Category Archives: Men

Tuesday Tips- #4 It’s The Economy Stupid (Part 2)

It has been quite a while since we have had any posts in this series from reader MK, and thus the time is right for issue #4. Today’s topic is the economy, yet again. As always, these comments are not mine, and their inclusion in my blog doesn’t necessarily mean I support them. I include them as food for thought and discussion.

It’s been months since the last Tip. My excuse? I’ve been productive: a nice 2016 harvest (1,500 pounds of fish and game plus half this weight in crabapples). Look, teen boys flat-out eat. And this merely supplements an annual consumption of 1,500 pounds of oat & rice plus 14,000 eggs. Protein? It’s kind of a big deal here.

This sidebar conveniently relates to my prior TT, which concludes: For those who can adjust their [economic] mindset and take action, real opportunity exists. So forget the theory; let’s get specific about the opportunity:

1) Read the book Dividends Still Don’t Lie (Wright). Invest accordingly. Educate yourself regarding stocks. Grok book value, PE ratio, and dividend yield. Extra credit: read The Intelligent Investor (Graham). Extra-extra credit: read Graham’s classic Security Analysis. Look, knowing about money is just what men do, like fixing cars, shooting guns, or hanging drywall. You simply gotta know it. Especially if you are young.

2) Follow the Investment Quality Trends newsletter for at least a year. This value-investing methodology has yielded double-digits since 1966 in very conservative manner. Too much work? Just dollar-cost-average your savings into the Vanguard Total Stock Market. While higher risk and lower return than IQT value investing, it’s not a bad option and requires little education. Extra credit: put savings outside of a 401k or IRA into an investment partnership (easy to start). This shields the money from lawsuits (cheap insurance). Remember, the primary cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical issues, and this could happen to anyone. We all get sick and die eventually. Be prepared.

3) Be a saver, not a spender. Select friends and romantic partners who are also savers. Avoid family members who spend recklessly. Hang with the kind of guys who actually play sports and do productive things, not the guys who watch other people do them on TV.

4) Kill. Your. TV. ‘Nuff said. 90% of consumerism (and cultural filth) comes from our media. Don’t even allow a TV in your house, especially if you have kids. Whisky and loaded guns seem less dangerous, to me.

5) Get serious about life. Do hobbies that produce health and wealth, not decrease them. For example, learn to fix everything. Buy less, and only buy quality. Eat at home. Vacation where you live. Learn to cook from scratch, sew, and tailor. If married, expect your wife to do this, and do it well. Grow a garden. Cut your own hair. Caveat: an alternative to this DIY approach? Pour excess time into a productive career. I prefer to live a fuller and leaner life and retire young, but heck, why not do both? Go big or go home!

6) Invest in yourself by trying new and productive things. For example, buy a house, improve it, and sell it for tax-free profit. This works for all sorts of things: cars, appliances, whatever. As Scott Adams says, each new skill you learn doubles your chance of future success. Life is short, think big.

7) Keep at least 6-12 months of cash outside the system (remember that withdrawals of $10k are recorded, so take your time). Store it carefully against fire and theft (e.g., vacuum-pack and bury). This is base insurance. If you get sued, divorce-raped, or forced into bankruptcy due to a medical crisis, you will be glad you did this. The money must remain private and easily accessible. Remember, if you are a traditional Christian, you should anticipate persecution. It’s not a question of if, but when.

8) Keep 10% of your net worth in physical precious metals and/or jewelry. Again, outside the system and stored carefully. Don’t even consider a safe-deposit box! For the same reasons as above. This is longer-term insurance; unlike cash, it will match inflation over the decades. Personally, I like to sell half when prices go high, and then replace it at lower prices for profit later. It’s nice to get paid to have insurance for a change!

9) Act. Everyone talks. Very, very few have the balls to DO. Be the doer. Take a risk. The odds are, you won’t do any of these things, even if you like the ideas. Why? Inertia is the greatest force in the world. Trust me, none of these things are easy to do. But I can’t recommend them enough. Act.

Lots of guys don’t see much point in it all today. They are listless and uninspired. I get this. I assume this is generally due to a poor diet, lack of exercise, and the declining economic and social situation that defines our hopeless era. Lack of hope is a lethal spiritual wound. Men ask: what are the options today for a serious religious guy? Become a monk, or a cuckolded provider for a woman cashing out of the SMP? The game seems rigged. The deck stacked.

Well, I say: Don’t fall into this trap. Forge your own economic lifestyle. Ignore the crowd. Become financially independent. Live with focus and purpose. Never look back. Demand more. You will be amazed at the number of people – especially women – who will follow you. I know I would. Hope, confidence, and excitement about the future are highly contagious.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Civilization, Men, Red Pill

The Gamma-ization Of Superman

I have been meaning to write this post for some time after numerous discussions withNSR, but never got around to it. However, Cane Caldo’s latest post, The Judgement of Freaks, finally convinced me to get something down on electronic paper. Cane’s post exams Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans and their nature and how it interacts with the market. The part that interested me was this:

But if we talk about the collective of fans, a great many of whom are strange and ill-formed, then I must say that it does have to be this way. What these strange and ill-formed SF&F fans want is a structure of the superficial. The less substantive the better, for under it they can do a couple things.

  1. Transform their crippling weirdness into a minor flaw which is subsumed under the temporarily-irrelevant category of real life.
  2. Practice a wide assortment of perversions disguised as make believe.

That’s why there are so many freaks in the comicbook store. That’s why there are so many freaks at the Star Trek conventions. That’s why there are so many freaks at Renaissance festivals, comic conventions, anime conventions…there are a lot of freak conventions.

I have no idea how much experience Cane has with this sort of folk. I’ve always had the impression he was a jock in high-school, and not the nerd type. Unfortunately, I was the nerd type, and so I am all too familiar with these freaks. And freaks they are.

Oh, not all of them. I’ve been to comic shops and conventions and Ren fairs and the like. Not everyone there is a freak. But plenty are. Perhaps even a majority at many of these events/places. The thing is, this didn’t always use to be the case.

Years ago comics used to be much more “mainstream,” for want of a better term. But somewhere along the way that changed. Both the fans and the writers started to shift in their overall make-up, and it shows. This structure of the superficial became more predominant, and then finally dominant. Depth is out of the question in most places, and what “depth” you do get is typical SJW political drivel for the most part. The exceptions are just that, exceptions.

From my perspective comics started as a form of light fantasy entertainment. Superpowers sort of took the place of magic, and allowed for fun and interesting characters and stories. But then as the fandom and writers changed, this shifted. Light fantasy morphed into what I can only think is escapism. People created weirder and weirder characters and situations because they themselves were weirder and weirder. As for the existing characters, they were transformed in varying ways, few of them good.

Superman provides an excellent example of this. As originally conceived and as the character was written in the golden and silver age, Superman fits many of the qualities that are often in these parts called “Alpha.” I mean, really, he is the Alpha. Strong, confident, dominant and admired/envied by everyone. And of course women throw themselves at him.

But over time the character of Superman has changed. Some of this might owe to the Comics Code, put in place in the mid 50s, which made things “tamer.” However, I think that only helped lay the groundwork- it didn’t actually lead to the character changing. Instead, it was a new generation of writers (and the fans with them) that transformed the character.

An interesting fact that NSR told me is that DC Comics originally figured they had only a 3-5 year run with most of their readers, who happened to be young boys. After that the boys would start getting interested in girls and their interest in comics would wane. Apparently that influenced the business model. However, at some point super-fans showed up and started to make noises about continuity and the need to collect every comic and the like. Over time these fans became writers, and they started to change the character.

I mention this because it seems to me that the super-fans, if we can call them that, evidently didn’t get caught up in the whole “chasing girls” thing. This to me suggests that they were “out there”, perhaps in a socio-sexual way. Enter Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy. I don’t subscribe to it in full, but I think there are some useful descriptions there. Here is the description of Gamma:

The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

What I suspect is that over time many of the writers in the comics world started to fit this description. Their own nature as “Gammas” influenced their writing. They projected some of their own nature onto the characters they were writing. This is something you can see in the character of Superman. Some examples of the changes:

  • Superman was always an alien, but he still fit in while on Earth. During his Gammization, however, two things happened. Some writers had him basically disregard his Kryptonian heritage- an example of deliberately denying pride in one’s ancestry. Other writers went to the other extreme, and emphasized his alien nature. They made him feel as if he was an outcast/outsider- which is just how many of them happened to feel.
  • The way that Superman interacted with women, especially as Clark Kent, changed. In the beginning Clark was always mild-mannered, but his bumbling nature with women was also a disguise. Superman actually enjoyed pretending to be the fool who didn’t “get” women. It was all a joke to him. But over time that disguise sort of disappeared, and he lost his humor at playing people. Instead he was confused and conflicted with how he should interact with women. This can be seen in the original Superman movie from the 70s.
  • After 1986, Superman was often displaced within his own comics. Other characters would be the ones taking all the action, and he would just stand there. Along with this came a huge decrease in his power. While Superman certainly had some “power creep” in the early days, he was almost neutered once the Gammas took over the writing.

There is more, but those examples in particular stand out. Putting all of it together, we have seen Superman as a character be twisted by a wave of writers less masculine , and more freakish, than the ones who came before. Of course, he isn’t the only character so affected. And it is important to note that many comics writers from the start were freaks who wanted ways to live out their perversions- see the character of Wonder Woman, for example.

Unfortunately, I see this trend only continuing. So those of us who enjoy the old comics- the light fantasy and not the shallow escapism and perversions of today, are sort of out of luck. At least we have the old ones to enjoy.

9 Comments

Filed under Alpha, Beta, Blue Pill, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill

Masculine Monday- Sympathy And Understanding

[Men only]

One of the hurdles that men face today in navigating the Marriage Marketplace is the widespread ignorance of most people where the MMP is concerned. For a variety of reasons most of the people that a man interacts with don’t have a clue how the MMP really works. This applies as much to married men as to men seeking to marry. Most people just don’t get it.

Which drives me to the subject of this post- men shouldn’t expect much in the way of understanding from those around them re: the MMP. In fact, the only ones who might understand are men in the same position (or who recently occupied it). I don’t know about most of my readers, but I find this to be a terribly frustrating matter. On more than one occasion I have been asked why I’m not married yet. And no matter how much or well I explain it, I can see in people’s eyes that they don’t understand. I find this quite isolating at times- it creates a climate of being cut off and without aid.

Now, at this point I should mention that one of Rollo‘s little “laws” is that women are ultimately incapable of understanding the male experience. In this area I agree- the disconnect in experience and thought patterns means that women just can’t “get” what it is like to be a man. My advice is to not even try to go into detailed explanations with women when it comes to this field. You will be wasting your time.

At the same time, while understanding isn’t possible from women, and from most men too (they are too bound up in their “Blue Pill” worldview), sympathy is still possible. Even those who don’t understand why your life is the way it is can still be sympathetic. Personally speaking, I don’t find that nearly as much of a relief as understanding. But it is something, at least. So if you do find those who are sympathetic, appreciate that sympathy for what it is- the best connection you can hope to make with most people you encounter, even the good ones.

I write all of this to perhaps save some man out there the frustration that comes from trying to explain to someone what they cannot hope to understand. Accept that you will never impart that understanding, and the connection that comes with it. Take what sympathy that you can get, and keep moving forward. Such is the burden of being a man in this day and age.

 

33 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Churchianity, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place

The Necessity Of Suffering

I have been meaning to write a follow-up to Ace’s post “To feel the pain that spurs you on” “To feel the pain that spurs you on” for over a week now, but various matters intruded and kept me from it. It intrigued me for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it explores critical difference in how men and women think- a pet issue of mine.

His post is in many respects a follow up to one he wrote almost a year ago- “That’s why I cut you just to heal you.” That post is one I also responded to, with The Misery Of Too Much Comfort. So in a way, this post is a double follow-up, in that it addresses posts both old and new.

In my old post I offered a theory as to why women these days are so quick to go out and do things that will make them suffer:

Women expect suffering in their life- it is the natural thing. [Think about the vast majority of human history- filled with suffering for pretty much everyone.] When women are too comfortable, when suffering is absent from their life, then it sends a message to their unconscious mind that something is wrong, that what they are living is an unnatural life. That message of unnaturalness will only be repeated over the years as they grow up. They will know, somewhere deep down inside, that something is wrong. Unfortunately, because this is unconscious, they won’t know what it is, exactly, that is wrong.

This will, naturally enough, lead them to feel miserable. The misery is only made worse because they won’t understand it. It will gnaw on their mind incessantly, like an itch you can’t quite reach.

I suspect that part of the reason that women act so crazy in the west today is because of this. Using that itch analogy I just mentioned- women act crazy because they are trying to scratch that itch. Only they don’t quite know how- so they do so in extreme ways. Again, deep down inside they know they should be suffering, so they go out and make themselves suffer (without every truly understanding that is what they are doing).

Ace, in his own far more concise way, offers an alternate explanation:

[W]omen use suffering (subconsciously, at least) to demonstrate resilience.

In fact, more often than not, women’s complaints are (at heart) actually backhanded boasts of how much suffering they can take.

Now, as interesting as these theories are, they aren’t the key matter I want to examine in this post. Instead, I was fascinated by this (in hindsight obvious) point Ace made:

In fairy tales, the most desirable/marriageable women

had terrible & harsh lives [“childhoods”].

This is not a coincidence but a lesson.

This got me thinking about the role that suffering plays in the rearing/raising of children. More specifically, the different roles that it plays for men and women.

You see, I think that enduring a certain amount of suffering is necessary for the healthy growth and maturity of both men and women. However, the way that the suffering should be experienced/handled is different between them.

For men, suffering should be a tool that is used to strengthen them. They should be exposed to trials and challenges and then forced to overcome those challenges. In that overcoming of obstacles they will be forced to break down the old self, the boy, and build up a new self- the man. This process is repeated over and over as a boy grows up into a man. If successful, he comes out as a strong, tested and confident man who can tackles whatever life throws his way.

For women, on the other hand, suffering is a tool that is used to remove weaknesses and flaws. While that might seem similar to what men undergo, it isn’t. They aren’t put through trials and challenges in the same way. The reason why is simple- the goal isn’t to break the girl down and then build her up as a woman. Instead, the goal is to raise her right from the beginning, and over time to wear down any and all negative traits.

Let me try to explain this further with an agricultural analogy-

For both men and women you have a field that represents them and their character. In the beginning it is sown with wheat. As they get older, however, weeds creep up throughout the field. The wheat represents ideal traits, the weeds negative traits.

For women, the way to deal with this problem is to get on your hands and knees and pull up those weeds. Start in one corner and work your way throughout the field. It will likely be necessary to double-back at some point to deal with any new weeds that sprouted in already cleared parts of the field. As a result, this is a long, continuous process that won’t end for a long, long time (until the woman is that wizened grandmother).

For men, the way to deal with this problem is to cordon off parts of the field. Then, once it is in sections, turn to the first one. Tear everything up. Leave that section as a bare field. Then plant and sow new seed. Water it. Let it grow. Remove any weeds that start to sprout. Then move to the next section, and repeat the process. Do this section by section until the whole field has been attended to.

Tying all of this back to the title of the post, I am arguing here (as I have in the past) that suffering is necessary for healthy character development of both men and women. However, the way that suffering should play out is very between between the two sexes. One of the many problems with our present age is that we have forgotten this, and all too often children are raised alike, irrespective of whether they are boys and girls. And of course, all too often their lives contain far too much comfort, and far too little suffering.

This theory has been bouncing around in my head for almost two weeks now, and I am curious what my readers think about it. Please leave your own thoughts in the comments below. Tell me where I am right, where I am wrong, and where else you think all of this can go.

 

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Fitness Test, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sin, Temptation, Uncategorized

Not Worth It

*Men Only*

Exposure to the “Red Pill” can have a variety of emotional consequences for men- some short term, and some long term.

At first it is usually a slew of negative emotions, including but not limited to: anger, sadness, disgust and despair. Pretty much every one of my male readers, with an exception or two, will be familiar with this.

For some men those emotions will subside over time, and in time the “Red Pill” can pave the way for positive emotions. Sometimes this is because of the knowledge and understanding acquired. Other times it is because men use that knowledge to try and improve their life somehow. And for others it is simply a process of matured acceptance of the way things are.

However, for a not insubstantial number of men there will be some lingering negative emotions. Sometimes the result is truly ugly- I am sure all of us have seen a man who couldn’t handle the truth, and became an emotional wreck as a result. However, not everyone tailspins like that. Sometimes those lingering emotions are flickers most of the time, with the occasional flare-up.

That has been me at times. While I am better now, I recognize that it is very easy, if you aren’t careful, to let negative emotions and thought processes take over. It hasn’t been good for me and won’t be good for any man. Dark Jedi can talk all they want about how anger and hate give you strength, but the truth is that it is a temporary strength. And in the long run, especially with the latter emotion, it will consume you and weaken you.

All of which is my long-winded way of advising my male readers that it isn’t worth it to hold onto these negative emotions. Furthermore, women aren’t worth becoming permanently hateful or angry or bitter or anything of the like. If you want to guarantee that they will ruin your life than there are few better ways than for them to dictate, albeit indirectly, your emotions.

I understand how difficult what I am saying is to actually achieve. Trust me when I say it is awfully easy to hold women en masse in contempt. It is really easy to despise your family and elders who let you down in life- sometimes massively. But it just isn’t worth it. Especially when you consider the long term consequences to your soul.

Gentleman, don’t let them drag you down to hell. They really, truly aren’t worth it. If you believe that many are destined to end that way, all the more reason to not join them. Seek peace in your life- you won’t find it otherwise. Letting negative emotions ( or emotions in general, but that is a matter for another time) guide your life is a sure-fire way of damning yourself. And if that happens, guess what? They win. Don’t let them win.

 

16 Comments

Filed under Masculinity, Men, Red Pill

Like A Boss

I have a fair number of pet peeves, and long-time readers will be aware of a few of them. I want to talk about one in particular today.

You see, I really hate it when a married guy calls his wife “the boss.”

I mean, I might be able to tolerate it if it was said sarcastically. Perhaps as some sort of flirtation/foreplay thing.

But I cannot say that I’ve ever heard it used in that way. The only way I’ve ever heard used is seriously, or in that half-joking way which deep down is tinged with fear.

Frankly, its pathetic.

Unmanly.

Men, your wife is not your “boss.” She is your helpmate. God is your boss. Not your wife. Remember what happened last time a man decided to let his wife play boss? Yeah… didn’t end so well, did it?

So in all seriousness, stop calling your wife your boss. Just stop. Everyone will be better off for it.

And that brings this PSA to an end.

25 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Masculinity, Men

Lowest Common Denominator

In today’s post I want to examine the subject of who “keeps” a nation’s morality. Given the state of moral decay in the West at the moment, and the overall mess that is the marriage market, I think it a topic worth exploring. Since it is a fairly broad subject, I will give considerable latitude to my readers in their responses. But at the same time I would ask that folks use common sense, and not abuse this privilege.

A number of figures have argued, and argue still, that women are the one’s who set the “moral tone” of a civilization. One such figure was Fulton Sheen, who said in Life is Worth Living:

“To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood.  When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”

Others, including I think some around the ‘sphere, have argued the opposite. I do not have any quotes to provide at the moment, as I think this position is argued more by the commentariat than by most bloggers. But I know I’ve seen it.

Before I go on, I should clarify something. I am not examining the subject of which sex, male or female, is more “naturally virtuous.” Or which is more naturally civilized, or a greater fit for civilization, or some such. Rather, I am examining which sex sets the bar of morality in a civilization. In math terms, which is the lowest common denominator?

I do not think that Rev. Fulton Sheen was expressing above a belief that women are more naturally virtuous than men. Rather, he was stating that when women in a society are moral, it is likely that the men will be too. Conversely, the implication is that when men in a society are moral, women do not necessarily follow suite. [The argument that the men in a society can only be moral when the women are, and so the reverse stated before isn’t true, is a different argument altogether.]

As I see it, there are four mutually exclusive alternatives here: women set the bar, men set the bar, neither sets the bar (they are both independent of each other) or both set the bar (there is a casual link between the two in terms of moral level). I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on which they think is true.

Also, I think there can be a number of different possible factors which might be responsible for any bar setting that might occur. They are, in no particular order:

  • Inspiration- The moral character of one sex inspires the other to live a more virtuous life (perhaps in order to be “worthy” of them).
  • Reactivity- One sex might be more inclined by nature to mirror the moral character of the other sex (this is more instinctive than a deliberate choice)
  • Responsiveness to Leadership- One sex might be more inclined by nature to respond to moral leaders and their directions on the moral life. [If one sex is less responsive  than the other it is all the more essential that it be trained/raised properly when young.]

I am sure there are more, but those are the ones that I could think of in short order.

While I am one who loves intellectual discovery for no other purpose than curiosity, something else is driving me here. If one sex is naturally more influential when it comes to the moral character of a people, than it stands to reason that more care needs to be exerted raising that sex while young. After all, a misallocation of time (that most precious of resources) could have lasting effects on the virtue of a civilization. And even if time is spent, it if is spent poorly it will still have deleterious effects. Perhaps even leading to collapse, in the end.

And with those dark thoughts I invite my readers to step forward and voice their own.

 

 

62 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Marriage Market Place, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place, Sin, Temptation, Women