JozRoz's Mungo Stew

Between 1992 and 1997, the United States Secret Service, working with the National Institute of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, conducted the Exceptional Case Study Project. Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil examined every American who had attacked or come close to attacking a prominent public official between 1949 and 1996. They identified eighty-three such persons. They found no demographic profile. Their subjects were male and female, young and old, college-educated and not, married and single, employed and not.

𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖 👉🏼𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩👈🏼 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧. Almost every one of them had developed a self-concept in which he was uniquely positioned to act on behalf of a cause, a victim, or a group he did not belong to. Almost every one of them had engaged in detailed planning over weeks or months. Most had communicated their intent to a third party. Most had moved progressively along what Fein and Vossekuil described as a pathway to violence.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙨. In the year before their attacks, most had struggled with acute reversals and disappointment in their lives. 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙫𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙧𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚.

Arie Kruglanski’s “Significance Quest Theory” similarly argues that the most reliable trigger for radicalization across left, right, and religious extremism is the loss or threat to a person’s sense of mattering. The 3N model (need, narrative, network) holds that 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚.

Most people who adopt the savior identity do not engage in violence, and the original analysis came from clinical psychology. Stephen Karpman’s famous 1968 paper “Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis” set out the original drama triangle: persecutor, victim, rescuer. Karpman argued that the rescuer position appears altruistic but functions to manage the rescuer’s own developmental wounds by proxy.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙖 𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮, 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙗𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣. “𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙠,” 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝘼𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣, 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤

Cole Allen’s biographical trajectory matches several of the characteristics of a savior complex. Despite having attended one of the best engineering schools in the country, he lived at his parents’ house and worked part-time as a tutor at 31. His three siblings had followed elite educational paths and conventional professional trajectories. Allen reached a point at which, argues the former FBI profiler, “his own self-image lowered to a level where he felt like he needed to do something to feel better about his own image.”

Allen appears to have persuaded himself that his mission would deliver the significance his life had not. He expected to die in the act and very nearly did.

Cole identified as Christian, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙣. 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙭 𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛, 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮.

For Christians, only God can deliver grace and salvation, not humans, according to Christians. The original sin in Genesis was of wanting “to be like God, knowing good and evil.” It is a sin to act as though one is like God or Jesus. Christianity teaches that sinful humans must be rescued by God and cannot play the role of rescuer.

👉🏼𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙣 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙤 “𝙨𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙.”👈🏼Moses’s father-in-law warns him that trying to carry the burdens of the entire camp alone will only lead to exhaustion (Exodus 18).

And, finally, 𝘾𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, which Jesus condemns In the Sermon on the Mount, he warned against practicing righteousness “before other people in order to be seen by them,” saying those who do “have received their reward.”

Left-wing politics filled the spiritual void for Cole and others. His sister Avriana told Secret Service investigators that her brother frequently made “radical statements” and constantly referenced a vague plan to “do something” about the world’s problems. She said he had attended a No Kings protest in California and joined the Wide Awakes, a leftist activist network that took its name from the 1860s abolitionist youth movement.

👉🏼Cole Allen is therefore not a mystery. He is the predicted output of a known process. 𝘼 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜. After his personal trajectory collapsed, and he gained exposure to a political movement that offers the savior identity as its entry-level moral role, he became a candidate for targeted political violence.👈🏼

𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦

There are practical implications to understanding that many progressives are in the grip of a savior complex. Fein and Vossekuil found that nearly every attacker communicated intent to a third party before acting, as Allen did. That means that family, coworkers, and acquaintances, not law enforcement, are the true front line of prevention. J. Reid Meloy and Jens Hoffmann built on their research and created a typology of eight warning behaviors: 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙛𝙞𝙭𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙣𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙖𝙜𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮 𝙗𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙩, 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙩. Meloy and Hoffmann named 👉🏼“identification”👈🏼as the warning behavior.

Kruglanski’s 3N model holds that ideological networks confirm a narrative that promises restored significance, meaning that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙩.This reality confirms the need to publicly criticize radical movements for using their members, like Minneapolis radical anti-ICE protesters manipulated Pretti and Good, and the way Wide Awake confused Allen.

This analysis may strike readers as either too harsh or too soft. Too harsh because it reduces sincere moral conviction to psychological compensation. Too soft because it explains away premeditated murder as a search for meaning.

But 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙥 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙗𝙮 𝙪𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙩 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚.

Calling them evil makes them irredeemable. Calling them mentally ill makes them unaccountable. Calling them rational political actors legitimizes their violence. By contrast, treating them as candidates for radicalization, as documented in the empirical literature over the past 50 years, opens the door to prevention.

—

Michael Shellenberger

>Eat the rich... from your mansion

>Save the planet... from your private jet

>Everyone is racist... while you fund the racism.

>Billionaires are evil... unless you fund our candidates.

>Words are violence... but my violence is actually speech

>Wrong pronouns are assault... but burning a courthouse in a protest is mostly peaceful

>We love immigrants... 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐚'𝐬 𝐕𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐭𝐨𝐨

>Democracy is sacred... unless we lose, then it was stolen by Russia, misinformation, or Elon

>Diversity is our strength... unless you're a Black conservative, then you're a race traitor who needs to be destroyed

>Tax the wealthy... while your foundation, your trust, and your three LLCs are structured specifically to avoid paying a dime of it

>Capitalism is oppression... posted from an iPhone, on a platform worth a trillion dollars, while wearing merch sold through the your merch store linked in your bio

𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐤𝐞, 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The doctrine is always designed so the cost lands on someone else.

The cashier pays for your protest. The suburban parents pays for your sanctuary city. The trade school kid pays for your student loan forgiveness. The taxpayer pays for your foundation's tax shelter. The working mom pays for your gas stove ban. The factory town pays for your Green New Deal. The girl on the swim team pays for your pronouns. The cop's widow pays for your bail reform.

𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥."

—

Matt Von Swol

"It has become a breach of etiquette to praise the enemy; whereas, when the enemy is strong, every honest scout ought to praise the enemy.

It is impossible to vanquish an army without having a full account of its strength. 👉🏼It is impossible to satirise a man without having a full account of his virtues. 👈🏼

It is too much the custom in politics to describe a political opponent as utterly inhuman, as utterly careless of his country, as utterly cynical, which no man ever was since the beginning of the world.

This kind of invective may often have a great superficial success: it may hit the mood of the moment; it may raise excitement and applause; it may impress millions.

But there is one man among all those millions whom it does not impress, whom it hardly ever touches; that is the man against whom it is directed. The one person for whom the whole satire has been written in vain is the man whom it is the whole object of the institution of satire to reach.

He knows that such a description of him is not true. He knows that he is not utterly unpatriotic, or utterly self-seeking, or utterly barbarous and revengeful.

He knows that he is an ordinary man, and that he can count as many kindly memories, as many humane instincts, as many hours of decent work and responsibility as any other ordinary man. But behind all this he has his real weaknesses, the real ironies of his soul: behind all these ordinary merits lie the mean compromises, the craven silences, the sullen vanities, the secret brutalities, the unmanly visions of revenge. It is to these that satire should reach if it is to touch the man at whom it is aimed. 👉🏼And to reach these it must pass and salute a whole army of virtues.👈🏼

And here we have the cause of the failure of contemporary satire, that it has no magnanimity, that is to say, no patience. It cannot endure to be told that its opponent has his strong points...👉🏼It can be content with nothing except persuading itself that its opponent is utterly bad or utterly stupid-that is, that he is what he is not and what nobody else is."👈🏼

- - - - - -

"Dostoevsky places much of the blame for the town’s impending catastrophe on this attitude.

Yulia’s position is spelled out clearly in her own words. She says: “What I think is that one mustn’t despise our younger generation either. They cry out that they’re communists, but what I say is that we must appreciate them and mustn’t be hard on them.”

𝐀 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦. 𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. Yulia’s solution to the frustration of the younger generation is to host gatherings and literary readings where everyone feels welcome and heard.

Of course, Yulia has completely misread the situation. The radicals in Devils are not trying to join respectable society. They are trying to destroy it. They are not looking for a seat at Yulia’s table. They are planning to burn the table down.

👉🏼𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐥: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥. 𝐇𝐞𝐫 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦. 𝐈𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐬𝐤𝐲’𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦.👈🏼

Yulia makes one more revealing comment in this section. She says: “I read everything now–the papers, communism, the natural sciences–I get everything because, after all, one must know where one’s living and with whom one has to do.”

𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧 𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬), 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡, 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞.

According to Pyotr, socialists are driven by three things:

-𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬

-𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦

-𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧

Pyotr says people crave recognition. They want titles, ranks, and visible signs that they are important. So he invents positions within the group. The titles are mostly meaningless, but that is not the point. The point is that they flatter people’s egos and make them feel validated.

Pyotr argues that 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 👉🏼𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭.👈🏼

Stavrogin then offers his own suggestion. He says the most effective way to bind a group together would be through shared participation in a killing. If everyone had blood on their hands, no one could leave. Shared guilt would hold them together more reliably than ideology.

There is a broader argument running underneath all of this.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐯𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐲𝐨𝐭𝐫. 👉🏼𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡.👈🏼

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐧𝐢𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

The most famous line in the novel belongs to Shigalov, a social theorist and member of Pyotr’s radical cell: “I am perplexed by my own data and my conclusion is a direct contradiction of the original idea with which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism.”

𝐈𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦. 𝐀 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞.

𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐯’𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬.

👉🏼Remarkably prescient. When actual communist societies emerged in the twentieth century, millions of people were reduced to livestock or piles of corpses.👈🏼

Lyamshin, another member of the radical commune, says “For my part…if I didn’t know what to do with nine-tenths of mankind, I’d take them and blow them up into the air instead of putting them in paradise. I’d only leave a handful of educated people, who would live happily ever afterwards on scientific principles.”

Shigalov’s theory includes another disturbing feature. In the society he imagines, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬.

This detail anticipates the logic of actual communist police states. Systems built on informers, surveillance, and mutual suspicion appeared across communist regimes in the twentieth century. A world of constant suspicion, where anyone might secretly be informing on anyone else.

What makes this especially remarkable is that when Dostoevsky was writing, nothing quite like this yet existed. He was observing patterns inside small radical circles and projecting where those patterns might eventually lead if they were allowed to expand into a full political system.

👉🏼𝐃𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐬𝐤𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.👈🏼

The scale of mass killing under twentieth century communist regimes did not yet exist in the nineteenth century. Governments at the time did not possess the same administrative power or technological capacity. The ideology had not yet been fully translated into political practice.

For a novel set in nineteenth century Russia, the social dynamics feel remarkably contemporary. The language is old-fashioned. But very little about the interactions requires translation for a modern reader. The types of characters, the self-deceptions, the manipulation of ideas for social advantage: all of it is immediately recognizable.

Dostoevsky was writing about socialist movements and the destructive logic of radical ideology. 𝐅𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐤𝐬.

No one else had this foresight. It is hard to think of, for instance, a German novelist who saw and accurately depicted the rise of Nazism coming half a century in advance the way Dostoevsky foresaw the trajectory of Russian radicalism.

👉🏼𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨.👈🏼"

These facts are received either from our own senses, or from the report of other minds; that is, either experience or authority supplies us with our material. But each man’s experience is so limited that the second source is the more usual; of every hundred facts upon which to reason, ninety-nine depend on authority.

Secondly, there is the direct, simple act of the mind perceiving self-evident truth, as when we see that if A and B both equal C, then they equal each other. This act I call intuition. Thirdly, there is an art or skill of arranging the facts so as to yield a series of such intuitions which linked together produce a proof of the truth or falsehood of the proposition we are considering.

Thus in a geometrical proof each step is seen by intuition, and to fail to see it is to be not a bad geometrician but an idiot. The skill comes in arranging the material into a series of intuitable “steps.” Failure to do this does not mean idiocy, but only lack of ingenuity or invention. Failure to follow it need not mean idiocy, but either inattention or a defect of memory which forbids us to hold all the intuitions together.

Now all correction of errors in reasoning is really correction of the first or the third element. The second, the intuitional element, cannot be corrected if it is wrong, nor supplied if it is lacking. You can give the man new facts. You can invent a simpler proof, that is, a simpler concatenation of intuitable truths. But when you come to an absolute inability to see any one of the self-evident steps out of which the proof is built, then you can do nothing.

Every teacher knows that people are constantly protesting that they “can’t see” some self-evident inference, but the supposed inability is usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all."

I remember sitting with that idea for a long time.

Not because it was insightful, but because of how profoundly stupid it is.

Being an adult is hard. Marriage is hard. Motherhood is very hard. Growth does not come from avoiding difficulty. It comes from working through it. Leaving every situation that feels uncomfortable guarantees one thing only: you will never grow.

As I paid closer attention to feminist content online, I noticed how saturated it had become with shallow, self-destructive platitudes. At first glance, they sound empowering. But once you pause to think critically, the logic falls apart. Happiness is not a reliable compass. Truth is not something each person invents for themselves.

A major driver of this shift has been the rise of online, influencer-driven feminism. This version of feminism is shaped less by thinkers, organizers, or policy goals and more by algorithms, engagement metrics, and personal branding. It lives almost entirely on Instagram, TikTok, and Substack, where empowerment is reduced to shareable slogans, therapy-speak, and aesthetic outrage. In this world, feminism looks like affirmations about "protecting your peace," viral posts declaring that discomfort is trauma, and content creators reframing ordinary frustrations as systemic oppression.

Marriage becomes "emotional labor." Parenthood becomes "self-erasure." Accountability becomes "internalized misogyny." These messages are rarely paired with responsibility or context, but they are endlessly reinforced through likes and reposts. Influencer feminism does not ask women to build anything, sustain anything, or endure anything. It asks them only to feel validated (and preferably to keep scrolling).

Despite all this "empowerment," according to a 2023 Gallup poll, American women are twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with depression.

If modern attitudes toward womanhood are so liberating, why are women more anxious and depressed than ever?

I regularly see messaging on social media that borders on incoherent. A popular therapist recently posted, "Patriarchy taught women to shrink and call it something else." Half the women I know shared it.

(I still have no idea what it means.)

But the nonsensical messaging works. More than ever, women are detaching themselves from their relationships and responsibilities to find their "true authentic selves."

Personally, I have seen an increasing number of women leave their marriages, and sometimes even distance themselves from their children, in this pursuit. The language is always the same. But, to quote a line from a favorite Ben Fold's song, "Everywhere I go, damn there I am."

There are valid reasons to leave a relationship, but your husband asking you to please stop spending so much money at Target isn't abuse. Fleeting feelings of unhappiness, temporary despair, and the ordinary hardships of life are not oppression. They are part of being human.

I've been married for 18 years and have five children. There have been seasons when getting out of bed felt impossible. I've dealt with depression, anxiety, anger, marital strain, parenting challenges, and deep feelings of inadequacy. None of that is unusual. At some point, I made the decision to endure. And every time I did, the good eventually came. Sometimes quickly. Sometimes slowly. But it came.

Women do not grow by fleeing hard things.

Modern feminism invents an enemy that cannot be defined. Is your husband THE PATRIARCHY? Your father? Your sons? What does framing the world this way actually improve?

But more dangerously, modern feminism teaches women to outsource responsibility. If you are unhappy, it is someone else's fault. Your husband. Your children. Religion. Society. Your boss. The economy. The PATRIARCHY.

Online influencer feminism then convinces women to abandon what is good in pursuit of an imagined perfection just beyond reach.

But nothing worth having comes easily.

So reject the blame game. Fix what you can. Take responsibility for your own life. Your husband is not your enemy. Your children are not obstacles. Your life is far better than you have been told.

There has never been a better time in history to be a woman."

It's not about condemning other people and what they do or don't do.