Normal people make resolution this time of year. I try to as well, but have not yet spent enough time on last year's to note any major successes or failures.
We think a lot about the future, but unless waxing nostalgic or whining, rarely look at the past. And rarely do we evaluate the past in any reasonable manner! The philosophy of SMART goals never get applied to New Year's Resolutions.
When's the last time you actually measured one of your resolutions? I know I set a goal to meet 10 new friends at my company outside my department: never happened. Think I made 2, even despite joining the company softball team.
Reflection is the most important thing we do as humans. It's what separates us from animals, if you ask me. We can recall our past, analyze, and make ourselves better.
Right now, though, I want to reflect on why I am happy to be a Red-Pill man, and why you should want to be Red-Pill. I did not take notes on a daily business: perhaps I should. Paying attention to your daily blessings is actually a good way to make yourself happier.
Embracing Red Pill ideas counts as a blessing, too.
Let's see what made me happy to be Red Pill this year:
1. Watching my Architect friend struggle through 12 months of single-dom. He hit the online dating circuit late in 2014. A suit and an Arichtecture job earned him a lot of dates, same as first time, and the same as the first time, he struggled to ever land a second date. His Mom told him to read 50 Shades of Gray and act more like an asshole: a great indicator you might be too nice.
Red Pill Contrast: My Wife liked me enough to ask me out, and when I dumped her for not living up to my standards, she spent a month trying to win me back.
2. Meeting my Architect friend's new girlfriend. A damn sight prettier than the last, to be sure, and this one is FIT! rather than packing 30 extra pounds. But her personality? Damn. Every sarcastic jab shredded any appreciation I had for this girl. Her 20 minute dissertation detailing why my friend lacked the Cool Points for a Jersey Shore party made me want to kick her down the Sparta Hole.
Red Pill Contrast: My Wife maintained the disposition of an Angel. Her nurturing personality led people to confuse her with Nurse, Professional Baker, elementary school teacher, and librarian. No one doubts her compassion, and my nieces and nephews love her.
3. Watching my Mother-In-Law serve warmed-over store-bought lasagna to my Father In Law. My Mother-In-Law is a stay-at-home Mom with only a single child left at home, in high school. My Father-In-Law travels to earn an income to put FIVE children through college. She spent the entire week busying her social calendar with book events with her mother, and gave herself and her dinner at a reasonable hour, while serving the warmed over leftovers to my FIL. This is a divorceable offense.
Red Pill Contrast: Wife prepares dinner on demand. She served frozen vegetables once this year, and never did again after a suitable dressing down. The Beta Household ONLY serves fresh veggies.
4. Listening to my Best Man complain about poor sex drive. They have been together for a few years now, and he thought about the M-Word. He invited her to stay at his home for a test drive. Despite an initial period of twice- and thrice-daily sex, he found her sex drive waning throughout the year, to the point he felt like he "abused" her. And he's still thinking about proposing.
Red Pill Contrast: Our sex life is better than ever. Sex is on demand and more organic, and easier to do in our home. Oral play has skyrocketed to a multiple-time-per-week event, with "finish."
5. Seeing Jenna reject man after man. I've mentioned this girl before, a girl who has dated so many men she can barely visit the grocery store without encountering a prior flame. She even dated my Architect Friend once this year! After every date she whined about how the men bored her. She eventually found a cocky man, so much a Red Pill stereotype I suspect he frequents the Manosphere as well.
Red Pill Contrast: Do I even need to explain the contrast? The Red Pill guy got the girl in the end! I don't know for sure if he's Red Pill, but given his Facebook posting, aversion and knowledge of Social Justice, I strongly suspect this is case. Even if not, Jenna and my Wife spent much of the year discussing when they would like to visit the strip club with me: something more than the merry band of White Knights dating her ever get to experiment.
It's great to be Red Pill.
As for my Wife?
She's happier than ever. Every night she snuggles up to me and tells me how much she loves me. I suspect seeing her sisters struggle through their own dates reinforces how lucky she really is. She loves our new home, and she is excited for a new child (though we haven't quite succeeded that yet).
2016 looks to be better than ever.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Cruz the Actual Moderate?
Holiday Season keeps all of us busy. We finally received our couch, and can I say not a moment too soon? Ever notice that there's always something else to get? After the couch and my awesome Lazy-Z boy chair found homes in our room, we noticed people might want somewhere to place a drink.
So we swung around IKEA, bought some sofa tables, and slapped those cheap pieces of crap together, too.
In the past month, I've also played around with the new telecommuting policy at work. Mmmmmhmmmm, can't complain about that one bit. I find I am actually more productive at home than work: I already know what I need to do, but I do not feel exposed, in the open, with people looking over my shoulder at home.
Much less stressful.
The ACTUAL Point
Sorry, meandering over.
I saw this article on Marginal Revolution the other day, and thought nothing of it:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/senators-cruz-and-lee-introduce-reciprocity-bill.html
Apparently Cruz wants to legalize imports of drugs from Canada and Europe or something. Okay, cool. A little odd, given Democrats normally advance such legislation, not Republicans, but not unusual.
But in the comments, someone noted that Senator Cruz, now leading Presidential Polls in Iowa, also suggested the Federal Reserve caused the Great Recession by keeping money too tight!
Now that's a change! If you've followed politics much these last few years, you'll know that Republicans have complained about excessive government spending, and especially printing too much money. That's the Republican position these days, more or less.
And Ted Cruz is one of those extreme Republicans.
But, on this position, Cruz actually is...well...right?
I subscribe to a Sumner-ian view of the recession, which suggests that monetary policy in the US was actually quite tight. We refused to lower rates, and in fact paid interests on reserves, which encouraged banks to sit on money. This had the effect of draining money out of the system, at just the time when the financial crisis sparked a HUGE demand for money.
Blah blah blah aggregate demand shortfall, etc.
This actually is a common view among the right-wing blogsphere. Scott Sumner isn't a Democrat, but a right-leaning libertarian-type fellow living in Wisconsin. He supported printing more money in the recession, yes, but you won't see him arguing for crazy amounts of government stimulus, higher taxes, etc.
In fact, you can see some of his more conservative economic viewpoints here, where he torpedoes some conventional liberal views about France.
So, Cruz supporting this position ain't some kind of namby-pamby liberal, it's just pragmatic reality.
I am actually surprised to see Cruz supporting this position, and my brain feels forced to re-evaluate all sorts of priors about him and his candidacy.
Today, prior to the debate, I will review this Wonkblog article, and pay close attention to him during the debate.
So we swung around IKEA, bought some sofa tables, and slapped those cheap pieces of crap together, too.
In the past month, I've also played around with the new telecommuting policy at work. Mmmmmhmmmm, can't complain about that one bit. I find I am actually more productive at home than work: I already know what I need to do, but I do not feel exposed, in the open, with people looking over my shoulder at home.
Much less stressful.
The ACTUAL Point
Sorry, meandering over.
I saw this article on Marginal Revolution the other day, and thought nothing of it:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/senators-cruz-and-lee-introduce-reciprocity-bill.html
Apparently Cruz wants to legalize imports of drugs from Canada and Europe or something. Okay, cool. A little odd, given Democrats normally advance such legislation, not Republicans, but not unusual.
But in the comments, someone noted that Senator Cruz, now leading Presidential Polls in Iowa, also suggested the Federal Reserve caused the Great Recession by keeping money too tight!
Now that's a change! If you've followed politics much these last few years, you'll know that Republicans have complained about excessive government spending, and especially printing too much money. That's the Republican position these days, more or less.
And Ted Cruz is one of those extreme Republicans.
Cruz is more conservative than every recent nominee, every other candidate who mounted a serious bid in 2012 and every plausible candidate running or potentially running in 2016. Let
But, on this position, Cruz actually is...well...right?
I subscribe to a Sumner-ian view of the recession, which suggests that monetary policy in the US was actually quite tight. We refused to lower rates, and in fact paid interests on reserves, which encouraged banks to sit on money. This had the effect of draining money out of the system, at just the time when the financial crisis sparked a HUGE demand for money.
Blah blah blah aggregate demand shortfall, etc.
This actually is a common view among the right-wing blogsphere. Scott Sumner isn't a Democrat, but a right-leaning libertarian-type fellow living in Wisconsin. He supported printing more money in the recession, yes, but you won't see him arguing for crazy amounts of government stimulus, higher taxes, etc.
In fact, you can see some of his more conservative economic viewpoints here, where he torpedoes some conventional liberal views about France.
So, Cruz supporting this position ain't some kind of namby-pamby liberal, it's just pragmatic reality.
I am actually surprised to see Cruz supporting this position, and my brain feels forced to re-evaluate all sorts of priors about him and his candidacy.
Today, prior to the debate, I will review this Wonkblog article, and pay close attention to him during the debate.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
What Does Feminism Give Women?
I. Seriously, What?
Scribblerg posed the question on Rollo's blog.
I thought about his question, and my thoughts required something longer than a blog comment.
Feminism adds value to the average woman's life. A woman's support for feminism is not irrational. They do wish to submit to high-value men but feminism and the liberated society increases the likelihood of meeting such a man and breaking bonds should such a man NOT meet her standards.
Most importantly, Feminism gives her Options. Second, Feminism gives her Time. Third, Feminism gives her Hedonism (or at least a rationalization for wanton pleasure).
II. The Beta Life
My arguments come from my own personal experience. Therefore, your social circle may not resemble mine. Relevant attributes of my social circle:
-Highly Educated. Minimum bachelor's, majority earn post-teritiary degrees.
-High income families.
-Largely white, some ethnic South and East Asians.
-Irreligious for the most part.
Essentially, the kind of Yuppie crowd that voted enthusiastically for Barrack Obama and now wants to #FeeltheBern.
So let's start with the two major criticisms. At least with regards to finding good men.
The major criticisms leveled at Feminism are the Beta-fication of men, along with the encouraging Strong, Independent Women.
Both of these kill any chance of finding meaningful relationships for any length of time.
From my on-the-ground perspective, both of these problems are somewhat overblown.
III. Contrary to popular belief, good guys still exist:
Most of my social circle has drifted into some sort of marriage-drifting LTR at this point or has actively been married. These men are not your typical, whining Betas. They are Vox deltas for the most part, but have enough disposable income to dress nicely, socialize, and hold interesting hobbies.
They aren't super-handy, but they can lend a hand around the house. They generally cook better than women, they hold down jobs, and you can take them home to see Mom and Dad.
Women generally like them, at least somewhat. They aren't guys who pull lots of girls, but girls do generally like them.
I actually think this is the best generation of men ever. Unless you want a niche man....say, a really religious man, or a really handy man, or a military veteran, which may have gotten harder to find....this generation of men produces, on average, the best quality any woman in history would ever get.
Why all the bemoaning about where the good men have gone?!
We'll get back to that.
IV. Contrary to popular belief, girls enjoying being Feminine, and know they like it:
I only know two women who fit the archtype of SIW.
They both identify, proudly, as feminist.
They both write a lot, dance a lot, etc.
They are both overweight.
They are both ugly as sin.
They are both single.
Other than those two extremely ugly women, most of the women I know treat their men with care and deference. They never belittle their men in public, they generally follow the man's lead, they enjoy cooking for their men, they enjoy caring for their men, and they really dig craft projects.
Seriously, click on the link. Pinterest, a website with a 90% woman userbase, 100% validates women enjoy their femininty.
The extraordinarily toxic attitude of female leadership simply does not exist among most of the women I know. Perhaps that will develop over the years. I don't know. But even amongst those terrible women that earn more than their SOs, deference still exists and is still the norm.
So why all the talk about women trying to one-up their men?!
We'll get back to that.
But, key to my point, in my social group, Feminism does not prevent marriages.
Feminism actually helps these women, and that's key to my next point! But, first.....
V. What the hell is going on? Don't men really struggle to get dates? How are they all married now?
Oh, my simple man. Rollo covered this ground in more detail.
The men have risen in Sexual Value. We've filled out. We've trained. We've learned. We're more confident. We are all dramatically better than we were just 4 or 5 years ago. Most of the men have gained weight but most of the weight is muscle, believe it or not.
The women have all fallen in Sexual Value. Not dramatically, but perceptibly. Facebook is such an amazing tool, because you can look at pictures of girls from their college years and compare to how they are now.
There is simply no better tool to prove how men rise in SMV and women fall in SMV than Facebook.
So the men have risen, the women have fallen. So men have a somewhat easier time. End of story, right?
Not quite, because women have different goals in life now.
Stealing another Rollo concept, the Late Party Years.
What's actually happened is that women have entered a life stage where they are seeking to consolidate their handle over a man. Basically all these women now in relationships found men a few years post-college.
I've found that, post-graduation, women try their hand at continuing the college lifestyle. That makes sense at the time: more disposable income than ever, apparently more free time. Now we can really party and pursue all those hot men.
Reality sets in after 18-24 months on the new job. The constant demands of life drain women to almost nothing daily. The drinks expand waist-lines. The SMV decline manifests. The extra income actually benefits men more than women. The "dating" scene turns out to be a nightmare.
The women themselves do an immediate about-face and mellow out. They generally shit-test less, they approach less men, they party less, and become more amenable.
By the late-party years, women start to realize they do not want to party anymore or compete there anyways, almost like a mini-epiphany. They find a man who embodies at least a few arousal traits along with the attractive traits, and choose to Cash Out.
Practically all the women I know in happy relationships now found a man in their late party years and quickly consolidated control. Remaining single women feel major fear.
VI. Having your Cake and Eating It, Too
But why not just grab men in college when SMV is peaked out?
Because women really like to party, and really like sleeping with attractive men with almost no commitment.
So, yes, women enjoy relationships, and they can grab those with ease under feminism, believe it or not.
But feminism allows a delay in marriage. This means that women can enjoy their peak SMV years partying with essentially no commitment. They can behave as nastily as they want to weed out all unattractive men and focus only on the remaining few men.
That's feminism actually offers women, and most of these women love the deal. Obviously, they'd love for the deal to be even better! Let's extend those party years, let's make the Alpha guys buy me flowers during my party years, whatever.
But Feminism still allows women to party. So it's a huge win over what came before, which was a woman obligated to marry young and waste her peak SMV years on a man when she did not really need to.
Obviously, the most virulent feminism is destructive of feminine ends, which is why my 2 feminist friends are notoriously single. But even for them, the ideological comfort of Feminism is more valuable than marrying a SMV-peer, IE, an ugly fat dude.
VII. Ending Conclusions
So, what are we left with?
Feminism, in the end, really does not prevent women from enjoying lifelong marriages, should they choose to go that route. Women who still enjoy their femininity and know it can still find decently attractive men and live out their blissful white picket fence lives.
This is why the Upper Middle Class still gets married and still stays married.
So, returning to Scribblerg's statement and question:
Feminism isn't the end goal. The Feminine Imperative is the end goal. Feminism is a tool towards that goal. Feminism has been dramatically successful in increasing options for women to fulfill the Feminine Imperative.
Does Feminism always advance the Feminine Imperative?
No.
If you embrace the Strong, Independent Woman archtype, you will alienate virtually all men and will not fulfill your life's mission.
But most women understand that, at an unconscious level. When the time comes, the biological script running in the back of a woman's mind will flip off the Feminism, and embrace something else. The end goal is satisfying the Hypergamous instinct.
The end goal is not Feminism.
Scribblerg posed the question on Rollo's blog.
I think a lot of women feel similarly disoriented in this “modern” world of the Strong Independent Woman. Reading Deida and seeing you weren’t crazy, it’s interesting to hear how disoriented a woman can be made by this whacked out society.
Why the hell are we letting this happen to the world? Who is it working for? Old battle axe feminists? Young ones? Ask yourself, how many radfems/social justice warrior types do you know who are even happy?
I thought about his question, and my thoughts required something longer than a blog comment.
Feminism adds value to the average woman's life. A woman's support for feminism is not irrational. They do wish to submit to high-value men but feminism and the liberated society increases the likelihood of meeting such a man and breaking bonds should such a man NOT meet her standards.
Most importantly, Feminism gives her Options. Second, Feminism gives her Time. Third, Feminism gives her Hedonism (or at least a rationalization for wanton pleasure).
II. The Beta Life
My arguments come from my own personal experience. Therefore, your social circle may not resemble mine. Relevant attributes of my social circle:
-Highly Educated. Minimum bachelor's, majority earn post-teritiary degrees.
-High income families.
-Largely white, some ethnic South and East Asians.
-Irreligious for the most part.
Essentially, the kind of Yuppie crowd that voted enthusiastically for Barrack Obama and now wants to #FeeltheBern.
So let's start with the two major criticisms. At least with regards to finding good men.
The major criticisms leveled at Feminism are the Beta-fication of men, along with the encouraging Strong, Independent Women.
Both of these kill any chance of finding meaningful relationships for any length of time.
From my on-the-ground perspective, both of these problems are somewhat overblown.
III. Contrary to popular belief, good guys still exist:
Most of my social circle has drifted into some sort of marriage-drifting LTR at this point or has actively been married. These men are not your typical, whining Betas. They are Vox deltas for the most part, but have enough disposable income to dress nicely, socialize, and hold interesting hobbies.
They aren't super-handy, but they can lend a hand around the house. They generally cook better than women, they hold down jobs, and you can take them home to see Mom and Dad.
Women generally like them, at least somewhat. They aren't guys who pull lots of girls, but girls do generally like them.
I actually think this is the best generation of men ever. Unless you want a niche man....say, a really religious man, or a really handy man, or a military veteran, which may have gotten harder to find....this generation of men produces, on average, the best quality any woman in history would ever get.
Why all the bemoaning about where the good men have gone?!
We'll get back to that.
IV. Contrary to popular belief, girls enjoying being Feminine, and know they like it:
I only know two women who fit the archtype of SIW.
They both identify, proudly, as feminist.
They both write a lot, dance a lot, etc.
They are both overweight.
They are both ugly as sin.
They are both single.
Other than those two extremely ugly women, most of the women I know treat their men with care and deference. They never belittle their men in public, they generally follow the man's lead, they enjoy cooking for their men, they enjoy caring for their men, and they really dig craft projects.
Seriously, click on the link. Pinterest, a website with a 90% woman userbase, 100% validates women enjoy their femininty.
The extraordinarily toxic attitude of female leadership simply does not exist among most of the women I know. Perhaps that will develop over the years. I don't know. But even amongst those terrible women that earn more than their SOs, deference still exists and is still the norm.
So why all the talk about women trying to one-up their men?!
We'll get back to that.
But, key to my point, in my social group, Feminism does not prevent marriages.
Feminism actually helps these women, and that's key to my next point! But, first.....
V. What the hell is going on? Don't men really struggle to get dates? How are they all married now?
Oh, my simple man. Rollo covered this ground in more detail.
The men have risen in Sexual Value. We've filled out. We've trained. We've learned. We're more confident. We are all dramatically better than we were just 4 or 5 years ago. Most of the men have gained weight but most of the weight is muscle, believe it or not.
The women have all fallen in Sexual Value. Not dramatically, but perceptibly. Facebook is such an amazing tool, because you can look at pictures of girls from their college years and compare to how they are now.
There is simply no better tool to prove how men rise in SMV and women fall in SMV than Facebook.
So the men have risen, the women have fallen. So men have a somewhat easier time. End of story, right?
Not quite, because women have different goals in life now.
Stealing another Rollo concept, the Late Party Years.
What's actually happened is that women have entered a life stage where they are seeking to consolidate their handle over a man. Basically all these women now in relationships found men a few years post-college.
I've found that, post-graduation, women try their hand at continuing the college lifestyle. That makes sense at the time: more disposable income than ever, apparently more free time. Now we can really party and pursue all those hot men.
Reality sets in after 18-24 months on the new job. The constant demands of life drain women to almost nothing daily. The drinks expand waist-lines. The SMV decline manifests. The extra income actually benefits men more than women. The "dating" scene turns out to be a nightmare.
The women themselves do an immediate about-face and mellow out. They generally shit-test less, they approach less men, they party less, and become more amenable.
By the late-party years, women start to realize they do not want to party anymore or compete there anyways, almost like a mini-epiphany. They find a man who embodies at least a few arousal traits along with the attractive traits, and choose to Cash Out.
Practically all the women I know in happy relationships now found a man in their late party years and quickly consolidated control. Remaining single women feel major fear.
VI. Having your Cake and Eating It, Too
But why not just grab men in college when SMV is peaked out?
Because women really like to party, and really like sleeping with attractive men with almost no commitment.
So, yes, women enjoy relationships, and they can grab those with ease under feminism, believe it or not.
But feminism allows a delay in marriage. This means that women can enjoy their peak SMV years partying with essentially no commitment. They can behave as nastily as they want to weed out all unattractive men and focus only on the remaining few men.
That's feminism actually offers women, and most of these women love the deal. Obviously, they'd love for the deal to be even better! Let's extend those party years, let's make the Alpha guys buy me flowers during my party years, whatever.
But Feminism still allows women to party. So it's a huge win over what came before, which was a woman obligated to marry young and waste her peak SMV years on a man when she did not really need to.
Obviously, the most virulent feminism is destructive of feminine ends, which is why my 2 feminist friends are notoriously single. But even for them, the ideological comfort of Feminism is more valuable than marrying a SMV-peer, IE, an ugly fat dude.
VII. Ending Conclusions
So, what are we left with?
Feminism, in the end, really does not prevent women from enjoying lifelong marriages, should they choose to go that route. Women who still enjoy their femininity and know it can still find decently attractive men and live out their blissful white picket fence lives.
This is why the Upper Middle Class still gets married and still stays married.
So, returning to Scribblerg's statement and question:
I think a lot of women feel similarly disoriented in this “modern” world of the Strong Independent Woman...Who is it working for?It works for young women in college and peak SMV years. See, they do not WANT relationships, and they do not want marriages. They want to party. They want beta emotional sponges on the side. They want to leave relationships on a whim and monkey-branch to another guy. They want to have one night stands, with no judgements. They want to have anal sex with exchange students and cry rape when convenient.
Feminism isn't the end goal. The Feminine Imperative is the end goal. Feminism is a tool towards that goal. Feminism has been dramatically successful in increasing options for women to fulfill the Feminine Imperative.
Does Feminism always advance the Feminine Imperative?
No.
If you embrace the Strong, Independent Woman archtype, you will alienate virtually all men and will not fulfill your life's mission.
But most women understand that, at an unconscious level. When the time comes, the biological script running in the back of a woman's mind will flip off the Feminism, and embrace something else. The end goal is satisfying the Hypergamous instinct.
The end goal is not Feminism.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Education and Ideology
Why?
We learned yesterday that Witch Hunts tied directly to the Renaissance, Reformation, and growing intellectualism of the late Middle Ages.
So why would education stop terrorism?
Education does not stop violence or terrorism. Osama Bin Laden undoubtedly attended some of the best schools in Saudi Arabia. Bashar Al-Assad, currently dropping barrel bombs on civilians for fun and gassing his own citizens, trained in the United Kingdom. Pol Pot studied engineering in Paris.
On the other hand, you have this guy, who spent probably less than a single year in any form of schooling in his entire life:
Common ideology and common cultural practices can prevent terrorism, but that is simply no guarantee. Education informs and instructs the young, yes, but can just as easily instill values contrary to Western liberalism: Communism, Nazism, Socialism, and Maoism all found homes in the schools, and all instructed generations of young people in ill-guided philosophies.
All of these philosophies were, in turn, developed by learned men and women of certain social structure.
Mass education and mass literacy in the 19th century led to an ideologically motivated populace that led directly to the killing fields of the 20th.
That's what education ultimately wrought. True, we have learned our lesson and have avoided another Great War the last 70 years, but education has gotten us no closer to universal, disarmed utopia.
At least, not outside Western Europe, and I specify Western Europe, as Eastern Europe is now under attack from Russian expansion.
Obviously, I support education, but we must remain realistic about what education can actually accomplish, and the real risks we face when we train young, possibly dangerous minds.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Religious and Intellectual History of the West
Is this how you picture Witch Trials?
That's how I imagined the Witch trials. Superstitious Puritans, blaming marginally attached older women, for causes now known to have natural causes. All to scapegoat.
How wrong I might have been.
To make the 30-40 minute commute more bearable, I've listened to a let of courses from the Great Lecture series. The last few weeks involved a lot of study of intellectual and religious history of the Western world, particularly the United States.
Turns out, the Witch Trials resembled something closer to this:
And the Puritans, so casually insulted in the first Simpsons clip, developed one of the first mass literate societies in human history, if not THE first mass literate society.
So, wait, smart people burned the witches?
Yes.
Witch hunts don't become emblematic of European society until the 15th century, roughly contemporaneous with the Renaissance, and peak at the same time Newton hypothesizes universal gravitation and Galileo argues the Earth revolves around the Sun. England passes a Witchraft Act in the 1540s, the same decade Nicolas Copernicus passes into the next world.
What does this tell me? I am not certain yet, other than that religious orthodoxy and intellectual development often go hand-in-hand throughout history. The same intellectual freedom stimulates both: the freedom to develop new ides means new crazy ideas as much as it means new good ideas, which is also why Marxism arises in the 19th century, the same time as the Industrial Revolution.
What else have I learned?
1. Speaking of the 19th Century, America in the 19th Century underwent the Second Great Awakening and the Protestant Factionalization. While the Catholic Church remained unified, a religious fervor swept the American frontier: new evangelists go around to bored, isolated farmers and preach their revivalism. This leads to Methodism becoming America's major religious denomination.
2. 19th Century leads to Millennialism in the US, which is the belief that the world is about to end.
This tradition leads to groups like the Seventh Day Adventists, IE, Ben Carson.
3. Fundamentalism is an American religious phenomenon, developed from The Fundamentals. These are a series of pamphlets issue in the early 20th century, and are a reaction to the Modernism of some religious Sects, who steadily modified their religious doctrine throughout the late 19th and early 20th century to the point that their religions were no longer recognizable (Jesus isn't really the Son of God, etc.
I am still digesting some of these ideas, and wonder what priors I should revisit. I suppose that this makes me think that American religiosity is inextricably linked to American exceptionalism, and that there is an underlying quality feeding both. To attack American religiosity means to attack American exceptionalism, which is perhaps an unwise course of action in the current world.
See: European banking crisis, Syria, Paris attacks, Chinese pollution, Russian stagnation, etc.
The most important point, of course, is to continue to actively challenge preconceptions, and always strive to learn more: there's a lot you THINK you know, that is absolutely incorrect.
That's how I imagined the Witch trials. Superstitious Puritans, blaming marginally attached older women, for causes now known to have natural causes. All to scapegoat.
How wrong I might have been.
To make the 30-40 minute commute more bearable, I've listened to a let of courses from the Great Lecture series. The last few weeks involved a lot of study of intellectual and religious history of the Western world, particularly the United States.
Turns out, the Witch Trials resembled something closer to this:
And the Puritans, so casually insulted in the first Simpsons clip, developed one of the first mass literate societies in human history, if not THE first mass literate society.
So, wait, smart people burned the witches?
Yes.
Witch hunts don't become emblematic of European society until the 15th century, roughly contemporaneous with the Renaissance, and peak at the same time Newton hypothesizes universal gravitation and Galileo argues the Earth revolves around the Sun. England passes a Witchraft Act in the 1540s, the same decade Nicolas Copernicus passes into the next world.
What does this tell me? I am not certain yet, other than that religious orthodoxy and intellectual development often go hand-in-hand throughout history. The same intellectual freedom stimulates both: the freedom to develop new ides means new crazy ideas as much as it means new good ideas, which is also why Marxism arises in the 19th century, the same time as the Industrial Revolution.
What else have I learned?
1. Speaking of the 19th Century, America in the 19th Century underwent the Second Great Awakening and the Protestant Factionalization. While the Catholic Church remained unified, a religious fervor swept the American frontier: new evangelists go around to bored, isolated farmers and preach their revivalism. This leads to Methodism becoming America's major religious denomination.
2. 19th Century leads to Millennialism in the US, which is the belief that the world is about to end.
This tradition leads to groups like the Seventh Day Adventists, IE, Ben Carson.
3. Fundamentalism is an American religious phenomenon, developed from The Fundamentals. These are a series of pamphlets issue in the early 20th century, and are a reaction to the Modernism of some religious Sects, who steadily modified their religious doctrine throughout the late 19th and early 20th century to the point that their religions were no longer recognizable (Jesus isn't really the Son of God, etc.
I am still digesting some of these ideas, and wonder what priors I should revisit. I suppose that this makes me think that American religiosity is inextricably linked to American exceptionalism, and that there is an underlying quality feeding both. To attack American religiosity means to attack American exceptionalism, which is perhaps an unwise course of action in the current world.
See: European banking crisis, Syria, Paris attacks, Chinese pollution, Russian stagnation, etc.
The most important point, of course, is to continue to actively challenge preconceptions, and always strive to learn more: there's a lot you THINK you know, that is absolutely incorrect.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Lessons from Friendsgiving 2.0
What a damn awesome night!
Entertaining gives me the greatest high. I love hockey, I love meeting a tight deadline, I love sexing up my wife, I love cleaning the gutters and mowing the lawn, and I love frying up a good omelette, but nothing, nothing, nothing on Earth makes me happier than breaking bread with good friends and family around a table.
Mrs. Beta roasted a solid 24 pound butterball turkey for a dozen people. We did not brine the bird, but let me assure you that the every morsel I tasted melted away on my tongue with the utmost ease, well drowned in cups full of home-made gravy, adorned with home-made stuffiing out of the dried out bread crumbs sitting on our island the past week.
We asked everyone else to bring a dish as well. Some were a little far out there (lasagna?!) and some set off the fire alarm (Ratatouille at 425 spews a lot of smoke from my crappy oven).
But we had a dozen happy faces, some a little less sober than others.
Obviously, this is what life is about, and this is why I kept my parents old dining room table, along with the 10-seater we purchased from Ethan Allen: we had plenty of seating for our large group of friends (and half the people we wanted to invite declined!)
Still, not everything went swimmingly. A few lessons stood out:
1. Know your portion sizes. At my Father's house, anything less than 3 servings is an insult. These hummingbirds barely packed away half a plate.
2. Keep the booze selection small. I am something of a drinker myself, so I put out several kinds of rum, mixers, whiskey, gin, vodka, and GOK what else. Almost no one had any.
3. Coffee is a bigger hit than I imagined. The crowd drained the pot I made in less than 20 minutes. I am glad I bought extra Bailey's mudslide creamer for everyone.
4. Empty your recycling bin BEFORE the damn party. Oversight on my part, and not to be repeated, I assure you.
5. Tupperware containers need cleaned and positioned before the end of the meal.
6. Not everyone wants to listen to an hour of Frank Sinatra.
7. A 24-pound bird needs multiple serving platters.
8. Where the hell is my goddam gravy boat?!
Likely, more lessons will come in the future.
I rather enjoyed having friends over. I see a great amount of drudgery in people's daily lives and a great deal of resignation to a gray, cold world. Certainly, when I grew up, my parents seemed to never invite any friends over, and rarely saw family.
I see this in my Sister and her Husband as well.
The foundation of my life is my mission, but the cornerstones are my Wife, my friends, and my family. I prefer to see friends and family at least on a weekly basis: I try to see my nieces and nephews more than that, but they are so often sick and so often traveling that even once a week is a feat!
The real danger rises when the Beta household has children of its own, which will dramatically complicate the logistics of any such venture. I sincerely hope, though, to make a greater effort to see family than my own family currently makes. It is, in fact, the whole reason I remain in the Chicago area: the vast majority of my immediate relations are in a 40 minute drive, and only one farther than a hour and a half commute.
It is with that I fashion the mortar that will become my life.
Entertaining gives me the greatest high. I love hockey, I love meeting a tight deadline, I love sexing up my wife, I love cleaning the gutters and mowing the lawn, and I love frying up a good omelette, but nothing, nothing, nothing on Earth makes me happier than breaking bread with good friends and family around a table.
Mrs. Beta roasted a solid 24 pound butterball turkey for a dozen people. We did not brine the bird, but let me assure you that the every morsel I tasted melted away on my tongue with the utmost ease, well drowned in cups full of home-made gravy, adorned with home-made stuffiing out of the dried out bread crumbs sitting on our island the past week.
We asked everyone else to bring a dish as well. Some were a little far out there (lasagna?!) and some set off the fire alarm (Ratatouille at 425 spews a lot of smoke from my crappy oven).
But we had a dozen happy faces, some a little less sober than others.
Obviously, this is what life is about, and this is why I kept my parents old dining room table, along with the 10-seater we purchased from Ethan Allen: we had plenty of seating for our large group of friends (and half the people we wanted to invite declined!)
Still, not everything went swimmingly. A few lessons stood out:
1. Know your portion sizes. At my Father's house, anything less than 3 servings is an insult. These hummingbirds barely packed away half a plate.
2. Keep the booze selection small. I am something of a drinker myself, so I put out several kinds of rum, mixers, whiskey, gin, vodka, and GOK what else. Almost no one had any.
3. Coffee is a bigger hit than I imagined. The crowd drained the pot I made in less than 20 minutes. I am glad I bought extra Bailey's mudslide creamer for everyone.
4. Empty your recycling bin BEFORE the damn party. Oversight on my part, and not to be repeated, I assure you.
5. Tupperware containers need cleaned and positioned before the end of the meal.
6. Not everyone wants to listen to an hour of Frank Sinatra.
7. A 24-pound bird needs multiple serving platters.
8. Where the hell is my goddam gravy boat?!
Likely, more lessons will come in the future.
I rather enjoyed having friends over. I see a great amount of drudgery in people's daily lives and a great deal of resignation to a gray, cold world. Certainly, when I grew up, my parents seemed to never invite any friends over, and rarely saw family.
I see this in my Sister and her Husband as well.
The foundation of my life is my mission, but the cornerstones are my Wife, my friends, and my family. I prefer to see friends and family at least on a weekly basis: I try to see my nieces and nephews more than that, but they are so often sick and so often traveling that even once a week is a feat!
The real danger rises when the Beta household has children of its own, which will dramatically complicate the logistics of any such venture. I sincerely hope, though, to make a greater effort to see family than my own family currently makes. It is, in fact, the whole reason I remain in the Chicago area: the vast majority of my immediate relations are in a 40 minute drive, and only one farther than a hour and a half commute.
It is with that I fashion the mortar that will become my life.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Media Discussion and Tax Policy
Rubio’s tax plan increases the deficit and relaxes the tax
burden on the top 1%. Bush’s tax plan increases the deficit and relaxes the tax
burn on the top 1%. Trump’s tax plan increases the deficit and relaxes the
burden on the top 1%. Carson’s tax plan increases the tax plan and relaxes the
burden on the top 1%.
So we can agree that all the Republicans are the same since
they all want to give huge tax breaks to the rich and increase the deficit, just
like that bastard Reagan and his disciple George W Bush, right?
That’s what most media would have you believe. They think
the CNBC moderators engaged in some pointed, worthwhile critiques of the
various tax plans.
You know, I don’t entirely disagree. If your tax plan
involves blowing a massive hole in the public financial budget over the next 10
years, you probably need to offer an explanation or two.
Unfortunately, that’s different than a substantive
conversation on tax policy. All the discussion focuses on the headline numbers,
and, explicitly, tax cuts to the “rich.” This is a Democratic framing and a
liberal narrative. The Democrats are concerned only with “increasing” the
deficit, since it naturally means less money for their government pet programs,
and only with the effect on the rich, because they really just hate those
bastards.
There’s some other interesting discussions to be had on our
tax policy that some of these plans address. The Rubio plan and the Bush plan
both do away with the mortgage interest deduction: that’s because Republicans
widely recognize the housing bubble is a huge problem that should be prevented
again, and the tax incentives to buy a home exacerbate this issue.
There’s no discussion that.
The Rubio plan allows full expensing of capital projects in
the first year of expense, which entirely alters our notion of depreciation,
which has grown more favorable to businesses since the “MACRS” system
introduced in the 1980s.
There’s no discussion on that.
Many of these plans demand an immediate repatriation of
foreign income and move permanently to a territorial tax system.
There’s no discussion on that.
Rubio’s plan expands the child tax credit, while Bush’s plan
extends the personal deduction: the first benefits families with children, the
second benefits everyone.
There’s no discussion on that.
There’s simply no discussion at all on any major overhauls
of the tax code, except to the extent that it “decreases” the deficit ( and
enables future government growth) and soaks the rich (because screw them).
This is not a mature, substantive discussion on tax policy.
This is political theater dressed up as substantive critiques, which the
Liberal side of the aisle adores.
This is why liberals often talk about the “tax breaks” for
oil companies and airlines for private executives, which are normal investments
for many companies and which all companies are allowed to expense. Again, this
is not a mature point at all, it is childish political theater to suggest that
oil companies should not be allowed to deduct expenses for building an oil well
while, say, GM is allowed to expense a new factory.
Don’t be fooled.
To determine how a Republican President might behave in
office, look at the previous Republican Presidents. Reagan absolutely did
implement massive tax cuts in 1981, which were not offset by spending
decreases: in fact, Reagan super-sized the military budget, so as to give the
US military all manner of advanced weapons systems. This created some massive
deficits throughout the 80s.
It’s important to note, though, that the Reagan 1986 tax
reform was a revenue-neutral reform that closed a tremendous number of
loopholes. Additionally, Reagan RAISED FICA taxes in order to secure Social
Security for future generations.
Bush Junior did pass
some substantial tax cuts as well, but the actual deficit prior to the
recession, IE, our structural deficit, was a low 1.6% of GDP, much lower than
the 3% an economist would consider sustainable. He cut taxes, yes, but he held
spending growth enough to prevent the deficit from exploding like the Reagan
years. We had a small increase in the public debt, which was manageable and no
real concern.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the narrative, is it?
Any of the mainstream Republicans make an appropriate
President. You only need reference the moderate record of prior Republican
Presidents.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Fall Days and Projects
Don't you love this time of year? The heart simply weeps at the sheer beauty all around us. Wildlife scurries everywhere, the trees bleed color into our every day life, breweries bring out delicious ales and retire those disgusting lemonade concoctions, and even our homes fill up with warmth generously supplied by the central heating furnaces bequeathed by our ancestors.
Just a few weeks keep us from the real great times of the year, when our friends and family gather 'round the dinner table and break bread with us. Feasting has always had a great importance, and harvest festivals in particular stand out among wintering societies.
So why not get excited?!
I took the picture above at a Corn Maze a few weeks ago. For whatever reason, myself and another young man led our party of 8 through the maze this year. Can't say we did a perfect job. We managed to turn ourselves around in the Northwest Corner and did not find our way for a good 15 minutes. We will not win any records.
We spent the night drinking beer and reading scary stories by the campfire. Unfortunately, the drive home took well over an hour: Chicago, a huge city, has moved its farms well out of the city limits, making it unusual in the MidWest in that you need to actually go an hour out of your way to find a farm. Can't quite have a farm in my neighborhood, where a quarter acre of undeveloped land will go for near $300,000.
Instead Chicago adds value-add through Futures Trading, which the Chicago Board of Trade brought to us in 1864, or, historically, yesterday. There's been some pretty nasty drawbacks to that approach: Sorry about that whole AIG thing.
Not that Futures Trading is irrelevant, mind you. You can see the effects of banned futures trading in the Onion Market. The prices have proven pretty volatile in the last decade. Well-developed financial markets still are necessary for growth, and the lack of them leads to chaos: this is why China is falling off so rapidly and has dropped hundreds of billions this year to support its currency.
Thankfully, our solid work ethic, education, and markets have delivered another wonderful bounty to us, which means the Wife and I spent the last month purchasing new furniture for our home, ahead of our November 14th Friendsgiving.
On the list:
-A sectional couch with pull-out bed
-A Lazy-Boy recliner (we need a rocking chair on the first floor)
-Dining Room Chairs
-Dining Room Table
The last, that blasted table, should've arrived last weekend. The furniture store shipped a coal black, dead as night table to us instead of the rustic brown we wanted. Now they tell us they may need to give us a loaner table until they procure the correct one!
Idiots.
We're also building up our recipe repertoire. To me, that means picking up a whole bunch of vinegar: sherry, aged red wine, cider, etc. Vinegar is a highly underrated flavoring, particularly those with significant hypertension like me that don't need the extra salt. It doesn't have the nutrients of good oils, but the acid gives things one hell of a kick.
My Wife and her friends try out new recipes weekly. This is Jenna, cutting up some apples.
I hate fruit, but they stuffed these with chocolate and developed a tasty, semi-healthy desert. Better than cramming Twinkies down your throat anyways.
On a side note, Jenna finally found herself a boyfriend. You'll remember her as the notoriously picky utterly unremarkable American Girl.
Jenna found a great guy with a great personality. I haven't met him yet, obviously, but he rides a motorcycle, hangs out with lots of middling attractive, single girls, and plays guitar. His personality is simply remarkable.
Meanwhile my architect friend bailed on our Corn Maze adventure for a date, who flaked on him. Still no word on any long-term partners there, even though that's his explicit target.
Can't make these stories up.
Thankfully I can put that aside and focus on starting my family. No news on that front yet, either. At least I have a while to paint the nursery.
Happy Autumn to all.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Narrative vs. Trend, American Politics
What's going on in American politics right now?
I live in Dem-central. Worse still, I grew up during the Bush years, specifically the Iraq War, right when Jon Stewart hit his stride and grew into a Progressive media mogul. My generation signs on to practically every left-leaning cause. We'll even vote for a self-identified socialist.
Hell, my Brother-in-Law told me Bernie Sanders is a moderate guy, and the Koch Brothers bought Hillary Clinton. Do you see what I have to deal with every day? I live in the Progressive Narrative, built on top an aggressively policed Meme-plex where even slight deviations earn a shout-down from the "Microaggressions" Crew.
The Progressive Narrative, which dominates media, goes something like this: America has drifted right-ward since 1980. The Democrats are so far right that they might as well be a right-wing party in Europe, while the Republicans might as well be on Pluto.
And after this right-wing nightmare, the American Public elected Barrack Obama, and re-elected him, in huge margins. What's left on the Republican Right is mostly racism, religious zealotry, and Big Business.
Okay, okay, that's the narrative.
What's the actual trend?
Luckily, Gallup keeps some good data. First, I want to focus on the White Vote. The nation was demographically much whiter starting in the 1950s, so if there has been a dramatic shift to the Democrats, that should be plainly obvious in the share of the White vote going to Democrats.
What does the data say?
2012:
Obama: 43 Romney: 57
Hmmmm....Romney won non-Hispanic whites by a HUGE margin....When's the last time there was a margin that large?
2008:
Obama: 44 McCain: 56
2004:
Kerry: 43 Bush: 57
Wow. Wait. Romney won as much of the White vote as Bush. Where's this HUGE Democratic shift?
2000:
Gore: 42 (+2 Nader) Bush: 56
I mean, you might start assuming Republicans have a lock on this vote, but that's not entirely true.
1996:
Clinton: 46 Dole: 45
1976:
Carter: 46 Ford: 52
You can see here that the Democrats have under-performed in the White vote for a long time, only outright winning the vote in '64, when the Republicans ran Goldwater and lost practically every single state. Republicans rode a huge backlash of white voters into the White House and an apparently complete electoral dominance.
That hasn't shifted at all.
The actual political trend, at the electorate level, has been the "browning" of America. There's obviously been a huge shift in national demographics, that has enabled Democrats to return to a majority position in government.
This is not only due to general population increase, but also an increase in turnout. The Dems have vastly increased voter turn-out among some of their key groups, particularly African-Americans. This, more than sheer vote numbers, has enabled a decisive return to the White House. Mobilizing the base always has been a major problem for Democrats, who usually have to turn out depressed, marginalized groups that just don't care much.
There's no left-ward shift. There is a change in national character, but that's because of the addition of a lot of Democratic-leaning groups, plus a lot more angry, passionate Democrats voting at the polls.
That's an important distinction. We have some historically marginalized groups that are coming to the table, seeking their place and demanding what they feel is their due, and that usually portends disruption more than unity.
The second, lesser discussed feature is that, while the White Vote has stayed the same overall, White Voters have switched party.
Take Kim Davis. She's a lifelong Democrat, believe it or not. But the Culture Wars have finally pushed her out of the Cosmopolitan Democratic Camp and into the Republican Camp.
Then take, say, Arlen Spector, who wanted to raise taxes and got driven out of the Republican Party.
The old parties were more collections of regional interests, but these days the Republicans and Democrats more closely mirror ideological groups. Both are becoming "purer." But this means both parties are becoming....well...crazier?
The Republicans unseated Boehner. True. But on the Democratic Side, look at the "insurgency" candidates. We've gone from Joseph Lieberman to Howard Dean to Barrack Obama to Bernie Sanders. At this rate, we might have Vladimir Lenin on the Democratic ticket in 2020.
That actually concerns me more than the ethnic diversity, which I know a lot of others are more worried with. The Democratic Party has grown INSANE. They were pretty "reasonable" back in the 60s, and still had a lot of crazy economics and social policy that directly created the economic disaster of the 1970s. That, more than anything else, solidifed the Reagan Revolution.
There was an internal pendulum, so to speak.
Now? All bets are off. The Democratic Party has grown a lot crazier, but they have some pretty strong demographic tailwinds. So there's no natural check on how crazy they are.
That's the trend I see, and that's why I think these next few decades might be quite interesting.
I live in Dem-central. Worse still, I grew up during the Bush years, specifically the Iraq War, right when Jon Stewart hit his stride and grew into a Progressive media mogul. My generation signs on to practically every left-leaning cause. We'll even vote for a self-identified socialist.
Hell, my Brother-in-Law told me Bernie Sanders is a moderate guy, and the Koch Brothers bought Hillary Clinton. Do you see what I have to deal with every day? I live in the Progressive Narrative, built on top an aggressively policed Meme-plex where even slight deviations earn a shout-down from the "Microaggressions" Crew.
The Progressive Narrative, which dominates media, goes something like this: America has drifted right-ward since 1980. The Democrats are so far right that they might as well be a right-wing party in Europe, while the Republicans might as well be on Pluto.
And after this right-wing nightmare, the American Public elected Barrack Obama, and re-elected him, in huge margins. What's left on the Republican Right is mostly racism, religious zealotry, and Big Business.
Okay, okay, that's the narrative.
What's the actual trend?
Luckily, Gallup keeps some good data. First, I want to focus on the White Vote. The nation was demographically much whiter starting in the 1950s, so if there has been a dramatic shift to the Democrats, that should be plainly obvious in the share of the White vote going to Democrats.
What does the data say?
2012:
Obama: 43 Romney: 57
Hmmmm....Romney won non-Hispanic whites by a HUGE margin....When's the last time there was a margin that large?
2008:
Obama: 44 McCain: 56
2004:
Kerry: 43 Bush: 57
Wow. Wait. Romney won as much of the White vote as Bush. Where's this HUGE Democratic shift?
2000:
Gore: 42 (+2 Nader) Bush: 56
I mean, you might start assuming Republicans have a lock on this vote, but that's not entirely true.
1996:
Clinton: 46 Dole: 45
1976:
Carter: 46 Ford: 52
You can see here that the Democrats have under-performed in the White vote for a long time, only outright winning the vote in '64, when the Republicans ran Goldwater and lost practically every single state. Republicans rode a huge backlash of white voters into the White House and an apparently complete electoral dominance.
That hasn't shifted at all.
The actual political trend, at the electorate level, has been the "browning" of America. There's obviously been a huge shift in national demographics, that has enabled Democrats to return to a majority position in government.
This is not only due to general population increase, but also an increase in turnout. The Dems have vastly increased voter turn-out among some of their key groups, particularly African-Americans. This, more than sheer vote numbers, has enabled a decisive return to the White House. Mobilizing the base always has been a major problem for Democrats, who usually have to turn out depressed, marginalized groups that just don't care much.
There's no left-ward shift. There is a change in national character, but that's because of the addition of a lot of Democratic-leaning groups, plus a lot more angry, passionate Democrats voting at the polls.
That's an important distinction. We have some historically marginalized groups that are coming to the table, seeking their place and demanding what they feel is their due, and that usually portends disruption more than unity.
The second, lesser discussed feature is that, while the White Vote has stayed the same overall, White Voters have switched party.
Take Kim Davis. She's a lifelong Democrat, believe it or not. But the Culture Wars have finally pushed her out of the Cosmopolitan Democratic Camp and into the Republican Camp.
Then take, say, Arlen Spector, who wanted to raise taxes and got driven out of the Republican Party.
The old parties were more collections of regional interests, but these days the Republicans and Democrats more closely mirror ideological groups. Both are becoming "purer." But this means both parties are becoming....well...crazier?
The Republicans unseated Boehner. True. But on the Democratic Side, look at the "insurgency" candidates. We've gone from Joseph Lieberman to Howard Dean to Barrack Obama to Bernie Sanders. At this rate, we might have Vladimir Lenin on the Democratic ticket in 2020.
That actually concerns me more than the ethnic diversity, which I know a lot of others are more worried with. The Democratic Party has grown INSANE. They were pretty "reasonable" back in the 60s, and still had a lot of crazy economics and social policy that directly created the economic disaster of the 1970s. That, more than anything else, solidifed the Reagan Revolution.
There was an internal pendulum, so to speak.
Now? All bets are off. The Democratic Party has grown a lot crazier, but they have some pretty strong demographic tailwinds. So there's no natural check on how crazy they are.
That's the trend I see, and that's why I think these next few decades might be quite interesting.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
David vs. Goliath
My Wife envies my intellectual ability sometimes. She knows I see things she does not, she knows I understand policies she does not, and she knows I craft strategies she cannot.
Even more, she fears not keeping my interest. She's not an intellectual person. She's a "here's my day!" kind of person.
She asked how she might ramp up her intellectual ability, quickly. I suggested Malcolm Gladwell books, and after struggling through 50 pages of "Blink," she opted for "David vs. Goliath" on audio CD. Which her mom already read, and boy do I have comments on that later!
First, though, I want you to watch Gladwell's TED talk, where he recounts David Vs. Goliath. Or if not, skip the link, and see the quick summation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath?language=en
Gladwell says we understand David and Goliath all wrong. Goliath is at a severe handicap: he's practically blind, he's heavy infantry. David is the ancient equivalent of field artillery, a dedicated slinger.
Skip to 3:30 below to see a slingshot compared to a variety of weapons. The metal ball hits with more force than a modern handgun.
So, why are surprised Goliath lost?
Gladwell's book addresses all sorts of apparent underdogs who persevere over more superior foes, and a major advantage of the underdogs often possess is desperation.
Desperation isn't always good, but people with nothing to lose can often become quite innovative. While most new ideas are terrible, desperate people with the right set of skills and the right amount of luck often develop entirely new strategies, that dominante over less advanced, stiffer strategies.
This is actually the case for World War II: France and Britain outnumbered the Germans substantially. Superior German tactics led the accidental invention of Blitzkrieg, which dominated the static Allied defenses. But make no mistake, Germany was desperate. Hitler, the little emo-art student he was, practically had daily breakdowns during the Phony War period, because the terrified Furher could not imagine possibly prevailing against the combined British-French forces.
So, what the hell, go for broke.
It worked.
Now take a look at some of YaReally's post at the Rational Male, regarding Pick-Up:
The guys over at TRM really like YaReally. Maybe he's lying, but they regard him as a pretty talented PUA. He didn't start that way. He started out at as a 24 year old nerd who couldn't get laid. But, as he said, he had no ego left at 24.
I'm not surprised. I was a 24 year old virgin, too, along with a close friend of mind, the NASA Scientist. The NASA Scientist dated a religious Lutheran girl who denied him sex and then put out for another guy on the first night. We both agreed that if we actually made it to 25 and were still virgins, we should probably kill ourselves. That's about the amount of ego you have left as a 24 year old virgin.
Doubly-so for him, who, even with a girlfriend, could not get laid. A girlfriend who was quite willing to fuck the correct guy under the correct situation. "The Correct Guy" did not include "NASA Scientist," which I guess says a lot about how religious girls who are virgins at 25 value men.
And, yes, that's why I say "Even the Shy Girls" do not meet quality standards.
But whereas my NASA Scientist friend entered a self-destructive loop of social anxiety and shyness that has resulted in him losing his job and getting mental treatment (and did I mention he's still a third-wave feminist?), YaReally joined the pick-up community and practiced.
Hard.
He went out most nights, as part of a community solely focused on grabbing girls and doing a good job of it.
He's become pretty damn good at getting girls.
He's a David, but he owned a lot of unique strengths. He had no ego left, which was good: it opened him up to new ideas. A lot of nerdy guys hold on to their social egos, which actually holds them back. He was smart, and he had a willingness to work hard, and he found the right community that he could teach him the right things.
David's have a lot of advantages, if only they put them to use.
Unfortunately, that means correcting a lot of misguided internal beliefs. Which is why the Red Pill exists more broadly than the PUA movement, and why we talk about defying the Matrix: we are trying to liberate young men's minds from toxic narratives that dominate society, and poison young men's minds.
In totally related news, the Architect visited Sunday night. He brought some leftover blueberry pie.
"I'm happy he's so Betty Crocker," my Wife said. "I mean, so designer, and baking-"
"You mean, he's a girl."
"I didn't want to put it that way, but yeah."
Even more, she fears not keeping my interest. She's not an intellectual person. She's a "here's my day!" kind of person.
She asked how she might ramp up her intellectual ability, quickly. I suggested Malcolm Gladwell books, and after struggling through 50 pages of "Blink," she opted for "David vs. Goliath" on audio CD. Which her mom already read, and boy do I have comments on that later!
First, though, I want you to watch Gladwell's TED talk, where he recounts David Vs. Goliath. Or if not, skip the link, and see the quick summation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath?language=en
Gladwell says we understand David and Goliath all wrong. Goliath is at a severe handicap: he's practically blind, he's heavy infantry. David is the ancient equivalent of field artillery, a dedicated slinger.
Skip to 3:30 below to see a slingshot compared to a variety of weapons. The metal ball hits with more force than a modern handgun.
So, why are surprised Goliath lost?
Gladwell's book addresses all sorts of apparent underdogs who persevere over more superior foes, and a major advantage of the underdogs often possess is desperation.
Desperation isn't always good, but people with nothing to lose can often become quite innovative. While most new ideas are terrible, desperate people with the right set of skills and the right amount of luck often develop entirely new strategies, that dominante over less advanced, stiffer strategies.
This is actually the case for World War II: France and Britain outnumbered the Germans substantially. Superior German tactics led the accidental invention of Blitzkrieg, which dominated the static Allied defenses. But make no mistake, Germany was desperate. Hitler, the little emo-art student he was, practically had daily breakdowns during the Phony War period, because the terrified Furher could not imagine possibly prevailing against the combined British-French forces.
So, what the hell, go for broke.
It worked.
Now take a look at some of YaReally's post at the Rational Male, regarding Pick-Up:
I can do shit that people who meet me or see me don’t expect me to be able to do and, unless they’ve studied a shitload of game, can’t wrap their heads around. I’m not floating on water, even Tyler Julien etc constantly remind their students that they’re not gods (despite the marketing lol), they’re just guys who know how to execute very specific steps and strategies to create specific reactions in people and play the chessboard optimally. That’s it. ANYONE can do it. We’re all just fucking NERDS who were supposed to be weeded out of evolution except we decided going out and talking to girls a few nights a week was more fun than playing xbox or jumping off a building or dying a virgin lol
One of the big differences between a PUA and a Natural is that when a Natural isn’t “in state” as we call it (your flowy state), we have conscious steps we can take to get ourselves INTO that state whereas a Natural is kind of at the mercy of luck with it which can be frustrating at times.
we had a “Tactics & Techniques” section on the old boards where you weren’t allowed to post a technique till you’ve personally tried it successfully at least 3 times, and then guys would go out and pressure test that shit and discuss what was going on and narrow down the results and figure out how the data fit into or changed what we understood about social dynamics.
The guys over at TRM really like YaReally. Maybe he's lying, but they regard him as a pretty talented PUA. He didn't start that way. He started out at as a 24 year old nerd who couldn't get laid. But, as he said, he had no ego left at 24.
I'm not surprised. I was a 24 year old virgin, too, along with a close friend of mind, the NASA Scientist. The NASA Scientist dated a religious Lutheran girl who denied him sex and then put out for another guy on the first night. We both agreed that if we actually made it to 25 and were still virgins, we should probably kill ourselves. That's about the amount of ego you have left as a 24 year old virgin.
Doubly-so for him, who, even with a girlfriend, could not get laid. A girlfriend who was quite willing to fuck the correct guy under the correct situation. "The Correct Guy" did not include "NASA Scientist," which I guess says a lot about how religious girls who are virgins at 25 value men.
And, yes, that's why I say "Even the Shy Girls" do not meet quality standards.
But whereas my NASA Scientist friend entered a self-destructive loop of social anxiety and shyness that has resulted in him losing his job and getting mental treatment (and did I mention he's still a third-wave feminist?), YaReally joined the pick-up community and practiced.
Hard.
He went out most nights, as part of a community solely focused on grabbing girls and doing a good job of it.
He's become pretty damn good at getting girls.
He's a David, but he owned a lot of unique strengths. He had no ego left, which was good: it opened him up to new ideas. A lot of nerdy guys hold on to their social egos, which actually holds them back. He was smart, and he had a willingness to work hard, and he found the right community that he could teach him the right things.
David's have a lot of advantages, if only they put them to use.
Unfortunately, that means correcting a lot of misguided internal beliefs. Which is why the Red Pill exists more broadly than the PUA movement, and why we talk about defying the Matrix: we are trying to liberate young men's minds from toxic narratives that dominate society, and poison young men's minds.
In totally related news, the Architect visited Sunday night. He brought some leftover blueberry pie.
"I'm happy he's so Betty Crocker," my Wife said. "I mean, so designer, and baking-"
"You mean, he's a girl."
"I didn't want to put it that way, but yeah."
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Damn That Smell
We finally have some new floors!
We contracted this job. A little piece of my soul died this week, but refinishing hardwood floors and potentially losing any sense of evenness terrified me. What I have in enthusiaism, I lose in finesse. Never even learned to color in the lines!
Luckily, the Contractor pained out some options on the floor. Father suggested Cherry, but my Wife and I opted for something a bit more natural. Of the above, I leaned towards the middle-brown Nutmeg color above. It's a mid-tone and shows a lot of the natural wood grain.
We played around with different lights throughout the day. At the end of the night, we blasted some incandescents on the floor, and...well...Nutmeg turned into a sickly gray. Like, zombified flesh.
So we opted for the dark, English Chestnut instead.
Dark? A little bit, but the color shows up well under most lights. The last is the morning sun hitting the floor, and the floors are really beautiful. Once we put proper lighting throughout the main floor, we'll have a good, warm tone throughout the whole space.
Downside? Oh man that smell. The contractors stained Monday and finished Wednesday, and now, on Sunday, I still smell a harsh shoe polish everywhere.
The next project is moving all that furniture back in position and buying some new couches to match the space. Oh and getting vehicle stickers removed and addressing more tax concerns.
Oh, yay, adult life.
We contracted this job. A little piece of my soul died this week, but refinishing hardwood floors and potentially losing any sense of evenness terrified me. What I have in enthusiaism, I lose in finesse. Never even learned to color in the lines!
Luckily, the Contractor pained out some options on the floor. Father suggested Cherry, but my Wife and I opted for something a bit more natural. Of the above, I leaned towards the middle-brown Nutmeg color above. It's a mid-tone and shows a lot of the natural wood grain.
We played around with different lights throughout the day. At the end of the night, we blasted some incandescents on the floor, and...well...Nutmeg turned into a sickly gray. Like, zombified flesh.
So we opted for the dark, English Chestnut instead.
Dark? A little bit, but the color shows up well under most lights. The last is the morning sun hitting the floor, and the floors are really beautiful. Once we put proper lighting throughout the main floor, we'll have a good, warm tone throughout the whole space.
Downside? Oh man that smell. The contractors stained Monday and finished Wednesday, and now, on Sunday, I still smell a harsh shoe polish everywhere.
The next project is moving all that furniture back in position and buying some new couches to match the space. Oh and getting vehicle stickers removed and addressing more tax concerns.
Oh, yay, adult life.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Post Labor Day
The Beta household failed to hit our targets for Labor Day work, but there's worse things in the world.
Brief update: Those weeds mysteriously vanished, along with most of the 6 foot high, razor sharp monstrosities along the property line. Victory!
I felt great after the weeds died and carried the momentum forward into Labor Day Weekend. My friend, a Chicago school teacher, wanted to celebrate his last weekend of freedom with some good old fashion manual labor.
No problem. I swung by his apartment at 8 AM Saturday morning, picked up a few things from Home Depot, and went about ripping out this ugly gray stuff.
Mother Dearest warned me about the endless tedium involved in ripping out carpet. Nahhhhh. There's an honest fun in doing a bit of manual labor, and tearing out carpet ranks low on the required-skill level. Anyone can do it. Plus the guys I had on hand (another friend showed up after his work called unexpectedly) loved the work.
We started at 10 AM and wrapped up the last few staples by 2 PM. Nice, easy day. Beautiful hardwood underneath, but it's an old coat that needs refinished.
Unfortunately, refinishing the floors seemed out of reach. It's something an amateur can do, but I have a little hand-eye coordination problem, and a total lack of finesse. Since I never learned to color between the lines, my Wife and I agreed that refinishing the wood floors would be best left up to the professionals.
Red Pill continues per usual. No daily wife beatings, no beheadings, no negs, and I didn't even chain my wife to the kitchen.
Brief update: Those weeds mysteriously vanished, along with most of the 6 foot high, razor sharp monstrosities along the property line. Victory!
I felt great after the weeds died and carried the momentum forward into Labor Day Weekend. My friend, a Chicago school teacher, wanted to celebrate his last weekend of freedom with some good old fashion manual labor.
No problem. I swung by his apartment at 8 AM Saturday morning, picked up a few things from Home Depot, and went about ripping out this ugly gray stuff.
Mother Dearest warned me about the endless tedium involved in ripping out carpet. Nahhhhh. There's an honest fun in doing a bit of manual labor, and tearing out carpet ranks low on the required-skill level. Anyone can do it. Plus the guys I had on hand (another friend showed up after his work called unexpectedly) loved the work.
We started at 10 AM and wrapped up the last few staples by 2 PM. Nice, easy day. Beautiful hardwood underneath, but it's an old coat that needs refinished.
Left: Hardwood under the carpet. Right: Exposed hardwood. The exposed hardwood was refinished, looks like with a water finish. Looks less glossy. The right side sits a bit lower, since the finishing process stripped the top layer.
Unfortunately, refinishing the floors seemed out of reach. It's something an amateur can do, but I have a little hand-eye coordination problem, and a total lack of finesse. Since I never learned to color between the lines, my Wife and I agreed that refinishing the wood floors would be best left up to the professionals.
Red Pill continues per usual. No daily wife beatings, no beheadings, no negs, and I didn't even chain my wife to the kitchen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)