Monthly Archives: August 2012

Game is a Stop-gap

Manosphere commenter Cane Caldo has a guest post at Dalrock responding to Dalrock’s piece, “Why Christian’s Need Game”.

Cane essentially argues that Christians don’t need game, but it seems he does not deny the effectiveness of game , rather from the comments it seems he thinks the PUA-attitude is an intrinsic part of game that Christians should reject. The disagreements in the thread seem to revolve mostly around the definition of the red pill and game, and whether game can be separated from the PUA-lifestyle or if playerdom is intrinsic to game .

I’m not going to get into that debate, instead, I’m going to look at what he said in the comments that I think is much more important.

Game is–as you say, and I agree–navigating the Feminist Matrix. Christianity means to burn it down.

No matter where you sit on the issue of game or it’s definition, game is playing in a feminist world; it still abides by the rules of feminism. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that; the current secular sexual market place and good portions of the Christian SMP are based around feminist rules and, as with any system, if you do not adapt to the rules of the system, you lose. You are stuck in the game, so try to “win”.

The problem exists where red-pill men treat game as the end. Whether the men settle for getting notches through game, getting a worthy wife for themselves, or go their own way, the problem is the same, they have settled for simply getting their own in the system. They may take a red pill in one area or two, but the big picture eludes them.

So, you can get notches through game, that’s great. So, you found a worthy wife, that’s awesome. For you, for now.

You are still trapped in the feminist-progressivist game. You may be “winning” the game, but you are still playing by its rules.

The end result of the manosphere should not be “winning the game”; the end goal is to destroy the game.

The feminist-progressivist game is corrupt. It is destroying the very fabric of the civilization we have spent centuries building.

We need to burn it to the ground and replace it with a better game.

Do not forget, game is fine, but it is only a stop-gap measure for temporary survival in a corrupt system; a system whose rules have infiltrated the church, families, business, government, and every area of our lives.

The purpose of the manosphere, of patriarchs, of the alt-right, of MRA’s, of PUA’s, of traditionalists, and of men in general should be to destroy the progressive-feminist system.

We need to burn it to the ground and salt the earth so we never suffer this corruption again.

Lightning Round – 2012/08/15

This week I learned that the best way to get page views is to piss people off. I also learned a lot of people will engage in a 2 Minute Hate without actually reading what they hate.

Part II of the Art of Manliness’s side hustle series. Part I.

Matt speaks truth about what males find attractive.
Related: An example of what men do not want.
Related: Dalrock explains the typical path of the type of women men should not want.

Comment of the Week: “Because you know it has to be REALLY BAD out there, when a single Christian man feels a nudge in his spirit, saying, “Yes, it’s okay to listen to Tom Leykis”. Because if the church doesn’t tell the truth, the stones will cry out.”

Athol on Red Pill women.
Related: 25 Politically Incorrect Ways to Make a Man Your Boyfriend. Can mostly be summed up as be a decent person, don’t be a bitch. Is that guide really necessary?

Check your privilege.

Forney mans up. It is only proper.
Related: A story (possibly apocryphal) of a women who grows up too late.

Interesting if true. I wonder why females have a slightly higher IQ now.
In other research: women enjoy making their husbands miserable.

That is some hilarious satire on Christianity.
More satire, this time on socialism.

Some people should really sue the public school system.

Big Brother is growing.
Related: Anarcho-tyranny explained.
Related: Some bait for conspiracy theorists.
Related: The US is a company store.

I don’t know what to say to this example of defending the indefensible.

The new American Dream is a job.
Related: Man finds outC he has 653 competitors for a single job.
Could Canada join America in the housing bust?

Environmentalism is simply a front for anti-humanism.

Really? You mean the rich don’t want to support the guy encouraging class war?

The government can’t create an engaged employee. Bureaucratic works destroys engagement.
Related: Government economics.

I’ve said it before: the media are the enemy.

Utah is the most pleasant state in which to live. Maybe the old ways are best.

Sharing is not caring.

(H/T: InstaPundit, Save Capitalism, SDA, Clarissa, Empath Negative)

Bureaucrats

Bill wrote last month about bureaucracy, and it was scathing. I have no more love for bureaucracy than the next man and all the scorn he heaps on bureaucracy is well deserved, but from my experience in the public sector, I think he is mistaken about bureaucrats.

Bill has a lot of scathing criticism of bureaucrats, but it is not the bureaucrats who are the problem, it is the bureaucracy itself. The system is what destroys.

I’m not saying there aren’t bad bureaucrats, just that bureaucrats are just like workers anywhere else. Most bureaucrats are decent enough folks, some are  assholes, and most are just doing their job and trying to get ahead. They respond to incentives just like anybody else.

There’s the problem: the system of incentives that government bureaucracy has created for its workers is what is destructive.

As Frost wrote in Freedom 25, there are 3 iron laws of bureaucracy:

1) You will never have to do anything.

2) If you ever actually do anything it will be useless.

3) If you ever actually do something useful, it will be rendered useless by subsequent layers of management.

It is this system which oppresses its own workers that is the problem.

Now, there are some not-so-great trends among bureaucrats: bureaucrats do tend to lean somewhat more leftwards and believe more in the efficacy of government solutions, but (most) bureaucrats are not trying to screw you, no more than any other group of people. Most bureaucrats either don’t care, are just going their jobs, or they honestly believe that they are helping the public.

This is the first in a planned short series of why government bureaucracy doesn’t work, where I’ll go into the incentives that create government failure in more detail.

****

For now though, I’ll address a few of his points:

The real power of the government is with the petty bureaucrat, the one you might see from time to time.

A single petty bureaucrat has almost no power; he can at most moderately inconvenience you. The petty bureaucrat is a slave to the rules. The biggest problem from a petty bureaucrat is not what the bureaucrat himself, but if he decides to put you into the system.

The system is a maze that is almost indecipherable to anyone who is not a lawyer or bureaucrat in that particular system. The system can ruin your life: whether it’s the family court system, the tax system, or what have you, but rare is it that a single bureaucrat can hurt you that much until you’re in the system.

The problem with the system is not with the people, it is the rules. Each person in a bureaucracy has a specific role and rules guiding his role. There are no deviations from your role or your rules. Even if breaking the rules in a minor way would benefit everyone involved, the bureaucrat is not allowed to deviate. There are also no exceptions to the rules, they have to be applied as written (and interpreted) to everybody equally, which is why you’ll occasionally here about stupidities, like bureaucrats shutting down children’s lemonade stands.

The rules are hard, cold, and unyielding. Even if they make no sense, the rules or roles are still paramount.

The people who are attracted to bureaucratic or government jobs know that they are unsuited for any social success or productive work and it infuriates them, so they want payback. What better way to get payback than to fuck with people who they know are their betters? They relish their jobs because every time they can make someone wait, audit their tax returns, place a lien on their property or in extreme cases cause someone to die, they feel that their revenge is taken.

In most countries, most bureaucrats aren’t any more (or less) competent than employees the private sector. The US is somewhat of an exception, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. Most can, and many do, switch between the private and public sectors.

There are some gross incompetents in government, and the government union system makes removing incompetents much more difficult for bureaucracies than for the non-unionized private sector, but most government employees are reasonably competent at their functions.

Also, most bureaucrats (again, there are the occassional exceptions) don’t care about you. They don’t want to fuck you and they take no pleasure in doing so. Some may want to help you, but for the most part, they simply want to do their job so they can get paid and go home, just like most people in the private sector.

That’s not to say they won’t fuck you. If the rules they follow require fucking you, they’ll follow the rules, and you’re fucked, but that is a problem with the rules not the people and most people won’t take any pleasure out of it unless you’ve been a complete ass to them. They will feel apathy. (Whether that’s better or worse is debatable).

No truer statement was ever uttered and if you don’t believe me on this, just fuck with one of these dickheads. They will ensure that, to all extent of their government bestowed powers, they will do anything they can to make your life as hellish as possible and make you pay even more of your hard earned money than you do presently. Fuck with them enough, or just be in the wrong situation at the wrong time and they’ll ruin your life…or get you killed.

Generally, bureaucrats will not go out of their way to hurt you, but like most people they do have a tendency revenge. If you fuck with anyone they will usually try to get revenge, bureaucrats are not different. Generally, though, the bureaucrats are apathetic. As long as you don’t personally piss off an individual bureaucrat, they don’t care

They have no reference for what it is like to live as a person, much less a free individual with hopes and dreams and the means to attain them. And so, we are dangerous. We don’t behave “by the book.” And we have to be controlled. It’s all for our own best interests, isn’t it? Why should anyone be allowed to follow their individual talents and drive for the life they wish to live? That might make someone else feel inferior, just like they do. So we must be at the least controlled, and at the extreme destroyed.

It is true that progressivism and statism are somewhat more common among bureaucrats than the population as whole. For the most part though, it is not about control; most honestly think they are helping. (See the term useful idiots). Now, there are probably some bureaucrats at the higher echelons who want control and there are little tin gods at various lower levels, but most don’t want control.They are either apathetic or believe they are doing good. There is little malice behind most bureaucrats.

I’ll be going over why the system fails in the future, but for now, it is enough to say that blaming the bureaucrats is pointless. In fact, blaming the bureaucrats is counter-productive. The bureaucratic system is the problem, blaming bureaucrats rather than the system merely makes the alt-right seem petty and vindictive and alienates potential allies within the government (and yes, there are people in the government who are in favour of limited government).

Women, STEM, and D&D

Yesterday, I briefly mentioned the topic of women in the math and sciences.

It’s well known that post-secondary education is predominantly female. It is also well known that this is not true of STEM fields, where women are a minority.

Some chock this up to differences in intelligence or that women aren’t gifted at math. It’s not differences in overall intelligence, as the difference in average intelligence between men and women has always been small, and might even have reversed in the last few years. Even so, men have always held generally have held a small advantage in spatial reasoning and mathematical reasoning, but these differences are not great enough to account for the massive disparities in math-based subjects.

Greater male variability may explain some of it. High-level mathematics requires high intelligence, and due to greater variability there are a greater number of high-intelligence males than females (just as there are greater number of low-intelligence males), but as we can see from IQ by intended major, even those intending to enter the hard sciences have an average IQ of only about 110. Even factoring in variability, a requirement for an IQ of 110 should not lead to such large disparities in the STEM field, but fewer women pursue STEM fields at this point.

Feminists will argue that it’s all about discrimination and whatnot, but with the predominance of females throughout the rest of universities and the large number of programs dedicated to attracting women to STEM its hard to see how any can argue this with a straight face.

Not to mention, that females are well-represented in the physical and life sciences. Is there somehow less discrimination in the life and physical sciences than the harder sciences? Unlikely.

Notice instead that the STEM fields women are involved in are the less math oriented sciences. Across the board, women avoid fields that require lots of math.

So the problem is mathematics, but it is unlikely due to differences in intelligence and the explanation of discrimination is ludicrous.

So the answer: in general, women simply don’t like math. Shocking, I know.

Now, this is the point where feminists cry sexism, women do like math  (say the female gender and polisci students).

Now, you know from personal experience women don’t like math; ask most women, and they’ll readily admit they don’t like math. The available data seems to support the assertion women just plain don’t like it, but proving that women generally don’t like math  is difficult. You can’t really see into women’s minds to show they don’t like math and anecdotes that all your female friends don’t like math is no more proof positive of a statistical trend than the one female friend you have who loves math is proof negative.

So, how can we know?

The answer is simple: Dungeons and Dragons.

****

See, the thing is, most guys don’t like math either. Only a small minority of men, and an even smaller minority of women, enjoy math. These men are generally referred to as nerds.

(When I say nerd, I don’t mean the recent trend of “LOL, I watched Dr. Who once, I’m such a nerd” hipster teenagers. I mean the actual nerds, the guys who will spend their Saturday nights imagining themselves swinging around +2 Swords of Shining Light or who will actually go outside and throw around lightning bolts.)

These nerds are the ones who dominate the STEM fields.

Why they’re (or more accurately we’re, as I’m a bit of a nerd myself) like that I don’t know, but I kinda like Half-Sigma’s idea that nerds are simply men with a very mild form of Asperger’s, something also kind of touched on by Susan Pinker.

But that’s beside the point, which is that nerds dominate the STEM field, because they are an abnormal sort of people who actually like math.

****

So, how does that help us prove that women dislike math?

Simple, look at D&D.

D&D, for the uninitiated, is essentially what happens when you combine Tolkien, tactical wargames, improvisational theatre, and mathematics. Nerds get together and each creates a character, which is essentially a large block of statistics and math made of options from a large, complicated rule book. He then gives this block of math some personality (sometimes the personality comes before the math, but most nerds know which usually comes first). One nerd, the GM, gets the especially complicated job of creating a world out of blocks of statistics and math. The nerds then takes their blocks of math which interact with (and kill) the GM’s blocks of math, so their blocks of math can grow larger numbers to defeat more powerful blocks of math. Along the way there is some roleplaying: which is essentially improvisational theatre concerning the blocks of math.

D&D is essentially what people who enjoy math do for fun. It’s making math a game.

****

It’s a simple fact that few women play D&D, it is largely the domain of males. The game is open for all to play and most players would love to have more females players who share their hobby.

Yet, women don’t play.

You go to any improvisational theatre group, there’s tons of women, women like theatre. Women also like Tolkien, and fantasy in general for that matter. So, why don’t they like D&D?

Math.

Most women, and most men, don’t like math, so making a game of complex math is not something they would consider fun.

If women, on average, liked math as much as men, they would be as involved in D&D as much men. There is no discrimination or institutional barriers preventing them from enjoying D&D, all it requires for entry is $20 for the rulebook. You don’t even really need that as most GM’s would be happy to lend you their copy if you join their game.

They are not though.

****

It doesn’t have to be D&D. In the above D&D can be replaced by complex board games, science fiction, Magic cards, war games, or pretty much any nerdy math-based activity. No matter what the math-oriented hobby, men vastly outnumber women.

Women simply don’t see the enjoyment in spending free time doing math. Most men don’t either, but the minority of men who do is larger than the minority of women who do.

****

That’s why there’s a STEM gap.

The minority of females who are nerds is smaller than the minority of men who are nerds.

So, next time a feminist says that there’s a STEM gap and it’s caused by sexism, ask her if she plays D&D and how many of her female friends do?

****

Edit – Post-Script – 3/08 2012:

Seems this got posted at Reddit under the misleading title “Apparently, ladies don’t like D&D because they can’t Math.”, leading to a larger influx of people than my little corner of the internet has had before. It also seems a lot of them are confused by what I have said. I can’t answer every post individually and I do not have a Reddit account, so here’s a little post-script that will count as a reply to everyone.

1: My argument was not women can not do math (and, hence, play D&D). In fact, I specifically ruled out intelligence and mathematical capabilities in the fourth paragraph. My argument was not even that women do not enjoy math at all (and, hence, D&D). My argument was that nobody enjoys math (and, hence, D&D), except a small group of abnormal people (often referred to as nerds) and that more of these abnormal people are male than female. So, before y’all get your knickers in a knot: PLEASE READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE BEFORE WHINING ABOUT WHAT I DID NOT SAY.

2: A number of people are focusing solely on D&D. As I said, you can apply this argument to the nerdy, math-based hobbies from board games to war games to RPG’s to hobby programming to whatever: anything where interaction is largely defined by basic mathematics. D&D was the specific example used, but do not get

3: If you are a women that either plays D&D, board games, video games, or enjoys math, that is wonderful. I wish more women did, I’d like to share my hobbies with others. But because you personally, and a couple of girls you know, enjoy them does not statistics make. I always thought that the preponderance of males in D&D and other such nerdy hobbies was a well-accepted, so I didn’t bother posting any proof. So here’s the proof: males are about 80% of games as per a WotC survey, so yes, more males play D&D. (The data is old, but this does not seem like something that is measured very often and I doubt it’s changed too significantly).

4: I noted the relationship between D&D (and nerdy hobbies) and STEM. This is not an absolute, just a relationship. In particular, I am not STEM myself, so generalizing me to STEM as a whole is silly. I do enjoy the low-level maths of economics and games as a hobby though.

5: Addition, subtraction, and the statistical blocks that make up characters and the (often violent) relationships between them are math. I didn’t say they were complex math, so I’m not sure where the comments about there being no math come from.

6: Yes, I make some typos; I write as a hobby with no editor. If you’re that anally retentive about typos in a blog post, well…

7: I have never had a beard, let alone a neck-beard. I’m not sure what the point of personalizing counter-arguments to a non-personal argument and insulting some random jackass on the internet is, but I hope the venting was stress-relieving.

No, We Are Not All Feminists

Lindy West argues at Jezebel that we are all feminists and those that aren’t are horrible people.

How does she do this, by (snarkily) arguing that:

To identify as a feminist is to acknowledge that women are people, and, as such, women deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities as other styles of people (i.e., men-people).

This is of course complete bollocks.

The label of feminist has far more meaning than women are people. Not to mention that what feminists mean by “the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities” is far different from what most people consider “the same”.

****

Now, most people do accept most of first-wave feminism’s objectives: woman should be allowed to vote, own property, and be equal under the law. Even a reactionary curmudgeon like me doesn’t disagree with that (although, I’m not sure about Will).

But, feminism has evolved since then through the second, third, and post-waves and the term feminist has expanded far beyond the original goals of the suffragettes.

Accepting the goals of first-wave feminism no more makes a person a modern feminist than opposing slavery and absolute monarchy makes one a neo-liberal.

****

So, what does modern feminism mean beyond “women are people?”

Most obviously, modern feminism has irreversibly tied itself to unlimited abortion-on-demand, something the majority of people oppose. The abortion debate revolves around whether the unborn are persons or not and has nothing to do with the the personhood of women.

Affirmative action, the preferential treatment of women, is another major plank of modern feminism and has nothing to do with the personhood of women. In fact, it gives women rights that men do not have.

Other feminist tropes and goals beyond “women are people” include: the personalization of the political, anti-patriarchy, male privilege, “free” childcare, “free” birth control, “equal” pay, etc.

****

The second half of West’s definition of feminism is “women deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities.”

This, is essentially as what she means by “the same rights and opportunities” is unclear and likely not agreed upon by most.

The first problem is the distinction between “negative” and “positive” liberty.

Under a classical liberal approach of “negative” liberty, “the same rights and opportunities” means that everybody is allowed to live their lives without undue external coercion. This is the standard conception of rights and liberty in the English liberal and liberal-conservative tradition that have defined (or at least  until the last couple of decades) politics in the Anglosphere since Locke and Burke.

Under the progressive “positive” liberty approach, “the same rights and opportunities” means there can be external coercion if it helps an individual overcome internal constraints on their ability to act.

West talks positively of affirmative action and Title IX, so she obviously falls on the “positive” side of liberty, and she links these two strongly to feminism. She also talks derisively of those who have declared equality because legal discrimination has ended.

It’s obvious there is no room for “negative liberty” within her definition of feminism.

Yet, somehow we are all feminists now, even though “negative liberty” is the dominant (but declining) political thought in the US and the Anglosphere.

****

The second problem is the distinction between equality and equity.

Equality requires that everybody be treated the same.

Equity requires that people be treated differently to achieve the same outcome.

In an equal regime, hiring would be based solely on qualifications.

In an equitable regime, hiring would be based comparable results.

Affirmative action is very much equity based and is anti-equality, yet it is linked heavily to and is strongly defended by the feminist movement.

“Equal pay”  is a a primary goal of modern feminists. Yet, the “wage gap” disappears when you account for hours worked, job type, specializations, and family arrangements.

Again, West strongly both affirmative action and Title IX to feminism. I’m also pretty sure where she’d stand on the “wage gap.” Is there any room for equality in feminism?

****

These first two debates can be seen in feminism itself between the liberal feminists who generally take the “negative” liberty and equality approach, and the other types of feminists who take the egalitarian, “positive” liberty approach.

So there is some room for them.

Sadly, liberal feminists tend to be few and far between and they tend not to be the drivers of feminism, but rather the PR people.

The ones dominating the agenda are the “positive” liberty, equity feminists. Hence, why feminism pursues the “wage gap” so strongly, why Obamacare has “free” contraception, why there was so much feminist rage when religious organizations did not want to pay for contraception, etc.

****

The third  problem is that women and men are not the same. This leads to situations where “the same” is simply not possible.

The most obvious difference is that women can give birth, men can’t.

So, how do you give equal rights?

Is abortion only a women’s decision because it’s her body? Is it “equal” for men to have no say in the life or death of their unborn child?

If a man gets no say in the abortion decision, then would it not be fair to allow him to opt out of child support obligations? On the other hand, is it fair to expect a women to take all support for the child on herself?

There is no way the rights of persons in a situation like this can be “the same” because the decisions are not equivalent.

What of maternity/paternity leave? If we give them both similar time off, when the man isn’t even pregnant is that “the same”? But if we don’t give them equal time off, isn’t that differing opportunities?

****

Statistical differences in natural aptitudes or interests between the sexes leads to the equity/equality distinction.

Men are physically stronger and and bigger than women. So, when hiring, say, police, do we have “the same” physical requirements for both sexes with different outcomes, or do we “the same” outcomes by having differing physical requirements.

Women are less interested in math and math-based subjects. Do treat the sexes “the same” and just accept there will fewer female engineers or do we try to have “the same” amount of engineers for each sex by incentivizing and strongly encouraging women to enter engineering when they don’t really want to?

Most feminists I’ve read fall into the latter category of each. How does this fit into “women are people” and “deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities?”

****

Slate, that bastion of modern liberalism, explains why feminists want everybody to be a feminist:

So as we adopt West’s definition of “feminism,” perhaps we can also start phasing out the term itself. Perhaps we can instead focus on labeling the outliers who are not feminists: the misogynists, chauvinists, and sexists. That would go a long way towards clarifying that feminism is now mainstream, obvious, and self-evident.

By defining feminism as the norm, they can then define anybody who doesn’t swallow the feminist agenda whole as “outliers”.

Oppose unlimited abortion on demand paid for by the state: you’re a misogynist.

Believe women should pay for their own birth control: you’re sexist.

Believe that the personal should be kept private: you’re a chauvinist.

Now, feminists already call anybody who doesn’t agree with their agenda misogynists, so that’s not the point, in itself. Rather, by having people accept feminism as the “mainstream, obvious, and self-evident” norm, they can force society as whole to accept that anybody who doesn’t engage in feminist group-think is a misogynist.

The point of normalizing feminism is to use it as a ideological weapon.

It’s a con-game: have society accept that the feminist label because they believe the uncontroversial statement that women are people. Most people don’t oppose the goals of liberal feminism all that strongly.

Then once society accepts the  feminist label, move the goalposts. Feminism now means supporting unlimited abortion, or affirmative action, or “free” childcare. You must support us, you don’t want to be misogynist, do you?

****

In conclusion, we are not all feminists.

We almost all agree that “women are people” and should be given “the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities” as men, but feminism goes far beyond that. In addition, what most feminists mean by the same rights and opportunities is usually contradictory to what most people mean by that phrase and what the English classical liberalism which defines our political and economic culture mean by that phrase.

Normalizing the feminist label is nothing more than an ideological weapon.

Lightning Round – 2012/08/08

Is this a depression? Bill thinks so.
So, does Aurini, who thinks it will be permanent.
The Captain also weighs in.
Related: An we wonder why we’re in a recession.

“People used to have decent aspirations. They wanted to have families. They wanted to do good work. They wanted to be good citizens, good Christians, good people. Now everyone wants to be a player and a porn star.”

If true this is sickening. Pass it around.

Dalrock argues Christians need game because the church has kneecapped marriage. Sad.
Related: Another argument for why game is necessary.

You are not entitled to happiness, so make your own.

A question I ask myself?

The difference between failures and haters. Failures are actually worth something.

I’d disagree, Canada is probably (slightly) better than the US when it comes to family law. At least in Canada, alimony usually has a time limit and alimony payments are set by law, so there is less arbitrary cruelty to the system.

Wright talks of sexual standards and nails it.

The media is the enemy.
I repeat: the media is the enemy.

The rape of Sweden: the sad result of multiculturalism gone wild.

Woman love drama. Once again science shows what we already know.

HAHAHAHA... She’s not someone I know so I can engage in some schadenfreude.

Zombies!
Related.

“The downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness.”

Why men are frustrated:
“What is the ultimate male status symbol?”  41% of males answered a family.
“What defines a “real woman” in 2012?” 14% of females answered being a great mother and wife.

Answer: Because hard analysis usually requires complex math and most women don’t like complex math.

Amanda Marcotte demonstrates why women can’t be free.

A very wise, unnervingly intelligent, and most assuredly humble person has guest posts at both Patriactionary and Captain Capitalism.

(H/T: Glorio-US Bastard, OMMAG, Save Capitalism, FFY, Thinking Housewife, Partial Objects)

The BookShelf: Suicide of a Superpower

Another book I read over the vacation was Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower. Patrick Buchanan is a major player in the paleoconservative movement, having run for president a couple times, and I’ve been contemplating the decline we’re all supposed to be enjoying for a while, so I decided to check it out.

If you’ve been in the alt-right blogosphere for a while, not much of this book is going to be all that new to you. The book is competently written, but lacks the wit and charm of the other recent doom-and-gloomer I’ve read, Mark Steyn.

He starts talking about the economic decline of the US: how it’s becoming a socialist, indebted, “food stamp” nation that outsources it’s productive activity elsewhere to focus on consumption. He then writes about the decline of Christianity and Catholicism both in the West in general and the US in particular and the negative effects of their passing on society. There’s the chapter on the demographic decline of the west, followed by a few chapters on the negative impacts of the diversity cult and tribal politics in the US. He has a chapter on how the Republican’s road to victory should be as “the white party” instead of pandering to minorities and rejects calling a truce on the culture war. A chapter on foreign policy, in which he recommends are scaled-down foreign policy based upon realism. He then gives a list of what he thinks should be done.

Overall, I agree with most of his objectives. America’s foreign policy should be scaled back, as should the welfare state. Tribal politics in the US should end, and the GOP should stop pandering on immigration. I disagree with his stance on economic nationalism, I’m pro-free trade myself, but I respect it. He seems to accept that free trade creates more wealth for consumption, but would rather maintain domestic productivity than increase opportunities for consumption, which is something I can accept as rational, even if I disagree.

It’s a solid book outlining the decline of the US, but nothing in it is all that new. Everybody in the alt-right knows the US is in decline and nothing in the book will really convert liberals and progressives who are actively pushing the decline along into reversing their chosen course. Still, every voice of warning that can be put out there is a good thing; at the very least when the collapse comes, we can all point to this book and say, “we told you so.”

There was one thing that puzzled me about the book though. The cover subtitle asked “Will America survive to 2025?”, but I do not remember reading any timeline of the collapse or how 2025 was some point of collapse mentioned at all in the book itself. I read it a few weeks ago though, so my memory might not be perfect, but it seemed kind of odd to me.

Recommendation:

Suicide of a Superpower is decent book chronicling the cultural decline of the US. If you’re really interested in learning of the decline, look into it, but if you’ve been in the alt-right for a while, there’s probably not much new to read here.

Overall, I think Mark Steyn’s After America did a better and more enjoyable job of chronicling of America’s decline than this book. I’d suggest reading that first. If you’re still interested in learning, give this book a try.

If you’re new to alt-right politics or are questioning what this decline is that we’re always talking about, than I’d recommend reading both Suicide and AA. Together, they will provide you with an introduction to what the alt-right is either fighting or despairing of fighting.

The Bookshelf: Behind the Housing Crash

The next review is of Aaron Clarey’s 2008 book Behind the Housing Crash. Clarey is probably better known in these parts by his moniker Captain Capitalism, and I’ve reviewed one of his previous books: Worthless.

Before I go on, I will mention that the Captain and his blog hold a special place here at this blog. CC was my introduction to manosphere. I had read Roissy on and off for a few years prior, but had never gone beyond that or taken it more seriously than an interesting diversion, but when I started reading CC last winter is when I really began to explore the red pill in earnest.

The book reads a lot like his blog with a similar writing style. That’s mostly good, as the Captain has an enjoyable and engaging writing style. It does have its negatives though, one aspect it shares with blog posts is that there are grammatical errors, awkward sentence constructions, and the like throughout the book. This is fine in blog posts, but just reads off in an actual book. It’s hard to fault Clarey too much for this though, the lack of an editorial process is one of the major problems with self-publishing. The editorial problems only slightly detract from the book, though, so it’s not too big a deal. In a way they

The book itself is essentially an extended diatribe against the corruption of the banking industry and developers. You can feel Aaron’s rage burn through as you read the book. The book does contain a fair amount of analysis and explanation, but at its heart it’s a screed against the greedy, corrupt fools who helped destroy our economy. I think the book benefits from this; you can find analysis of the housing crisis everywhere from every possible ideological angle, but a book detailing an insider’s rage, struggles, and resignation is something more interesting.

That’s where this book shines. The book illustrates how an idealistic young analyst trying to do his job is continually stymied, harassed, and beaten down by the system and incompetents around him until he finally simply does what the corrupt and incompetent in charge desire out of resignation. The anger, cynicism, and alienation the banking system created in this particular employees seeps through every part of this book.

If you want to know why men drop out of economic production to play video games or why there’s a “demise of guys”, this book is a great illustration of the alienation the current labour market engenders in aspiring young adult males.

The stories about his interactions with bankers and developers make this book worth reading. The book is filled with his dealings with corrupt bankers, incompetent managers, and sleazy developers and the stories will sometimes amaze you, sometimes, amuse you, and engender a fair amount of cynicism in you.

I also like his conclusion at the end of the book. Most analysis of the housing crash I’ve seen puts on the blame on their ideological boogeymen. Liberals will blame the bankers and regulators, socialists blame the capitalist system, conservatives blame the government and the irresponsible, libertarians the Fed and the government, etc.

Clarey does not shy away from blaming the bankers, the developers, irresponsible borrowers, and the perverse incentives of the banking system, although, he does excuse the Fed, who I think was partially to blame, but he goes further. The book points out what few analysts seem to, the housing crash was not just some corrupt authority figures and some idiots, it was a systemic corruption at all levels of society. He concludes with blaming the entitlement mentality and the “thin-skinned economy” where being nice is more important than being right.

This is very important. The housing crash only could come about because the entirety of society was (and is) corrupted by an entitlement mentality and people chasing after stuff they had not earned. Clarey does not shy away from coming to this conclusion.

The book ends with a little section of changes that could be made to prevent a future bubble and crash. Most of these seem reasonable to me.

Recommendation:

If you’re interested in the housing crash, want a story of a man being worn down by the system, and/or simply enjoy angry screeds against the incompetent I’d recommend the book, it is engaging, enjoyable, and informative.

If you’re a pedantic grammar-nazi I’d avoid it.

Lightning Round – 2012/08/01

Here’s my first Lightning Round since my return. As well, I’ve changed the dating system; it used to be each Tuesday, but for time reasons I ended up posting them at midnight, so nobody would actually see them until Wednesday. So now they will be dated for Wednesdays. Not a big deal, but thought I’d mention it.

Why do intelligent young men go on killing sprees?

Romney will lose because he’s beta and even if he won it wouldn’t matter. Aurini take on the elections echoes some of my thoughts.

If you are interested in marrying, do not try to impress the woman; invite her into your life instead.

The “demise of guys” is the result of men following their perceived rational self-interest. If you want young men to engage in society, you have to change the incentives so they want to participate.

Being a bureaucrat myself, I think Bill is a little harsh. It’s less the bureaucrats (at least the lower-level ones) than the system itself; again incentives. I’ll try to write more in-depth on this in the future.

The Captain examines the credentialism gap. The idea of learning a bunch of theory when young that you won’t be able to apply for years is quite asinine.

Idiots wonder about why female children become sexualized like it’s something unnatural. Dalrock points out is it’s natural when you remove cultural conditioning.

A tribute to Friedman, a voice for freedom.

Be free.

Printing assault rifles. Boo-yeah.
Related: Why we need the ability to print them.
Related: Remedial history. Hehe.

Roissy posits that the impact sexbots will be a thousandfold extension of the impact of pornography.

Given that I’m trying to start up an online side business, I appreciate this guide from Art of Manliness.

Hehe. That’s funny.

This is hilarious.

Stupid regulations. Also kinda funny, in a sad way.
Related: Opening a lemonade stand.

Haha… The husband would probably be better off if she did divorce him. Although, I question what kind of pathetic man would marry a harpy like that?

Hmmm… Why is Murfreeburo’s opposition to a mosque “bad” while Chicago’s banning of Chic-Fil-A is “good”. Silly leftists.

If Canada’s economy is the envy of Europe, why the hell do the liberals and leftists want to emulate European economic policies?
Related: What Obama doesn’t want you to know about Canada. Do you mean fiscal responsibility can actually be good for the economy? Shocking.
Related: America is kind of awesome.

An oldie, but it’s good to remember how wrong environmentalists are in their predictions.

Remember, if some groups are not capable of passing your tests, you must be a racist. If women can’t you’re a sexist. Both are illegal.

A possible pending food crisis.
Related: Possible economic apocalypse in China.

(H/T: Patricationary, Wintery Knight, SDA, GL Piggy)