you hooked on doing a so far 4 part series on him. You've gotten him hooked too. In a way you're both 'picking each other up" Have to admire his finesse
didn't have that when I was 24. No jealousy as I have no wish to emulate him or pua in general. Already spoken for.
Or he really is a lonely soul who's trying to truly connect with himself by opening up to people, mainly women because usually they're the most receptive. Cynic in me says bullshit. I've seen way too many guys use that shtick. Used it myself in a different style decades ago.
Just my thoughts on this series so far.
You have seen where guys admit to crying to pick up women?
Where are you from? Upside down land? aprilfoolsville?
i am just a honest man with nothing to lose from lying - K
I am a self identified incel