The MGTOW / Bachelor / Self-Improvement lifestyle, especially when combined with intermittent fasting and an 05:30 wake-up time, can rapidly lead to a fairly austere lifestyle. No drugs, no drinking, no Rolexes, no fancy weekends away with expensive girlfriends, no bespoke suits and shoes, no using the latest phone, nor other bling. Some people might even forego the Apple gear and decent Northampton-made shoes for a mid-range Dell and shoes from China, but for me that’s going too far.
Maybe it’s a consequence of being on the AA program, or it’s a consequence of the austerity bit, but I find I have lost sympathy for the chaos, emotional squalor, health problems, financial difficulties, and hangovers of regular people, let alone for their material wants, desires and fantasies.
To me those are choices they have made, but to them, I have realised, none of it is a choice. They call it life and it just happens to them. Choice for them is about what to consume, not how to live. Because they don’t think of themselves as deciding, they don’t experience anything as a consequence, just as more stuff that happens from outside. They hear people saying things like ‘actions have consequences’ and they nod along because they know it’s an Approved Thought, but they don’t think it applies to them. Decisions are something other people make.
AA has a koan: nobody held you down and forced whisky down your throat. Which they didn’t. I picked up the drink and poured it down my throat. My actions. My choices. The day I heard that AA koan, or more accurately, the day I understood it, I felt a sense of relief and of revelation.
I made choices that got me drunk. Now I could make choices that kept me sober. Getting drunk didn’t happen to me, it was something I could stop doing to me.
(Some things do happen to us - losing a job when the company downsizes, drowsiness from hay fever, getting a cold - but even then we can try to do something about the situation we get tipped into. That’s a choice.)
Even if regular people accept that they make choices, they don’t do the math around those choices. Someone told me that they had been putting off having children because it wasn’t the right time. Then one day someone said to them: it’s never the right time to have children. The math on children, for Western people with good jobs and a pleasant lifestyle, is all negative, as the declining birth rates all over Europe attest. It’s poor people who have children because, it doesn’t make their lives any worse.
If you’re a Westener with a shot at a decent job, defined as one that lets you live in your own place and still save some money, the math says you live pretty much as I do, though with more partying. If you don’t make that much, there’s some bad math that says two of you can maybe afford a place of your own. It’s bad math because it doesn’t factor in the expected cost (cost x probability) of the break-up, and the probability of break-up is 40% plus.
Regular people don’t do the math. This matters because if you hire them to manage parts of your company, they are not going to do the math there either. How many business plans for marginal but career-enhancing projects, with utterly fake numbers, do you see? Right. All of them. Regular people do stuff because they think it will enhance their lives, and they don’t look at the downside that will hit them like the tide in the Bristol Channel.
What do they gain, in their private lives, by ignoring the math and even not thinking about consequences? I have no idea. It may be the sense that they don’t want to be me and mine. They don’t want to be That Guy who thinks about tomorrow’s hangover when contemplating another round tonight. Why they would want to be the guy who has the hangover, I have no idea.
And I still see it as a decision that they make. Because it is.
Thursday, 28 March 2019
Monday, 25 March 2019
Vittorio Swiss Chocolate
The chocolate is pretty good, the ice cream is delicious, especially after training (*cough*).
Thursday, 21 March 2019
Everyone Gets The Brexit They Want
Here’s the Brexit situation. The EU - May agreement is unacceptable because of the backstop. Speaker Bercow won’t let it come before Parliament again until there’s a significant change to it. Which there won’t be, because the EU have said they won’t change it. An extension that’s conditional on the agreement being voted in isn’t going to happen, unless Bercow accepts that as a significant change. However, there’s still no guarantee that enough MP’s will change their minds.
No MP is going to propose cancelling A50. The Whips wouldn’t stand for it: it’s one of those things where everybody has to trust everybody else, and there’s too much political capital to be gained by welching on that trust to seem like the Party that’s faithful to the British People.
I give outside odds against Angel Merkel telling the EU to drop the backstop - this would be about Wednesday - so the MPs can vote for the rest of the agreement before the 29th. She gets to be the saviour of Europe, after being its Prime Traitor. Nice legacy.
I’m not changing my position that the EU wants the UK out because we will impede their lunatic Federalism. And the UK wants out because we don’t want to spend our lives fighting lunatic Federalism.
If the EU was staffed by proper grown-ups, it would have talked about trade first and payments afterwards. Instead it is staffed by corrupt and second-rate bureaucrats, all of whom failed in their national political scene. They claim to love Europe, but they hate the people of Europe, and they hate the parliaments of Europe, in which they failed so badly. They have to punish all wrong-doers, and so must make all the other countries think twice. So the UK always was going to get an unacceptable deal.
No-one must be seen to making the decision to leave without a deal. Nobody must be to blame. Everybody must have plausible deniability. That’s why nobody will bring a motion to abandon A50. That’s why the EU stuck in a condition that they knew was unacceptable.
Theresa May has been accused of being a closet Remainer who wants Brexit to fail. Au contraire. She hates the EU in its post-Lisbon guise, and she hates the ECJ and ECHR. Given a choice between destruction and staying under the jurisdiction of the European Courts, she will burn the world. Resigning, by the way, would be tantamount to burning the world.
I suspect that Theresa May was deeply affected by the story of A Fistful of Dollars, where Clint Eastwood’s Stranger plays two factions off against each other, walking away with a lot of money and leaving ruins behind him. He gets beaten up before he can win.
The quisling media portrays Theresa May as a weakened, powerless incompetent. That’s George Osborne projecting his own personality and life on her. That wasn’t the Prime Minister I saw making a statement from Downing Street, skewering the MPs and appealing over their heads to their constituents.
No MP is going to propose cancelling A50. The Whips wouldn’t stand for it: it’s one of those things where everybody has to trust everybody else, and there’s too much political capital to be gained by welching on that trust to seem like the Party that’s faithful to the British People.
I give outside odds against Angel Merkel telling the EU to drop the backstop - this would be about Wednesday - so the MPs can vote for the rest of the agreement before the 29th. She gets to be the saviour of Europe, after being its Prime Traitor. Nice legacy.
I’m not changing my position that the EU wants the UK out because we will impede their lunatic Federalism. And the UK wants out because we don’t want to spend our lives fighting lunatic Federalism.
If the EU was staffed by proper grown-ups, it would have talked about trade first and payments afterwards. Instead it is staffed by corrupt and second-rate bureaucrats, all of whom failed in their national political scene. They claim to love Europe, but they hate the people of Europe, and they hate the parliaments of Europe, in which they failed so badly. They have to punish all wrong-doers, and so must make all the other countries think twice. So the UK always was going to get an unacceptable deal.
No-one must be seen to making the decision to leave without a deal. Nobody must be to blame. Everybody must have plausible deniability. That’s why nobody will bring a motion to abandon A50. That’s why the EU stuck in a condition that they knew was unacceptable.
Theresa May has been accused of being a closet Remainer who wants Brexit to fail. Au contraire. She hates the EU in its post-Lisbon guise, and she hates the ECJ and ECHR. Given a choice between destruction and staying under the jurisdiction of the European Courts, she will burn the world. Resigning, by the way, would be tantamount to burning the world.
I suspect that Theresa May was deeply affected by the story of A Fistful of Dollars, where Clint Eastwood’s Stranger plays two factions off against each other, walking away with a lot of money and leaving ruins behind him. He gets beaten up before he can win.
The quisling media portrays Theresa May as a weakened, powerless incompetent. That’s George Osborne projecting his own personality and life on her. That wasn’t the Prime Minister I saw making a statement from Downing Street, skewering the MPs and appealing over their heads to their constituents.
Monday, 18 March 2019
Edward Said, Orientalism and Failure-Conspiracies
Recently there was an Edward Said-related anniversary. I thought it for forty years of the publication of his book Orientalism in the UK, but I could have been wrong. Said’s career-defining book argued that the Western view of Oriental, and especially Arabic and Muslim, cultures served an imperialist agenda, creating inaccurate images of the mysterious East that justified the Western treatment of those cultures: Here’s a quote from Said:
To the contrary. While the artists, writers and historians may have created the myth that Said describes, the politicians had an altogether more practical view. Western foreign policy up to the disastrous First Iraqi War showed a shrewd understanding that Arab countries, with their simmering religious feuds, corruption and gangsterism, were best left to dictators or despots maintaining order with varying and regrettable levels of brutality. The events since then have only confirmed this. It has nothing to do with culture, religion or the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab–Moslem life (Said’s phrase), and everything to do with the underlying gangsterism, and, of course, who gets the kickbacks from the oil supply.
In the previous decades, Europeans were forced into this situation time and time again. People complained and protested about Imperial rule, the Europeans walked away, and after the first independent government, the country promptly fell apart. Quick, name any country that has done better since their Imperial rulers walked away(*). What happened to farming in Zimbabwe and is happening in South Africa should make anyone who "cares about the planet" weep. For that matter, name any country that lost its dictator and didn’t sink into gangsterism (**).
The process is something like this:
1) Group A complains that they are not getting as much of the good stuff they could if they weren’t oppressed, discriminated against; or otherwise disadvantaged by Group B
2) Group B stops doing whatever it is or at least passes a law to make it illegal...
3) … and it all goes well until there’s a change of leadership, or the torch passes to another generation, when...
4) ...the whole show falls into the chaos of internecine strife, or someone notices that only a small proportion of Group A’s are getting the ‘good stuff’...
5) …when academics and activists create conspiracy theories to explain the failure, e.g. the patriarchy, white privilege, Group A’s specific culture and values, years of oppression, cultural hegemony, toxic culture, and on and on.
The purpose of the conspiracy theory is not to help redress whatever wrong continues to be done to Group A. It is to provide the leaders of the failed movement with an excuse, and to help their useful-idiot western sympathisers deal with the horrendous cognitive dissonance created by their adoption of, and continued support for, a spectacularly failed policy(***).
Said’s book was one of the first that blamed Western cultural theories for the behaviour of a non-Western government (the Palestinian Authority). Behind a smoke-screen that Said contributed to, Yassir Araft diverted hundreds of millions of external aid into what was euphemistically called the Chairman’s Fund and away from improving the lives of Palestinians. Did Said realise he was being played?
So, contra Said, the Orient is not the victim of some nefarious myth-making by obscure academics - they aren’t that important or influential. The Orient is how it is because it is hot, has poor agriculture, and is ruled by corrupt theocratic governments which insist that the population learns nothing except one book, and that by rote. Some of it is geography, and a lot of it is a political decision. A decision Said's own book helped disguise.
(*) Vietnam. But not until the North Vietnamese lost their Imperial backers as well.
(**) Estonia, Lithuania and Poland don’t count, since they never had dictators like Albania and Romania did. The Czechs and Slovaks sorted themselves out eventually. What the Serbs and Bosnians did to each other was appalling. If you think Russia isn’t a gangster state, you aren’t paying attention.
(***) Any time it occurs to you that feminism fits this pattern...
Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab–Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have, instead, is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world, presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.(Said was talking about Palestine, not Iraq.)
To the contrary. While the artists, writers and historians may have created the myth that Said describes, the politicians had an altogether more practical view. Western foreign policy up to the disastrous First Iraqi War showed a shrewd understanding that Arab countries, with their simmering religious feuds, corruption and gangsterism, were best left to dictators or despots maintaining order with varying and regrettable levels of brutality. The events since then have only confirmed this. It has nothing to do with culture, religion or the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab–Moslem life (Said’s phrase), and everything to do with the underlying gangsterism, and, of course, who gets the kickbacks from the oil supply.
In the previous decades, Europeans were forced into this situation time and time again. People complained and protested about Imperial rule, the Europeans walked away, and after the first independent government, the country promptly fell apart. Quick, name any country that has done better since their Imperial rulers walked away(*). What happened to farming in Zimbabwe and is happening in South Africa should make anyone who "cares about the planet" weep. For that matter, name any country that lost its dictator and didn’t sink into gangsterism (**).
The process is something like this:
1) Group A complains that they are not getting as much of the good stuff they could if they weren’t oppressed, discriminated against; or otherwise disadvantaged by Group B
2) Group B stops doing whatever it is or at least passes a law to make it illegal...
3) … and it all goes well until there’s a change of leadership, or the torch passes to another generation, when...
4) ...the whole show falls into the chaos of internecine strife, or someone notices that only a small proportion of Group A’s are getting the ‘good stuff’...
5) …when academics and activists create conspiracy theories to explain the failure, e.g. the patriarchy, white privilege, Group A’s specific culture and values, years of oppression, cultural hegemony, toxic culture, and on and on.
The purpose of the conspiracy theory is not to help redress whatever wrong continues to be done to Group A. It is to provide the leaders of the failed movement with an excuse, and to help their useful-idiot western sympathisers deal with the horrendous cognitive dissonance created by their adoption of, and continued support for, a spectacularly failed policy(***).
Said’s book was one of the first that blamed Western cultural theories for the behaviour of a non-Western government (the Palestinian Authority). Behind a smoke-screen that Said contributed to, Yassir Araft diverted hundreds of millions of external aid into what was euphemistically called the Chairman’s Fund and away from improving the lives of Palestinians. Did Said realise he was being played?
So, contra Said, the Orient is not the victim of some nefarious myth-making by obscure academics - they aren’t that important or influential. The Orient is how it is because it is hot, has poor agriculture, and is ruled by corrupt theocratic governments which insist that the population learns nothing except one book, and that by rote. Some of it is geography, and a lot of it is a political decision. A decision Said's own book helped disguise.
(*) Vietnam. But not until the North Vietnamese lost their Imperial backers as well.
(**) Estonia, Lithuania and Poland don’t count, since they never had dictators like Albania and Romania did. The Czechs and Slovaks sorted themselves out eventually. What the Serbs and Bosnians did to each other was appalling. If you think Russia isn’t a gangster state, you aren’t paying attention.
(***) Any time it occurs to you that feminism fits this pattern...
Monday, 11 March 2019
Papa Hegel He Say: Lift Weights, Eat Right, Feel Free
Between the mind and its own body there is naturally an even more intimate connection than between the rest of the external world and mind. Just because of this necessary connection of my body with my soul, the activity immediately exerted on the soul by the body is not a finite [that is, limited and contained], not a merely negative, activity. First of all, then, I have to maintain myself in this immediate harmony of my soul and my body; true, I do not have to make my body an end in itself as athletes and tightrope walkers do, but I must give my body its due, must take care of it, keep it healthy and strong, and must not therefore treat it with contempt or hostility. It is just by disregard or even maltreatment of my physical body that I would make my relationship to it as one of dependence and externally necessary connection; for in this way I would make it into something - despite its identity with me - negative towards me and consequently hostile, and would compel it to rise up against me, to take revenge on my mind. If, by contrast, I conduct myself in accordance with the laws of my bodily organism, then my soul is free in its physical body.A clearer exhortation to lift weights or do HIIT won’t be found in the pages of any other philosopher. G W F Hegel, it turns out, was a Bro. He understood that when we eat crap, drink too much, take drugs, leave the iron un-lifted and generally treat our bodies badly, we end up feeling bad and our judgement and thoughts will be clouded if not turned off. Think hangover. By eating well, exercising, not drinking too much and leaving the drugs alone, we not only prevent the bad stuff, but also, and this is important, feel free in [our] physical body, that is, our body is no longer an obstruction, as it is with a hangover, but a resource for us. We are not constrained by its sickness or poor condition, but free within it.
In plain English experience: I get one of my darn colds, I feel trapped inside it. When it goes, and I recover, I feel free again.
Notice also that Hegel takes for granted that, not only are the body and mind intimately connected, but also the external world and mind are connected. He was the first philosopher to reject the idea that all we can know of the world is what gets to us through our failing senses, and that the mind rattles around, unconnected to the world, even to the body of the person whose mind it is.
The quote is from Hegel's Philosophy of Mind, part of his Encyclopedia of Philosophy, translated by Wallace and Miller. Lots of goodness in there - check it out.
Monday, 4 March 2019
First-Draft Cliches in Changing Your Life
All of us need some kind of creed by which we live: stay sober, work a job, pay taxes, exercise mind and body, eat right, save, don’t buy things you can’t afford, stay single, avoid vexatious people and things, and seek out only that which is uplifting and beautiful might be mine. Anyone who wants to know why I would do those things is invited to explain why they want to be a hungover, indebted, unemployed, welfare-claiming, dumb, soft-bodied overweight married man with an unpleasant wife and surrounded by ugliness. Kinda answers itself really. Since a lot of people are some of those things, I can only suggest how much their lives would improve if they were all of them, and that the improvement they will feel is its own answer.
You may also want to ask is that all? There must be more to life than that. If this thought has occurred to you, I have two replies. First, I’ll thank you not to be so rude about my life choices. Apology accepted. Second, if you feel that way about your life, you don’t need God, or a pilgrimage, or for that matter, a couple of weeks' holiday somewhere exotic. And you don’t need to find-your-purpose or discover-your-passion. Stop reading those self-help books.
What the more-to-life-than-this and the find-your-passion brigades want is a purpose that smacks them upside the head and takes them over, without them needing to decide. Kinda like getting married and having children. His wife smacks him upside the head and his kids take him over. Have I sold you on making your own damn decision?
How does a man live? Any damn way he chooses: bear in mind the time before you do the crime. You decide. You might swipe an idea from someone else - you probably will - but you decide to adopt it. If you feel sour doing whatever it is, stop, dummy - though it may takes some time to change whatever it is. Only you can give your life meaning. No-one and nothing else can. That’s the curse of free will.
When I start feeling a little sour about my life, that tells me it’s time for a change. The trick is recognising what that change might be. I don’t know how to do that, but I do know that the first thoughts I will have are all the cliches. Kinda like the first draft of a blog post or a BBC TV drama. The difference is that the BBC broadcasts the first draft, and I take the time to take away as many of the cliches as I can. The first thought is almost never the best thought. The third or fourth thought is usually pretty good.
One thing for sure: religion is a first-draft cliche. You could listen to the massed ranks of priests, imams, mullahs, and other assorted pundits, or you can use the free will and rationality that God - the Christian one anyway - gave you to figure out how best to use the gifts you have, both for the benefit of others and yourself.
These thoughts were prompted by Krauser’s comment a while back that he was thinking about converting to Christianity and that if he did, he would withdraw his Daygame manuals and videos. It never occurred to him that he might have been doing God’s work in writing and producing his Daygame content. Oh ye of little faith in yourselves. And a very TradCon conception of what behaviour pleases the Almighty.
You may also want to ask is that all? There must be more to life than that. If this thought has occurred to you, I have two replies. First, I’ll thank you not to be so rude about my life choices. Apology accepted. Second, if you feel that way about your life, you don’t need God, or a pilgrimage, or for that matter, a couple of weeks' holiday somewhere exotic. And you don’t need to find-your-purpose or discover-your-passion. Stop reading those self-help books.
What the more-to-life-than-this and the find-your-passion brigades want is a purpose that smacks them upside the head and takes them over, without them needing to decide. Kinda like getting married and having children. His wife smacks him upside the head and his kids take him over. Have I sold you on making your own damn decision?
How does a man live? Any damn way he chooses: bear in mind the time before you do the crime. You decide. You might swipe an idea from someone else - you probably will - but you decide to adopt it. If you feel sour doing whatever it is, stop, dummy - though it may takes some time to change whatever it is. Only you can give your life meaning. No-one and nothing else can. That’s the curse of free will.
When I start feeling a little sour about my life, that tells me it’s time for a change. The trick is recognising what that change might be. I don’t know how to do that, but I do know that the first thoughts I will have are all the cliches. Kinda like the first draft of a blog post or a BBC TV drama. The difference is that the BBC broadcasts the first draft, and I take the time to take away as many of the cliches as I can. The first thought is almost never the best thought. The third or fourth thought is usually pretty good.
One thing for sure: religion is a first-draft cliche. You could listen to the massed ranks of priests, imams, mullahs, and other assorted pundits, or you can use the free will and rationality that God - the Christian one anyway - gave you to figure out how best to use the gifts you have, both for the benefit of others and yourself.
These thoughts were prompted by Krauser’s comment a while back that he was thinking about converting to Christianity and that if he did, he would withdraw his Daygame manuals and videos. It never occurred to him that he might have been doing God’s work in writing and producing his Daygame content. Oh ye of little faith in yourselves. And a very TradCon conception of what behaviour pleases the Almighty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)