David Sutcliffe

Men don’t want to go to therapy. It's true. Why would they? When the American Psychological Association declared traditional masculinity “harmful.” And the majority of therapist are women who graduated from woke institutions that want to smash the patriarchy. And how does sitting around talking about your problems help you become more powerful and successful? It doesn’t. The truth is most therapy is useless for men. You’re better off taking up Ju-Jitsu or hitting the gym, working out your emotions through intense physical exertion. That said… if you’re honest with yourself, there are times when your emotions get the best of you. You lash out, reactive. You get defensive, angry. You isolate, retreat, blame, make yourself a victim. You self-sabotage. Procrastinate. Miss workouts. Eat shitty food. Smoke weed. Watch porn. And then you judge yourself for it. “What the fuck is my problem?” So you make a vow to be more disciplined. “This time I’ll commit.” But you don’t. Sure, maybe you stick to it for a while, but ultimately the bad behavior returns and you’re back where you started. You’re in a loop. It’s Groundhog Day. You’re getting nowhere and you don’t know why. I’ll tell you why: ALL YOUR SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR IS DRIVEN BY UNCONSCIOUS EMOTIONS. And until you know and understand these emotions, you will never be free. Master Your Emotions. Master Reality. Do you believe you create your reality? You better. Otherwise, you’re at the mercy of events outside yourself, a slave to circumstance. No freedom or control. Like a pinball randomly bouncing off bumpers locked inside some ridiculous game. It’s how life felt for me for a long time. Until the pain was too much to bear, and I got angry enough to finally face the fear I’d been avoiding all my life. If you’re still reading this, you probably know what I’m talking about. What happened? I woke up and saw the matrix that was running my mind. A program written in my childhood and reinforced by a culture intent on keeping me weak and small. I was being ruled by unseen forces inside myself. It was a powerful awakening. But it TOOK ME DOWN. Everything I thought I knew was a lie, and I spun into chaos. “Who am I?” “Is anything fucking real?” I quit my career and went searching. Radical group therapy. Ayahuasca. Vision Quest. Meditation. Breathwork. I tried it all. I went to the depths of my darkness, fighting all the way, until finally let go and surrendered to my pain. And then I saw the light of freedom. The one true thing. The Way What does all this have to do with emotions? EMOTIONS ARE THE MATRIX. They are source of every thought and belief you hold. And it’s your thoughts and beliefs that are the architects of your world. “So I just need to change my thoughts and beliefs to get what I want?” Yes, but it’s not that simple. Because there’s an Agent Smith inside your mind determined keep you down. And he’s a liar. A tricksters. A killer. And he will stop at nothing. To really change and make it stick, you have to debug the program. Then rewrite it at the source. This means facing your fears and confronting your pain. It means letting go of your old life to make way for the new. It means surrendering your ego and letting God work through you. It means taking responsibility for your life and a total commitment to your mission. You came here for a reason. You have something to give. Something to contribute. Something to build. Something to create. This is your salvation. And it’s waiting for you... schoolforkings.com

@MsMelChen And the cycle will repeat. And knowing it won't stop it. Because we are not rational nor in control.

@SutcliffeDavid On Dalio:

If you haven't been NOTICING this about Tucker Carlson, then you should by now. This is a mask slip moment. What he's touting here is multipolarity, which is nothing more than a politically correct way to say American decline. The Chinese Communist Party has been chanting the exact same tune for years - a “peaceful rise,” a “multipolar world order,” and “shared power” with America. They couch it in such docile language knowing full well what it means - the slow erosion of American primacy while they build up their military capacity, steal tech, and dominate global supply chains. Furthermore, Pax Sinica (a Chinese-led world order) and Pax America are fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive. They are antithetical systems. One cannot expand without shrinking the other. Beijing explicitly views the current US-led order as “an unfair constraint to its rise” and wants to replace its norms with its own. Indeed it has violated many of these terms that defined the Post WWII order and the US, until Trump came along, did nothing in response to these violations. These include trade violations, territorial claims in the South China Sea, sketchy dual-use operations and tech, etc. Multipolarity or “sharing power” is not a peaceful compromise - it’s the transition phase between one Pax and the next. The CCP has never hidden that it wants a China-led order. The United States (until recently) never hid that it intends to preserve the one it built. These two peaces cannot coexist any more than Pax Britannica and Pax Germania could have co-ruled Europe in 1914. That’s why “multipolarity” is just Western declinism with better branding. America First isn’t about imperialism. It’s about refusing to live under rules and norms written in Beijing. Tucker has shown he's not America First.

@christopherrufo Both are still slaves. As are you. As are we all.

Would you rather be a black slave in the antebellum South or the assistant manager at Panda Express?

@christopherrufo This is why the manosphere. Young men are feeling hopeless. You mock them.

Men of Austin tx. Mens retreat with @SutcliffeDavid, @arangoldstein and myself. Matterful.co/men

@captive_dreamer What is the alternative?

Chinese "Professor" Jiang tells Tucker Carlson that the United States should abandon its role as a global “hegemon” and “bully” and seek an equal ‘partnership’ with China, Russia, and Iran. Don't worry, this definitely isn't an op

@YOHAMI Who benefits?

Since when can a not handsome, middle aged intellectual become famous - by doing hours long lectures, with a webcam, on obscure topics, on YouTube? It doesn't happen. Discovery is dead. Anything hitting mainstream is paid for, propaganda or product placement. Professor Jiang is my favorite internet blackpiller but he's not a professor, maybe not even Jiang. He's a cartoon paid and promoted by someone who benefits from people accepting that the doomsday is not optional. 100s of hours of blackpill diagnostic and never a tool on how to defeat the enemy. Rising while all intellectuals from the West get suppressed by the algorithm. PS. Also he's doing this in English, from China, where YouTube is banned.

@brian_armstrong "You will live forever" is literally how Satan seduces.

Getting old shouldn't be viewed as inevitable, just because it happens to everyone. It's a disease that kills over 100,000 people a day, and hopefully it will be optional in the future.

Activist: "The water usage for beef is obscene. Thousands of litres per kilogram." Farmer: "That's rainfall." Activist: "What?" Farmer: "The figure includes all the rain that falls on the pasture. The cows drink from the stream. The rain falls whether there's a cow here or not." Activist: "It's still water consumption." Farmer: "Should I stop the rain falling on my field?" Activist: "Grow crops instead. More efficient." Farmer: "This is a 35-degree slope in the Welsh hills. Show me the crop." Activist: "Technology..." Farmer: "To make tractors climb mountains?" Activist: "There must be a solution." Farmer: "There is. It's called a cow." Activist: [checks phone]

@SimonDixonTwitt Is Iran aware of this?

Because market insiders know that this war has a defined ending and outcome. No matter how much it gets derailed by the military industrial complex. The financial industrial complex is getting ready for rebuild contracts aligned with the new multi polar world order. Energy is resetting those contracts.

@peterboghossian So deny my survival instinct?

Before people get carried away with this, even if this finding is replicated it is NOT reason to discriminate against an individual.

Inside The Manosphere.

@CartoonsHateHer High status male humiliates low status male, proving the manosphere's worldview is correct.

For years, people conflated "privileged" straight white men (finance bros, frat bros) with the manosphere and misogyny, but the reality is that today's online manosphere is all a game of class and status--for men who were born with neither. Link in replies.

@MarcosArrut "You will live forever" is how Satan seduces.

I work 12 hours a day in my lab. We're going to eradicate aging. No matter what. That's all.

New leader of the Manosphere.

@pmarca Intellectualization is a defence.

From my therapist Claude: The Adlerian Demolition of Introspection Alfred Adler built one of the most hostile philosophical ecosystems ever devised for the practice of looking inward, and he did it with a precision that neither his admirers nor his detractors have fully reckoned with. The brutality of the Adlerian position isn't gratuitous — it follows logically, almost mechanically, from his core metaphysical commitments. Once you accept those commitments, the popular conception of introspection as a path to self-knowledge collapses entirely, and what's left in its place is something considerably more disturbing: the suggestion that your feelings are not discoveries but productions, manufactured by a self that is already oriented toward a goal it will do almost anything to protect. The Foundational Inversion: Teleology Over Etiology Everything begins here. Freud was a thoroughgoing determinist and causalist — the psyche's present state is the effect of prior causes, and the therapeutic task is to excavate those causes through introspection (free association, dream analysis, the whole apparatus). Feelings, on this model, are data that point backward toward buried causes. Introspection, then, is archaeology: you dig inward to find what happened to you that made you the way you are. Adler rejected this root and branch. His fundamental claim — and it is a genuinely radical one — is that human beings do not move from causes but toward goals. The psyche is not a machine whose output is determined by its inputs; it is a teleological project, a movement oriented toward a fictional final goal (fiktive Ziel) that the individual has, largely unconsciously, set for himself in early childhood. Everything about a person — their characteristic emotions, their symptoms, their memories they choose to retain, their personality style — is recruited in service of this movement toward the goal. This single move annihilates the Freudian (and popular) conception of introspection all at once. If your feelings are not caused by your past but are instruments generated in the service of your goal, then sitting quietly and examining them is not discovery — it is, at best, the study of your own propaganda. Emotions as Tools, Not Truths This is the gut-punch of Adlerian psychology, and it deserves to be stated as starkly as Adler himself intended it. In The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology (1927) and throughout his clinical writings, Adler makes the claim that emotions are manufactured by the individual — created, not merely experienced — because they are useful for the individual's movement toward his goal. Consider anger. Common sense says: something happens, it makes you angry, the anger is a reaction. Adler says: you create anger because anger is useful to you. It justifies your behavior. It dominates the room. It moves others out of your way. It protects your self-esteem by externalizing blame. The anger is not a response to the world — it is a tool deployed against the world in the service of your fictional goal. The same analysis applies to anxiety, depression, sadness, guilt, and virtually every other affective state the therapeutic tradition has treated as meaningful data requiring careful introspective scrutiny. Adler is not saying these states aren't real in the sense that they are genuinely experienced. He is saying they are created for a purpose, and that the purpose is almost never what the person believes it to be. Depression, in the Adlerian framework, is not the product of chemical imbalance or repressed trauma or cognitive distortion. It is a form of hesitation — a self-manufactured state that allows the individual to delay engagement with the three fundamental life tasks (work, love, and community) while simultaneously maintaining a plausible excuse for the delay. "I cannot engage fully with my relationships because I am depressed" is the structure of the argument the depressed person makes to himself, and the depression obligingly performs this structural function with great reliability. This is where Adler gets genuinely ruthless: if your depression is a tool you've manufactured to avoid life's demands, then introspection into the depression — examining its contours, trying to understand where it comes from, what it means about you — is not therapeutic. It is indulgent. It is, to use Adler's language, a way of taking your symptoms seriously in exactly the wrong sense: you dignify them, you make them meaningful, you cooperate with them. The depression grows in the greenhouse of your attention to it. Introspection as Safeguarding Mechanism Adler developed the concept of Sicherungstendenzen — safeguarding tendencies — to describe the various psychological maneuvers by which the neurotic protects his self-esteem and avoids the genuine test of his capacities against life's real demands. These include hesitation, procrastination, construction of symptoms, depreciation of others, and — crucially — self-accusation. Self-accusation is the most relevant to introspection. The person who spends hours examining his own feelings, cataloguing his anxieties, tracing the genealogy of his resentments, mapping the landscape of his sadness — this person is, in Adlerian terms, still talking about himself. Still the center of his own universe. Still not doing work, not loving anyone, not contributing to the community. The sophistication of the introspective project is no argument in its favor — if anything, it is a mark against it. The more elaborate and refined the inner life the neurotic constructs, the more successfully it functions as an alternative to actual engagement with the world. There is something almost diabolically clever about this critique. It severs the link between psychological depth and therapeutic value that virtually every tradition — psychoanalytic, humanistic, Buddhist, existentialist — takes for granted. Depth of introspective engagement is not progress. It is often its opposite. The person who says, "I've been in therapy for ten years and I really understand now why I became the way I am" has, from the Adlerian vantage point, potentially spent ten years constructing an increasingly ornate justification for remaining exactly as he is. The etiological story — "I am this way because of what happened to me" — is comfortable precisely because it faces backward. The past is fixed. The past cannot demand anything of you. Introspection into the past, into your feelings about the past, into the feelings the feelings generate — this is a very efficient way of never having to face the actual question, which is: what are you going to do, now, about work, about love, about your membership in the human community? Private Logic and the Solipsistic Trap Adler distinguished between Gemeinschaftsgefühl — social interest, community feeling, the sense of belonging to and contributing to the human collective — and Privatlogik — private logic, the idiosyncratic system of reasoning the individual constructs to make his lifestyle appear coherent and justified. The neurotic, for Adler, lives primarily in private logic. His reasoning makes sense from the inside — it is internally consistent, emotionally compelling, often highly sophisticated. But it is systematically oriented away from common sense and social reality and toward the maintenance of the fictional final goal and the lifestyle that serves it. Here is the devastating implication for introspection: introspection, almost by structural necessity, deepens private logic. You are inside your own head, examining your own feelings, interpreting your own experiences through the categories your own lifestyle has constructed. You cannot get outside your private logic by going further inside it. The introspective process, absent a rigorous challenge from a skilled interlocutor who refuses to cooperate with your excuses, tends to confirm what you already believe about yourself — which is precisely what your private logic requires. This is why Adler was deeply skeptical of free association as a therapeutic method. Letting the patient roam freely through their inner landscape, following their associations wherever they lead, seemed to him a recipe for elaborating private logic rather than exposing it. The analyst who sits quietly and receives the patient's associations is, in Adlerian terms, cooperating with the patient's neurosis rather than challenging it. The therapeutic stance must be much more active, much more confrontational, much more oriented toward the future and the life tasks than toward the endlessly fascinating depths of the patient's past and feelings. The Arrangement of Memories One of Adler's most striking specific claims concerns memory. He argued that the memories people retain are not a random or representative sample of their experience — they are selected because they are useful to the lifestyle. People remember what confirms their lifestyle's fundamental assumptions. The person who has built his life around the experience of being wronged will remember, with great clarity and emotional richness, every instance of injustice visited upon him, and will have only the haziest recollection of the many occasions when he was treated generously. This means that introspective archaeology — digging into your childhood memories to understand yourself — is not accessing historical truth. It is accessing a curated archive that your lifestyle has assembled in its own service. The early memories that feel most vivid and emotionally significant are precisely the ones your private logic has promoted, precisely because they support the conclusions your lifestyle needs you to draw about yourself and the world. In What Life Could Mean to You (1931), Adler makes this point with characteristic directness: the first memory a person reports is not an accident. It expresses, in condensed form, the fundamental assumptions of the lifestyle. But those memories were kept because they were useful, not because they were uniquely formative. Adler's therapeutic technique of asking for earliest memories was not an act of etiological excavation — it was a diagnostic shortcut to map the lifestyle's structure, which could then be challenged directly. The implication for introspection is corrosive. You cannot trust what you find when you look inward, not because your unconscious is cunning and deceptive in the Freudian sense, but because your entire inner archive has been organized by the lifestyle in the lifestyle's interests. Your feelings about your memories, your interpretations of your experiences, your sense of what you are and why you are that way — all of this material has been processed and filed by a system that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of your lifestyle. You are examining edited footage and taking it for raw reality. The Inferiority Complex as Introspective Engine Adler's most famous contribution to the psychological lexicon — the inferiority complex — is, in his own framework, almost always made worse by introspection, and the two phenomena have a structural affinity that is worth examining carefully. Every human being begins life in a condition of objective inferiority — small, weak, dependent, unable to meet its own needs. This universal experience generates a universal striving for superiority, for competence, for overcoming. Under favorable conditions, this striving is healthy, socially oriented, and expressed through genuine contribution to community. Under unfavorable conditions — discouragement, pampering, neglect — the striving becomes distorted into a neurotic quest for personal superiority or superiority over others, rather than superiority in the service of community. The inferiority complex (as opposed to ordinary feelings of inferiority) is an arrangement — a cultivated sense of one's own inadequacy that serves as a permanent excuse for avoiding the life tasks. "I cannot pursue meaningful work because I am fundamentally inadequate" has a structural function: it protects the fictional goal (which is often some grandiose private fantasy of special status) by ensuring it is never actually tested against reality. If you never try, you never fail. If you never fail, your private fantasy of what you could have been remains intact. The connection to introspection should now be obvious. The inferiority complex feeds on introspective attention. Every hour spent examining the contours of your inadequacy, tracing its origins, giving it a rich inner life — this is an hour in which the complex is being maintained and elaborated rather than overcome. Introspection, in this context, is a form of neurotic self-indulgence that the complex recruits for its own perpetuation. The more you know about your inferiority complex, the more real it becomes, the more it crowds out the one thing that would actually address it: Mut — courage — specifically the courage to engage with life's demands despite the very real possibility of failure. The Antidote: It Is Not More Looking Inward Adler's therapeutic orientation was radically future-focused and action-oriented. The question was never "why are you this way?" but "what are you going to do?" The goal was not self-understanding in the introspective sense but reorientation — a shift in the fictional final goal and the lifestyle that serves it, toward greater social interest and genuine engagement with the life tasks. This is why Gemeinschaftsgefühl — social interest, variously translated — functions for Adler as the primary criterion of psychological health. It is not a feeling you discover inside yourself through introspection; it is a direction of movement toward others, toward contribution, toward community. You cannot find it by looking inward. You find it by looking outward and acting accordingly, and you build it through action rather than through understanding. The Adlerian therapist — Dreikurs in particular, who systematized and extended Adlerian clinical practice — was not a passive receiver of the patient's introspective material. The therapeutic stance involved active interpretation, confrontation, encouragement (in the technical sense of building courage), and direct redirection toward the life tasks. The patient's feelings, when they arose in therapy, were treated as communications about the lifestyle rather than as data requiring sympathetic exploration. "You feel anxious about this — what does that tell us about what you're trying to avoid?" The Kishimi/Koga Popularization and Its Distortions It's worth noting that the popular Adlerian revival associated with The Courage to Be Disliked (Kishimi and Koga, 2013, English translation 2018) captures some of this anti-introspective thrust but softens it considerably for mass consumption. The book's central propositions — that trauma doesn't exist as a determinant of present behavior, that your emotions are chosen, that you should separate your tasks from others' tasks — are genuinely Adlerian. But the book's gentle, Socratic format somewhat obscures the full brutality of the underlying framework. Adler himself was considerably more pointed. His clinical vignettes, scattered through Understanding Human Nature, The Pattern of Life, and The Case of Miss R., show a practitioner who was willing to tell patients quite directly that they were using their symptoms as excuses, that their suffering, however genuine it felt, was being manufactured in the service of avoidance, and that the solution was not to understand the suffering better but to stop cooperating with it and engage with life. The Final Verdict The Adlerian position on introspection and feelings can be summarized with some precision: Feelings are not causes; they are instruments. You manufacture them to serve your movement toward your fictional final goal. They are neither honest reports of your inner state nor reliable guides to your history. They are tools, and like all tools, they should be evaluated by what they accomplish, not by how they feel. Introspection is usually neurotic avoidance with a philosophical veneer. The person who knows himself deeply, who has excavated his anxieties and catalogued his resentments and mapped his emotional geography with great thoroughness — this person has typically accomplished one thing: a very sophisticated excuse for not engaging with work, love, and community. The depth of the inner life is inversely correlated, in Adler's clinical experience, with the degree of genuine social contribution. The archive you examine when you introspect has been curated by your lifestyle in the lifestyle's interests. You are not discovering yourself; you are reading your own propaganda. The feelings that seem most important, the memories that seem most formative, the self-interpretations that seem most true — these have all been selected and processed by a system that is fundamentally committed to maintaining the status quo of your fictional final goal. The antidote is courage, not understanding. Specifically, the courage to engage with the life tasks despite uncertainty, imperfection, and the real possibility of failure. You do not need to understand yourself before you act. You need to act, and in acting, you will discover more about yourself — and change more about yourself — than any amount of inward looking will ever provide. This is an extremely uncomfortable position for a culture that has thoroughly internalized the therapeutic assumption that self-knowledge is intrinsically valuable and that the examined life is superior to the unexamined one. Adler would say: examined by whom, in whose interests, toward what end? If the examination is conducted by the private logic, in the service of the fictional goal, toward the end of perpetuating the neurotic lifestyle — and it usually is — then the examined life is not better. It is just a more articulate version of the same evasion. The unexamined life that contributes to the community, that engages honestly with work and love, that acts with courage in the face of genuine risk — that life, for Adler, is worth more than all the introspective sophistication in the world. Which is, when you sit with it for a moment, either the most liberating or the most terrifying thing anyone has ever said about the examined life. Possibly both simultaneously, which is probably why Adler remains so systematically underread.

@MyLordBebo Huh? The left wind radicals were depicted as resentful, drug addicted, perverted, and comically stupid. Losers.

🏆🇺🇸 Anti-Trump film "One Battle After Another" won the Oscar for Best Picture Depicts left-wing radicals attacking migrant detention centers to free detainees Critics have already labeled the film a political manifesto against Trump

From ep with ⁦@SutcliffeDavid⁩

Still eagerly awaiting the Louis Theroux documentary on 'toxic masculinity' featuring interviews with the thousands of female victims of grooming gangs.

@peterboghossian @Spencer416Rigby Please explain what you think he means.

@Spencer416Rigby That's NOT what his tweet states. Read it again.

This is not only demonstrably false, it is blatantly anti-American.