Congruence Is A Bigger Virtue Than Patience


What do I find annoying about people or first notice about them? If you asked me when I was a teenager, I wouldn’t be able to answer that question. But now I’m older with more life experience, I can. Don’t ask me why I find it annoying, I just do. I don’t seek them out, I don’t walk towards them as I walk away from them, so how should I know?

In the past, around 15 years ago, I could say that you could tell how good a friend is, by how much patience they give you. Nowadays that isn’t true any more and I have to use a more granular and obscure approach, to know who can and cannot be trusted and who isn’t a real friend. I won’t talk much about my red flags, at all, only the amber flags, as in who shall be allowed into my social circle, I mean the social circle I’m in that someone else is the ringleader of, so although I can refer people, I don’t ultimately decide who gets to join its meetup and its associated community, once vetted there.

I think that we all know people, like the six examples mentioned below.

#1 Tradthots

tradthot = traditional woman who claims she’s a married stay at home life but instead has casual sex with multiple men at once, thotting around

Women do lie about their political and sociological opinions for fame and money.

Lauren Southern claims she’s a traditional woman as a stay at home mother who wanted to get married, but she has casual sex and is promiscuous and has no intention of getting married. Lauren Southern claims she’s a white nationalist while doing work with Generation Identity while she’s having sex with black men. So she doesn’t truly believe the opinions she says she does, she just lies about her opinions for money The obvious question, what other opinions does she say on youtube and tv, that she doesn’t actually believe in?

June Lapine aka Shoe on Head is another one. She claimed to be conservative but now in her late 20s she has flip flopped on her conservative opinions and is now saying more liberal opinions. For example before she was against mass immigration but now she believes in open borders, among other things. She also had a blog where she criticised men’s behaviour but she later realised that would prevent a crowd of thirsty beta males from donating to her crowdfunding and boosting her subscriber count, so she deleted her blog articles. She’s been scrubbing her twitter account and has later flip flopped on her earlier beliefs, while deleting the beliefs she lied about agreeing with, all while failing to acknowledge this, pretending it never happened and blocking anyone on twitter who raises this point.

Tara McCarthy is another one. She had a youtube channel called Think Vegan where she was an atheist liberal vegan sex-positive promiscuous feminist. She then deleted that channel and became a christian conservative anti-feminist white nationalist youtuber. She realised where the money was. Alluding to male fantasy to have opinions that are more desirable to men.

They have zero original opinions, they just regurgitate what someone else said 2 or 5 years ago, all while they are really selling a psychosocial relationship with crowdfundees that they’ll never speak to, as their content quality is truly sub-par, as they adapt themselves to an idyllic symbolism of male fantasy as they sell the symbolism of that, by how they manifest and masquerade themselves.



Nowdays you’ve got the young teenage girls complaining about the pickmeisha’s or the “pick me’s” I’m not like other girls

They always mention it on their carrd personal websites LOL

But I wonder how it feels realising you got scammed after donating to their patreon every month for over 10 years?

What exactly is being sold here?

Yes she’s selling, to quote her words, NSFW photos. No joke.

What exactly is being sold here?

  • Original opinions???
  • Regurgitated and plagiarised opinions
  • Her personality
  • Her discord server
  • Her one-to-one conversation with a crowdfunder
  • The symbolism of pandering to idealistic male desire with co-adopted aethestic copied from porn stars (eg. Ahagao, chokers, slow breathy voice)
  • A parasocial relationship
  • Her NSFW explicit photos
  • Cringe content and rage profiteering like Leafy and Sniperwolf

It’s a nice hustle earning £19,990 a month, except for the fact that spearheads and pseudo-activists like you, counter-intuitively harm the MRA movement, in the same way that Steven Crowder harms conservatism

Game with me on console
Play phone games with me

roma army

Speaking of tradthots selling NSFW photos, who also charge money for you to play video games with them, I saw some 8-10 out of 10 looking girl in some other discord server, claim that she earns $170 A DAY for just merely speaking to men online.
She doesn’t even have to resort to prostitution or sell nudes on onlyfans, just talking to them.
Look at this website e-pal, where men pay women money to play video games with them. It’s the spiritual successor of Gamecrush.

The simp economy is on a whole another level!

But….but….but….men do it too!

You’re right there! They’ve even got a word for it. Wokefishing.

When men will pretend to be liberal, woke, politically correct, feminist, progressive – whatever – when really they’re the complete opposite and are lying to impress women (probably to get laid). As I said in a previous article….

sorry to be cliquish but open-air meetups are counter-productuive

Further Reading

  • insert articles about wokefishing here, later on
  • two
  • free

#2 Tradcucks

A tradcuck is someone who will use pro-male sound bites to be signalling to others that they are a male ally whilst appearing laudable to their peers by distancing themselves from the more derisive, divisive and unsavoury parts of feminism that those extreme radical feminists preach morality and complain about.

All while at the same time, when analysing men’s issues, they are inconspicuously counter-productive for men due to their weighted agency causing their flawed logic to result in them giving glaringly wrong and short-sighted reasonings and justifications for any social patterns, attitudes, opinions, interests or any other phenomenon.

In a perfect world, people would acknowledge that women have the agency (1) to make choices (2) and by women committing this, this then dictates the future options (3) and outcomes (4) that we are given

Tradcucks do not acknowledge this. They treat women as having kid gloves and poor impulse control who have to be mollycoddled all the time as if they’re wrapped up in cotton wool. Tradcucks do not assign as much agency to women for their actions, as they would for men.

The same logic applies with biphobia within the LGBT community

1. However you could take the same sort of logic, in theory, and apply it to biphobia within the LGBT community.

There is a lot of biphobia in the LGBT community.

Imagine if the bisexual person in question is a man.

It is common for heterosexual women to refuse to date a bisexual man because in their opinion because “all men are the same”, as the way they think, he’ll only just feign serious intentions whilst only wanting something casual and he’ll only just cheat on her anyway – so bisexual men are less of a flight risk than straight men.

Straight women think that bisexual men have a higher sex drive than straight men and are twice as likely to cheat.

Now imagine that the bisexual person in question is STILL a man.

It is also common for homosexual men to refuse to date a bisexual man, or sometimes even commit domestic abuse against a bisexual man, on the basis that the gay person will feel insecure and incompetent, as he feels that he cannot compete with women, on a physical, personality and communicative level, as women stereotypically tend to be better at reading people than men whilst exhibiting a higher level of communication from a wider vocabulary and extra figurative speech. combined with higher social skills and a more counter-intuitive and confusing personality.

It is common in relationships with a gay man and a bisexual man, for the gay man to start committing domestic abuse as a way to compensate for him feeling incompetent in comparison to a woman. To be specific, psychological abuse, social isolation and coercive control. The gay person will try to isolate the bisexual boyfriend from his friends and family.

Here’s a good rhetorical question. If the gay man wouldn’t be doing it if his boyfriend was instead gay, then does that make his behaviour discrimination and a hate crime?

This prejudice and stigma, it seeps its way inside the LGBT community, no matter how much its members claim to be LGBT or bisexual allies. So yes the LGBT community does have a lot of biphobia.

It’s gone to the point now, where you’ve got bisexual people who fake being homosexual on dating websites, so they can date a person from within the LGBT community.

So if you’re bisexual, you can sometimes feel that you don’t fit anywhere, as the wider world is too homophobic and heteronormative but the LGBT community is too

Real life example of encountering a tradcuck

So now to give you an example

I was on a voice call on discord and there was a TRADCUCK in the chat. He tried to claim that he was both a feminist ally and an MRA ally, by claiming he is so against Rape Culture by mentioning that under british law, it is impossible for a woman to rape a man, that it’s downgraded to groping, due to the way the legislation is written.

He used that point, so he can gain some brownie points from the feminist who setup the voice call, probably because he fancies her or wants to enter her social circle, as there was some obvious lies he told her. The woman is autistic and he knows it, so he knows that she’ll believe his lies, as he’s psychoanalysed her, to get an idea of what sort of lies she would and would not believe.

Me: Don’t you think that there’s something differently about the way male sexuality is treated, so if some male celebrity was to do something that is legal, to then have it classed as sexual harassment, that if a woman did the same thing to a man and nobody sees it as sexual harassment, don’t you think it says something about the way male sexuality is treated and how women perceive it?

His answer: That’s because of gender roles. Men are conditioned to initiate while women are supposed to be passive. Now I don’t know whether he genuinely believed that opinion or whether he just fancied the woman or wanted to enter her social circle, as she knows a lot of people.

But he would be classed as a tradcuck.

MRA’s or Mens Rights has been hijacked by tradcucks. I don’t really read their blogs and forums but from glimpses I’ve read, it just seems like they are.

I thought it was best not to argue as he would be manipulative to distort my words to make me look bad in front of the autistic woman who would not be able to sense that he’s being manipulative or would intentionally twist my words.

Conclusion for point 2

Now about the biphobia thing. Imagine if this happened in a conversation.

Bisexual woman: blah blah blah blah

Lesbian woman who claims to be an LGBT ally who is against biphobia: That’s because of HISTORICAL gender roles

While she absolves the gay men and lesbians, of any blame or responsibility for any biphobia that any bisexuals would experience, that it’s all due to heteronormative gender roles which permeated in the media and the cultural institutions.

Remember that there is LOTS of biphobia within the LGBT community.

So that’s my example for point 2.

People who claim to be an ALLY for whatever it is, whilst also being counter-productive to that ALLY, as they view another demographic as exempt from any accountability for their decisions. In a perfect world, people would acknowledge that Group X have the agency (1) to make choices (2) and by Group X committing this, this then dictates the future options (3) and outcomes (4) that we are given Tradcucks do not acknowledge it. Replace X with any other demographic.

The agency is misplaced and lopsided by them, it’s too high when it should be less and way lower when it should be more.

#3 Diplomats

I just find the diplomat type people annoying. They’re always playing devil’s advocate in conversations. They never want to “take sides” in any argument or dispute with anyone else. They always have to sugarcoat their words beyond belief, like some PR speak, that goes beyond how most people would speak, like it’s some kids tv show where everything is sugarcoated and mollycoddled

They believe in the Big Tent theory, that if you exclude all the extremists, that you can get everyone under a Big Tent They believe in the Horseshoe Theory, that both sides are more similar than they are different, and if they had discussions, they’d realise that they’re more similar than they realised.

They always try to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides, as its their diplomatic imperative to never do or say anything that would make them lose an ally, to turn an ally into an adversial or even a distant deserter.

I just find the diplomatic people so annoying, and they always try to middle groudn things.

So I just find those diplomatic people VERY ANNOYING

How could I possibly have a conversation with them? What would I talk about? We would run out of things to talk about. There would be no common ground and I don’t mean topics. I mean like a shared understanding like sharing the same sense of humour.

The type of person I am, my sort of personality and the type of things that I talk about, how could I be friends with a diplomatic type person, if we’d run out of things to talk about? How could you get to know such a person?

Consider the diplomatic imperative when a country is considering whether an ally has committed state sponsored hacking, compared to an adversary

Their imperative is to always be diplomatic at all costs. Everything has to be worded and proposed in a way, to keep diplomatic ties with two different parties, at all costs, two different parties which disagree with each other, at all costs.

If there is any opinion or proposal which will cause offence, uncomfortableness, outrage or dissent by any one party, the diplomatic person (those two channels) will never express it and never propose it.

It’s like a country that tries to keep diplomatic ties with two opposing countries, who thinks that it’s better to keep both countries at allies, than to have 1 remaining ally after losing one, as the lost one will just change to switch to becoming an adversary. In my opinion, those two channels being the middle ground and the diplomat, is wrong and dangerous and is creeping in liberalism (that you say isn’t real liberalism) by the backdoor.

Stand for nothing and you’ll fall for everything

Stand for nothing and you’ll fall for everything


A person who claims to be a centrist, tries to appeal to the floating voter (either ambivalent or indifferent) or someone who acts like a diplomat, will end up….

  • When they later realise they are wrong, worse than the liberal or conservative who would look inward to analyse their cognitive bias and analytical lens, furthering the extensive hours they’ve had mulling things over, before and after their opinion – the centrist or diplomat will contrastingly look outward at the hashtags, zeitgeist and public opinion, when correcting their discarded opinions
  • The centrist or diplomat will have various cognitive biases and blind spots, of which they are not aware of, of which the liberal or conservative would be more likely to be aware of
  • The centrist or diplomat is more likely to be manipulated by domestic abusers, insidious lying politicians and duplicitous manipulators who form tactical alliances
  • Overall spend less time formulating their opinions to even be conceptualising or mulling it over, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages

#4-5 Smart Memory Metal Analogy


Well imagine those smart memory metals, where when you bend the metal with your hands, it goes back to its original shape, like rubber bands, lycra tights and whatever else they use it for.

Point 4: People who lack backbone whilst interlocuting suppositions, when newly push comes to shove

Well just imagine those DUMB memory people who behave as if they have opinions and a certain side of stances for things, whether they express an opinion or not, it just needs to be presumed that they have one. But once the situation in the room becomes hotter, they behave increasingly more like they don’t have one.

It’s kinda like a quasi-flip flop but without expressing any opinions. It’s like a shape-memory paper clip that instead of turning back into a paper clip shape once someone bends it with their hands, it instead goes in reverse, to go from a peculiar paper clip shape, to instead a flat line.


Point 5: People who are guarded and especially always reticent

And now the 5th point. I think you already know what that one means already. Just that you wouldn’t word it the same way I would word it, LOL Those people who make an active effort to never say anything off-key, off-colour, offhand or off-base. Maybe even never saying anything offbeat, if they’ll go that far.


Also they have ZERO opinions other than “that ice cream sure is good and tasty”

#6 Tit-for-tat mentality

The 7th and hopefully final

thing I find annoying about the way people are congruent, is if they have a tit-for-tat mentality, so everything has to be 100% equal at all times with a perfect 50/50 split in every single possible aspect. I’ve been thinking about this for a LONG time to be able to answer your question. Can you believe I can STILL remember how that conversation started? LOL

In every situation, whether legal, regulatory, economic, social, knowledge or connections or whatever else, there is always going to be someone who is in the bargaining position, who will be able to use that to either drive prices down to the disparity in the supply and demand, or they can demand an additional item, tangible or not, to be exchanged in addition to what they were previously offering.

This person can also individually or collectively, set the market prerequisites, that’s needed in order to compete before seeking with any slim chance. The problem I have with the tit-for-tat mentality, is hard to articulate in words but I think I have a way to explain my issue with it.

Example One

Imagine that two people like eating large chocolate bars, the ones with the blocks that you can easily tear off. If one person complains that they are always sharing with their chocolate with someone else and that the other person is sharing nothing or just one tiny square, then I can probably see their point and agree with it. But I have ACTUALLY SEEN situations where someone who would typically give someone else 3 rows of chocolate (16 in total), would complain that the other person only given then 1 row (4 in total). I don’t really see where the issue is, social reciprocation wise, for why the person would feel offended, insecure or neglected over that. 16 squares vs 4, I really don’t see what the issue is.

Example Two

So imagine a man goes on a date or a quasi-date with a woman, to then proceed to say within the first 15 minutes To then her not like that being expressed so adamantly and forthright, without prior derived expectations. It’s not the principle that’s the problem but the overall attitude associated with that. But what problem? I’ve been thinking for a long time about this.

I’m not buying you drinks

​Accusing a single person of having collective blame, for what other people do. As if somehow, they were blossoming it over 10 years ago, to later be encouraging and endorsing it. But most importantly, that they’re apparently gatekeeping it, as if somehow, they could easily let other people share a fraction of their privilege, if they weren’t so selfish or greedy. Emphasis on gatekeeping. They’ll say (as the person who perceives others to believe they’re gatekeeping) that they don’t personally create the hivemind.

Dehumanising a person due to having privilege, as if privilege helps to cushion the blow of any hardship faced. It’s much like how people dehumanise celebrities on twitter, so it’s perceived that it’s less severe to troll a celebrity on twitter than a commoner, as the celebrity’s privilege helps to cushion the blow, so it should hurt less. Also as a compounding factor the tit-for-tat person can sometimes feel justified in being abusive, as they feel that the other person is intentionally gatekeeping their privilege away from them, in a way that could easily be alleviated at will.

A person who does the “false dilemma” logical fallacy within social interactions, which in a sentence is “you’re either with us or against us”, type black and white thinking. But their problem comes from being unable to resolve issues due to “participatory prioritisation” as well as “misaligned cadence”.

I’ll give an example about the 2 terms (I just made up lol) in my 3rd bullet point.

About the participatory prioritisation, imagine that some woman wants to spend 8 hours outside shopping with her husband, for something that could normally be done in 3 hours, it’s just that she spends long to walk around and does a lot of window shopping and returning back to the same shop she saw earlier. And on the same day it was planned, the husband’s male friends ask him to go outside drinking with them.

From the woman’s perspective, you speak to your male friends any time, including after work in the evening. But you can’t go shopping on every day of the week, as people have to go to work and sometimes the opening hours are obstructive.

From the man’s perspective, there is no good reason for him to be spending 8 hours with his wife doing mostly nothing, that could typically be done in 3 hours, especially when most of it isn’t productive or even socialable, especially when it would be more productive to spend the 8 hours doing something else with his wife, even if he spent the day with her rather than his male friends.

Most importantly, it’s not that he’d rather not go every day or that he wouldn’t go if she wasn’t around but instead because he didn’t want to go for ONE day out of all the other days he went along with her.

About the misaligned vernacular, that one’s easier to explain I don’t really like that example much. Maybe two people who don’t share (or even understand) each other’s sense of humour, as it’s completely different from each other

It’s hard to think of any more examples or even the best example. If I wasn’t autistic, I’d be able to think of some better examples.

Where do you draw the line?

If you look at the 3 bullet points, it all boils down to one common denominator, if you triangulate them together.

A person who cannot resolve personal differences regarding a MINUTE disparity of emotional attainment needs or shared interests.

Especially when some things aren’t black and white.

So the way I see it.

That one seems a bit silly as all the other ones apply 100% of the time but that one only applies some of the time.

  1. What if someone is perceived to be doing some annoying or uncomfortable behaviour, that someone else doesn’t perceive that way? Everyone has bad traits, flaws and shortcomings. How far does a person have to go, to impede and hinder themselves, just to accommodate for someone else? How far on the spectrum from self-modulating to subservient, does someone have to go, before it’s a line drawn too far?
  2. Where do you draw the line, if someone wants someone else to do something, that they are obligated to do and it was part of a prior agreement or social contract, when the other person says no? How far should people compromise on their own desires for a shared activity or daily commitment, just to please someone else?
  3. Where do you draw the line, as to which behaviours should be done of your own accord in line with your principles, against which ones you wouldn’t normally do but you “pick up the slack” or accommodate to do it anyway, to give it allowances? If everything should be 50/50, what if someone else doesn’t really want to do that thing or if they’re intrinsically not good at it? If everyone should be 100% true to themselves, what if someone wants you to do something you’d typically disagree with? Where do you draw the line? How can someone aim to make every emotional ATTAINMENT need be equally matched as 100% or 50/50, if under statistical probability, the chances that you’re going to be with the perfect person or 90% perfect person, is VERY low. And besides, if you haven’t met your soulmate by 21, you’re never going to meet them, as they’ve already been snapped off the market by someone else.
  4. Where do you draw the line between what behaviour is done to be kind and altruistic or to show appreciation and interest, or where such behaviour is just done with some manipulative intent or ulterior motive? So where do you draw the line and how do you determine who is trustworthy or not based on one thing? Or even better, who is compatible with each other, so they don’t drift apart after 2 years, like family members, school friends and partners often do.

In short, the person with the tit-for-tat mentality, would be the person would ABSOLUTELY have problems with such things, by displaying an immature, short-sighted and false dilemma black and white type attitude.

To redress an amber flag requires more divulging but for a red flag, it’s just a self-terminating statement

Imagine if you had an experiment where you had a list of two amber flags and two red flags, where you’d have a stranger have a conversation with someone else, four in total, then you disclose the red flag to two of them and the amber flag to the remaining two, as if it applied to them, when really you just want to see how they’ll change their conversation style and topic, after it’s disclosed.

For the amber flags, the only way to rectify the issue, is to become less guarded and disclose more.

About a red flag, for some people it’s something like someone who contradicts themselves, being self-centred or _____. But once that is told, everything is up in the air with ambiguity if that was disclosed to the subject. They can just say they were contradicting themselves because they are judged by others a double bind, retroactive rule changes or double standard, or if they are seeming self-centred, they can just say they was bullied in school so they were delayed by 5-7 years as according to their peers.

No I’m Not Saying What My Red Flags Are

Some people don’t get better, they get better at it. Some people will profess everything and redress nothing.


It reminds me of why the self-contained rootkit software like Hijackthis, GMER and Rootkit Revealer are defunct, antiquated and no longer developed. Because hackers who made viruses would adapt their software for it, to make their viruses behave differently when that software was open. So the white-hats had to make counter-measures for their black-hat counter-measures, then the black-hat hackers made counter-measures for the white-hat counter-measures. But it was one-sided as the black-hats could see the software of the white-hats by readily downloading it but the white-hats did not have access to the viruses that were prevalent in the wild.

It’s the same reason why banks, shops and lenders do not reveal to their customers that they’ve been suspected of fraud.

  • They will become more sophisticated at evading detection,
  • They will destroy evidence about themselves
  • They will tell all their fraudulent friends they’re in cahoots with, how to better evade detection
  • Fraudsters NEVER stop committing fraud after being given a warning, they simply commit fraud again somewhere else, except in a more sophisticated and clandestine manner

If I was to publish what my four red flags are, all that would happen is that the wrong type of people would use it, to better evade detection, who also happen to be the type of people who are most likely to seek out such information.

If a person, can in theory, explain things in a concise, comprehensive and consolidated way, as well as readers reading something that is authorative, definitive and decisory, then if everyone is reading off the same hymn sheet, then that’s how we got into this mess in the first place, where people keep getting betrayed by scammers, mate crime, coercive control, mono messiah complex and domestic abusers. However I tend to be non-imposing, non-definitive and non-decisive.

All the above six types of people, will cause Evaporative Cooling, within a social circle


I should write a conclusion later. This article is long enough as it is.

But anyway

Further Reading

Related Posts