Monthly Archives: April 2012

Since when was Covetousness a Christian value?

Here’s one Mr. Sirota at Salon discussing left-wing Christianity and spouting ignorance. (h/t Secular Right).

in England 1) “religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues,”

Same in North America. In fact, in North America conservative religious people donate and volunteer more than liberals. You see, conservative religious folks believe in these little things called charity, community, and loving your neighbour, rather than using the state as a device for sanctioned mass looting so individuals can feel free to ignore the poor.

First, they tell us that, contrary to evidence in the United States, the intersection of religion and politics doesn’t have to be fraught with hypocrisy.

Notice how Sirota thinks an ideology based upon freedom, tradition, and/or order is contrary to the Bible, but left-wing ideology based on greed and covetousness is somehow congruent with it.

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations.”

The Creator of the Universe never spoke much about the political economy, except in relation to the tribal polity of Israel in the Old Testament. To assign God to any political ideology is simply silly.

In addition, plutocrat-boosting capitalism is primarily an ideology of liberalism (be it the neo-conservative, socialist, or progressivist kind). Actual right-wingers believe in a neutral free market of uncoerced exchange.

Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.

And most liberals who cite Christianity to justify their economic theft don’t believe the Bible is truth.

No doubt, only a few generations ago, such a conflation of religion and right-wing economics would never fly in America.

That’s because a few generations ago, the left hadn’t begun waging all-out-war on Christianity.

Anyway, I dislike when anybody tries to say there’s a “Christian” political or economic system.

There’s a few political and economic systems that might be inherently unchristian, such as those based on gassing Jews, massacring priests, or purposely starving millions of people, but unless your system requires those kinds of atrocities, there is no “Christian” or “unchristian” system, because Jesus didn’t much talked about the political economy. He mentioned something about rendering unto Caeser his own, but that’s more or less it.

Jesus never said, “woe unto thee who opposeth the welfare state” or “truly, I say to unto thee goods should be exchanged freely in an open marketplace” or “blessed be those who raise taxes”.

Jesus’ message, the Christian message, is spiritual, not material and not political.

So, please Mr. Sirota, refrain from making yourself look silly.

Unplugging

I was reading the Hawaiian Libertarian archives, and came across this post on the media. It got me thinking about my own media consumption habits, which reminded me of this passage from CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape, a greater demon, advises a lesser demon on tempting a man:

As this condition becomes more fully established, you will be gradually freed from the tiresome business of providing Pleasures as temptations. As the uneasiness and his reluctance to face it cut him off more and more from all real happiness, and as habit renders the pleasures of vanity and excitement and flippancy at once less pleasant and harder to forgo (for that is what habit fortunately does to a pleasure) you will find that anything or nothing is sufficient to attract his wandering attention. You no longer need a good book, which he really likes, to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday’s paper will do. You can make him waste his time not only in conversation he enjoys with people whom he likes, but in conversations with those he cares nothing about on subjects that bore him. You can make him do nothing at all for long periods. You can keep him up late at night, not roistering, but staring at a dead fire in a cold room. All the healthy and outgoing activities which we want him to avoid can be inhibited and nothing given in return, so that at last he may say, as one of my own patients said on his arrival down here, “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked”.

The Screwtape Letters (which I’d heavily recommend reading) was written before TV became the dominant form of media consumption, but is an excellent description of what TV does.

I’ve was always more of a gamer, but years ago I would watch TV regularly. Often I found myself watching TV, but not enjoying it. I would watch shows that I didn’t find entertaining simply because I was too bored or lethargic to do anything better with my time.. I would stay up late watching crap or simply flipping through channels watching nothing in particular, neglecting my sleep, but not really having fun either.

Then, I moved into a friend’s house. He didn’t want to pay for cable and neither did I, so we went without. I found I didn’t miss TV at all. I would occasionally have a hankering to watch the Simpsons, but other than that I found there was no loss to my life or happiness, and I had more time for other things.

Now, I still watch some shows (such as Archer and Futurama), because sometimes I just need to lie down and relax for a few hours, without having to read or think too much.

But I only watch shows I have specifically downloaded or purchased on DVD. So, when I do watch TV, I only end up watching what I know I enjoy, so I never find myself wasting time on boring stuff.

I’ve been considering subscribing to Netflix as there’s a show or two on there I want to watch (Community and Arrested Development, specifically). My concern though, is with that much easy selection I might again be tempted to waste more time watching TV than I would like. So, I haven’t subscribed yet, but am considering it.

As for other media. I never listen to the radio anymore and haven’t since I got an MP3 player; I find the talk radio boring and music radio plays only crappy music (ie. non-metal).

I never really watched TV news; I found it was really hard to see through the bias to the deeper meanings at the speed of television and so many of the stories were complete wastes of time.

I did read newspapers regularly, but I’ve been trying to cut back. I still read newspapers as part of my job requires it, but I try to avoid it on my own time.

Keeping up with the news is mostly a waste of time and can actually be harmful. Nassim Taleb wrote about this in the Black Swan (another book I’d recommend); the best filter for news is what you hear from others and too much news can actually be harmful to your thinking as you become trapped in minutiae and narrative.

Besides, the news almost never changes, you can predict exactly what your average newspaper will have each day, all that changes is the details:

  • Local violent crime
  • Heartwarming human interest story
  • Political scandal
  • Political leaders debate bill to remove freedom
  • Middle East violence

If anything is novel enough to care about, you’ll learn about it from somewhere. If you really want to keep up, choose an aggregator, such as Instapundit, it will summarize the bigger stories without requiring much time.

The last form media is the internet; this is where most of my media attention goes. I try to read most of the sites on my blogroll fairly regularly, and I have no regrets about that.

What I do find is that it is very easy to waste time just clicking around doing nothing, rather than doing something more useful. Facebook, and political debates on there are especially bad for this. I find I can waste a lot of time debating useless politics with my friends. I enjoy it, usually, but it’s not really productive. I’ve been trying to post less in the last few weeks, and this blog is helping in that. When I can use the Lightning Round to make snide remarks and larger posts to talk about other interesting topics, I think I waste less time posting and debating things on FB, but it’s something I’m working on.

One other special difficulty is late night; it is very easy to continue to waste time, even when not really having fun or learning anything useful, rather than going to bed to get the sleep I need, but I’m trying to work on that. I did quite good in going to bed at a decent time for a few weeks when I first started trying primal living, but have started staying up late again in the last couple weeks. It’s something to work on.

In conclusion, some tips for readers: if you have cable, get rid of it; you probably won’t miss it. If you need to watch TV, use DVDs or downloads, possibly Netflix, so you can ensure you only watch TV you enjoy. Don’t read newspapers or try to keep up on the news, it’s an unproductive waste of time. Subscribe to an aggregator and/or follow a couple of blogs you like; you’ll get all the news that’s actually important. Try to go to bed on time; that important thing on the internet keeping you up, isn’t really that important.

The Bookshelf: Worthless and Freedom 25

Today, I am going to review two books from the manosphere: Worthless by Aaron Cleary and Freedom Twenty-Five by Frost. I read these books a month or two ago, so the reviews will be fairly short and based on what I remember, but these were the first manosphere book I read and I figure I should give some props to them for their influence, as both the Captain (though more his blog than the actual book, as I graduated a few years ago) and Frost really made me reconsider aspects of my life.

Worthless is more or less a guide to choosing a university degree. It’s a fairly short book, but it goes through a lot of the considerations someone entering university should think about. It outlines which degrees are worthwhile; ie. the STEM fields (or at least most of them) and which you should avoid ie. the liberal arts. The book pulls know punches and presents the harsh reality of the current post-secondary education system. It’s an enjoyably written screed that presents the necessary information without having so much data it overwhelms the narrative.

The one criticism is that a lot  fair amount of the data was Minnesota specific. I don’t think national data would have changed the book much, but would have been somewhat more convincing.

If you are thinking about university buy this book; if you have a loved one thinking about university, buy them this book. If neither applies to you, check it out if the subject matter interests you; it’s still a good read, but not essential.

Freedom Twenty-Five is essentially a short guide to red-pill living. If you’ve been around the manosphere for a while, you probably already know most of what is in the book. On the other hand, I’ve never seen anything else that collects and distills red pill thought in such a convenient matter. The information in there, while mostly basic red pill knowledge, covers information that would otherwise require reading hundreds of posts on dozens on blogs to acquire. The book reads well. The only complaint is that he has some braggadocio that can at is at times be tiring.  The book spoke to me because as I’ve mentioned I found a fair number of similarities between his life and mine prior to when he started his blog and quit his job. It prompted me to try the primal diet (I had known and read of it beforehand, but never tried to apply it). It was also a driver in me starting this blog to explore things for myself.

I heartily recommend the book, especially for those who are just starting to learn of the red pill. Even if you’re familiar with the manosphere, it’s a handy summary of knowledge.

Sexbots

That probably got your attention.

Researchers are now claiming that sexbots will replace prostitutes in the future. Of course, they’re only a half decade behind Roissy (but thanks for coming out, anyway).

The wide-scale use of either sexbots or virtual reality sex seems inevitable. Males’ desire for more realistic pornography and masturbation aids is insatiable.

“The biggest part of the sex experience … is interaction with a woman,” he noted. “He wants to tell her stories, wants her to listen, wants her to act like she cares – a robot’s not going to do that.”

It’s not going to matter. While sex with a real woman will generally be preferable for most men, the people who will be driving the demand are likely those who do not have that option. Roissy more or less has the general trends down.

Omegas will flock to sexbots; the herbivores in Japan have already started to use dating sims, virtual girlfriends, hentai body pills (sorry, no link to that), and other such pre-sexbot aids in large numbers. North American omegas have started to pick up on RealDolls (sorry, again) and the Japanese stuff as well. Omegas have little hope of having sex anyway, so the lack of interaction with women is not going to effect their decisions in the slightest.

For betas, it will be a cost-benefit analysis. Is the expected marginal benefit of a real women over a sexbot worth the cost of putting up with all the crap of dating? For many, I don’t think it will be.

The demand for alphas will increase, but even then, alphas may demand sexbots. They also have a cost-benefit analysis; some alphas might use sexbots once their realistic enough simply because it will be easier than spending hours tolerating painfully stupid conversation in a nightclub.

What Roissy misses though is other major drivers of demand, those who can have the sex they desire with real women due to consent and legality issues.

About a third of men have rape fantasies, something that can not be legally acted upon. Up to 7% of males are clinical pedophiles, something which they can definitely not legally act upon. Then of course, there are the array of fetishists with fantasies that are biologically impossible, such as sadists, furries, or those interested in dickgirls (no links here).

I think that these groups will be some of the biggest customers for sexbots, so they can enact their fantasies which are either impossible or illegal in real life. There will demand for a sexbot that resists, cries, bleeds, and generally acts like it’s being raped and/or abused. There will be demand for sexbots that look eight-years old. There will be a demand for sexbots created in ways that are biologically impossible.

The demand for pornography is already nigh limitless. The demand for realistic sexbots is as well.

The technology will eventually get to the point this demand can be met. Realdolls have become increasingly realistic. Conversational AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Robots are becoming increasingly capable. Artificial sex organs are becoming increasingly widespread as masturbatory aids. At this point, it’s simply a matter of degree and putting it all together into an affordable package.

When this occurs, the introduction of sexbots into the marketplace is an inevitability.

Of course, Half-Sigma could be right, the state could ban them.

Social conservatives will also fight them tooth and nail, but will lose the fight as they’ve eventually lost on every fight they’ve fought.

Feminists will most assuredly fight sexbots, as they would greatly reduce females’ power in the sexual marketplace. Feminists have traditionally had great sway over policy, but in this case, I do not think they would realize their power was slipping away until it was too late. At first they will ignore them, as who really cares if a bunch of creepy nerds pleasure themselves with some fancy toys? Then it will slowly move up the sexual value chain from omegas to lesser betas to greater betas and finally to alphas. By the time it’s removed enough betas and alphas from the dating pool for feminists to notice that there are fewer men to date and that those men are demanding more, sexbots will likely already be a fait accompli.

What I think will be the most likely to lead to their restriction introduction will be this:

“And the robots can assume any identity virtually … though we just have 18-plus as the age that the robot behaves like.”

While this company might avoid it (at first), someone will eventually create a sex doll that looks and acts like a five-year-old (or worse, a child-like sex-bot designed to cry and act afraid and in pain); there is too much demand for them not to.

When a child-like sexbot is created, the disgust most people have for pedophiles will boil to the surface and create a general backlash against sexbots. This backlash may succeed in having them banned (barring, of course, the unlikely event of a general rise in acceptance of pedophiles similar to the acceptance of homosexuals, bdsm-types, and the like).

If they are banned though, this will simply create a black-market for the products, just like there is for child pornography and prostitution. The ability for men to be able to act out their most depraved fantasies without suffering the guilt of actually hurting a real person is something that the government will not be able to stifle.

Also, I expect some psychologists and the like to come forward defending deviant sexbots, as it will allow deviants to engage in their sexual activities without harming people, which will probably be good for their mental health,s reduce the likelihood of deviants actually hurting someone, and reduces the demand for prostitution. This could tip the balance towards the liberalization of sexbots.

With sexbots being inevitable, what will be the effects of their introduction? Well, generally not good. As the sexual costs of reclusiveness, unemployment, social awkwardness, etc. decrease, more men will go their own way, leave the marriage market, and contribute less to society economically. Marriage rates will further decrease.

On the other hand, the improved options for men will force women to increase their bids for men still in the market, so the problems of frivolous divorce and unjust family courts and laws may be ameliorated. On the other hand, improved options for men, might increase mens’  instigation of frivolous divorce and tip the scales in the other direction.

Lightning Round – 2012/04/25

Public schools do not exist for the benefit of students. They are holding cells to employ teachers and free women to teach other women’s children.

When you sell your children’s souls to secular culture, why be surprised when secular culture claims them.  (h/t CMDN)

When you sell your soul to those who hate freedom, why be surprised when they try to take yours? (h/t Glenn)

Man up.

On the other hand, some remain free of secular culture and the state. In my province, this would not be possible just living together for a few years means the state controls your domestic relationship.

You mean after they lied to us, stolen from us, and betrayed us at every turn, we’re losing faith in them? How could that possibly happen? (h/t Glenn)

The rabble should know their place.

Nothing to see here. There is no bubble. Related.

Who could have guessed that when the US started towards a European-model economy, they’d have European levels of unemployment? Enjoy that 50% OWS. (via the Captain)

The state wishes to control even the foods you eat and the advice you give. Be wary of advocating paleo, they may come for you. (h/t DG)

Why trying to reason with pro-abortionists and feminists is a waste of time. When they can not even conceive that the other side may have an argument beside being mentally disturbed, there is no point.

A ginned up show trial ends. He won’t be serving time, but since when can failing “to hold cabinet meetings focused on the spiraling crisis” possibly be considered a crime.

A union boss being hypocritical. Colour me surprised. (h/t Glenn)

Choice and Freedom

Slate had an article from last week I read today. For the most part it’s typical liberal feminist rhetoric: women are oppressed, men are treated better, Republican’s are waging “war on women” but the “mommy wars” don’t exist, etc, etc.

But, there’s an interesting question asked in the middle:

For starters, ask yourself why we talk about American men using the language of “freedom” and women in the language of “choice?”
…
Why is it that women are the sum of their “choices” and men get to just live their lives?

Having asked a rather interesting question, the authors then simply blame it on evil Republicans who hate women, a thoroughly unsatisfying answer to any who aren’t ideologically-blinded feminists.

So, why do we talk about freedom when referring to males, but choice when referring to females (or at least to feminists)?

The first, and most obvious, reason would be abortion. Feminism has irreversibly joined itself to pro-abortion policies and uses the language of choice when discussing the mass killing of the unborn.

But, even when not addressing abortion, or even feminism for that matter, the dichotomy of male freedom and female choice remains in political discussion. Why?

First, we have to look at what is meant by the two words:

Freedom is generally used to mean the ability to act without external constraint. Some have tried to pervert the word with the phrase “positive freedom” (ie. forcing someone else to help you to act), but the original conception, sometimes referred to as “negative freedom”, is the most commonly accepted: the ability to do as you wish with yourself and your resources without someone else using force to stop you.

Choice, on the other hand, refers to the act of selecting an option. Choice implies that options are available and one is selected.

So, how does that relate to politics and sex differences?

Nobody else can give you freedom, others can only take it away. Freedom also implies responsibility: if you are free to act, you are free to act stupidly and will have to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, freedom does not imply that you have the ability to act; just because there are not external constraints, does not mean there are no internal constraints. I am free to fly, but not being Superman, I have to walk.

Choice can be given by others. Choice also implies that I have the ability to act. Because I am not Superman, I can not be said to have the choice to fly.On the other hand, if I lived in Metropolis, Superman could offer me a ride; if he did I would then have the choice of flight.

Knowing this, we can see why men have freedom and women, or at least feminists, have choice.

Men are encouraged to act and when they fail, they are rarely given help; they are expected to pull themselves up. Men who do not provide for themselves are shamed. In the political sphere, the more masculine ideologies (libertarianism and conservatism) are based on freedom.

When men (rarely) organize politically for the benefit of their sex, it is never to demand they be given special privileges or for others to provide for them, it is always to be left free: the fair enforcement of marriage contracts, to not be discriminated against when applying for jobs, to not be treated as de facto guilty when accused, etc.

They advocate for freedom. Men in politics are more inclined to work towards freedom and are not inclined to requiring other to provide for them.

On the other hand, females are encouraged to rely on the state. When they fail, the surrogate husband will take care of them. Women who are provided for are not shamed. In the political sphere, the more feminine ideologies (liberalism, feminism, and progressivism) are based on choice, on giving people choices, even if it requires the state help them, redistributing resources, or removing freedom. They also tend to advocate that the state prevent them from having to live with the consequences of their actions.

When modern females organize politically for the benefit of their sex (ie. post-second wave feminism), the demand for other to provide them with choice is always there: affirmative action, quotas for hiring women, state-funded daycare, state-funded abortions, mandatory contraception insurance, ending sexist jokes, sensitivity training for others, increased welfare, gender parity, increased alimony, etc. Feminists demand choices and demand that others provide these choices for them.

That is why we talk about men in the language of freedom and women in the language of choice.

If feminists do not like being consigned to the language of choice, they can accept freedom.

They would have to accept that freedom may limit choice. If a person can not afford daycare, they go without.

They would have to accept responsibility that comes along with it. If a person has children, they are responsible for raising them and paying for them.

They would have to accept that freedom means that others won’t be forced to provide you with choices. There would be no affirmative action or gender quotas, no state-funding to support choices, little to no welfare, etc.

But, until feminists embrace freedom, they will be consigned to the language of choice.

Affordable Daycare is a Pipe Dream

I came across this article with some women whining about the costs of child care.  (h/t Captain Capitalism)

Child care is one of those things that is usually not going to be “affordable” (or a good economic decision, for that matter) except to the well off and the poor (ie. single mothers). No matter how much feminists or the state desire to bring down its costs, it simply can not be made a sustainably affordable option for your average working-class and middle-class folks.

The reason: child care requires human workers that can not be outsourced and can not be replaced with technology. There is no way to offshore your child to India (other than boarding schools) and it will be decades (at least) before there is a robot capable of properly taking care of a child. So, there is no way to remove paying for labour from the equation (unless grandma is willing to take the kids).

The gains that can be made from efficiencies are also limited. Kids require work, a lot of it, and it is not the kind of work that can easily benefit from economies of scale. Sure, you can cut costs around the edges, like consolidate day cares to use larger buildings or buy diapers in bulk, but the labour costs can not really be made more efficient. You can not simply feed children or change their diapers on an assembly line, and each child requires some amount of unique individual attention, even if only to stop them from jabbing crayons into their eyes.

On top of that, governments often mandate a certain level of labour costs with the use of staff/child ratios. This makes sense of course, you don’t want one 23-year-old girl made responsible for 15 different 2 year olds, it’s simply unsafe (not to mention the complete lack of mental development or learning opportunities a situation like that provides, one of the chief benefits touted by daycare enthusiasts).

So, you legally limit the maximum ratio of children per staff. The actual mandatory ratio varies by jurisdiction and often by age, but in my jurisdiction, the max ratio for infants is 4:1 and 8:1 for preschool.

Think about what a 4:1 ratio means in economic terms for a second.

It means that, at best, only 4 women will be required to pay the entire salary (plus benefits) of one daycare worker.

If we assume both the childcare worker and the working woman make average wages, then a women with a single infant in care is paying (at least) 25% of her pre-tax income for the wages of the childcare provider, alone. This does not even include overhead, management, or supplies; simply, the direct labour costs are 25% of her income. If she has two infants, it rises to 50%. Two preschoolers: 25%.

For the working woman with the average 2.4-child family; labour costs for child care alone would eat up 25%-50% of her pre-tax income. If you add on other daycare costs (diapers, the building, etc.), taxes, the costs of working (transportation, lunches, business clothes, etc.), it is easy to see she barely comes out ahead. She’s taking home, at most, a few dimes on the dollar.

This means that only for the rich or the poor is child care a remotely economically rational decision. The rich for obvious reasons, the poor simply out of necessity; they may only make a few dimes on the dollar but without those dimes they make nothing.

Obviously, given the number of working-/middle-class women that use daycare, it’s more affordable than my simple illustration, but why?

The main reason is, daycare workers do not make the average wage. In the US, the average daycare worker makes less than $20k/year, while the average female working full-time makes $33k (while the average income for a full-time worker is almost $40k).

This brings the comparative labour costs down to about 15-30% of your average woman’s earnings, providing another dime or two on the dollar in take-home pay.

To lower these labour costs, you could lower childcare workers’ wages, but then you’ll simply have fewer workers to meet the same demand, so they’ll charge more or there will be a lack of supply. In addition, if child care labour is paid less, you’ll get less qualified candidates, and you want some minimum levels on who looks after children.

Also, wages in this sector tend to be trending up over the long-term. Jurisdictions are increasingly requiring higher qualifications for childcare workers, which will increase the wages necessary to attract workers. For example, my jurisdiction now requires a two-year diploma for childcare workers. In addition, childcare workers are demanding increasing benefits. In my jurisdiction there has been talk of the implementation of a pension plan. Labour costs are set to go up, not down.

No matter how much whining is done about the high costs and unaffordability of childcare, there is no way to bring it down given the nature of child care services.

The other idea to lower costs for individuals is subsidization. Canada does this, and spends about $5-billion/year in public money subsidizing daycare (the numbers are from 2005, so it’s probably higher now). The US federal government spent $3.7 billion in 2002, and I can’t find data on the spending of the various states.

This, of course, just transfers the costs from the users of daycare services to everybody. This benefits the poor who pay less tax, but get the most subsidies for daycare (another reason they can afford daycare, when it squeezes the middle-/working-class.) On the other hand, it simply means more of the parents’ incomes goes to taxes for the middle class, hiding the cost of daycare behind layers of bureaucracy, but not really solving the problem of affordability.

What will inevitably happen, is that as daycare becomes increasingly expensive and economically infeasible for the middle class, it will become some sort of “right” and the state will simply nationalize it. Taxes will go up further squeezing the middle-class. More couples will be forced into using daycare as they won’t be able to afford the increased taxes on a single income. Essentially, the public school system will simply expand to include the younger years.

In conclusion, daycare will never be “affordable” due to the nature of the work but at some point your children will likely be raised by unionized government workers for their early years. Enjoy.

Would an Obama Win be Best for the Right?

I came across this today (h/t: Instapundit) and the excitement over a potential Romney win is palpable, but is a Romney what the right should be hoping for? I’m not so sure.

Romney seems like a decent enough politician. I  tend to think of him as similar to Canada’s Prime Minister. Both Romney and Harper are pragmatics on the centre-right. They can be counted on be competent managers and run a country smoothly. They might make some some minor adjustments to slowly move the country rightward, but you can’t really expect anything overly reactionary or radical changes  from them. They will keep the ship of state steady.

In Canada, steady as she goes works fine for Harper; the country is mostly in good health, the economy is functioning fairly well, taxes are fairly low and lowering, and debts and deficits are not great, but they’re in control and there is no permanent structural deficit. The country is on a decent enough course, and while Harper may not be everything the right hoped for, he throws us the occasional bone. He’s a competent prime minister.

The US is in a different situation though, the economy has stalled, a structural deficit has been built into federal finances, debt is out of control, taxes are high, and the country is imploding.

Romney may slow the implosion, he will run the US much better than Obama, and he may stall America’s impending doom, but everybody knows he doesn’t have the ideological strength to do the harsh cuts necessary to bail out the state. At best, we can expect him to put off the inevitable sinking of America by a few years or a decade.

The alternative, though, is Obama, who has shown he can not right the economy, who’s running on a counter-productive eat-the-rich platform, who has overspent and who will continue to spend the state into bankruptcy.

So Romney’s obviously better then, no?

Maybe not. Communists have this idea of heightening the contradictions. This basics of this idea is that to hasten the advent of communism, communists must make the capitalist state as brutal as possible to the proletariat so as to grow the seeds of class consciousness to hasten the communist revolution that follows. Working from this idea they oppose soft-left/liberal ideas such as the welfare state, public health care, etc. which make the lot of the proletariat more comfortable. A comfortable proletariat may not notice the chains of the capitalist system and would have less incentive to cast off them off, forestalling the inevitable rise of communism.

So, how does this idea apply to the US and Romney?

Simple, the election of Romney will slow, but not halt, the economic implosion of the US. The right, having beaten that socialist Obama and installed the conservative Romney in power, will congratulate themselves on a job well done, and the momentum of the Tea Party movement will peter out, mistaking victory in battle, for victory in war. America’s decline will continue, but slower. The collapse would be postponed, but will still be inevitable.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, he will pillage the producer class, he will continue to make drunken sailors look like paragons of fiscal responsibility, the beast will be gorged, and his class war rhetoric will drone on. The economy will stay stuck in neutral, high unemployment will continue, firms will continue to leave for greener pastures, and the dollar will continue to decline. There will be no recovery; America will suffer, America will bleed. Producers will know they are being mugged, centrists will realize they are suffering, the left’s disillusionment will rise, the Tea Party’s momentum will continue to grow, and the young will begin to realize they are being chained in perpetual debt slavery.

Then in 2016, American’s will be forced to accept they need change. Thanks to four years of Obama, Ron Paul did fairly well in the primaries; he brought libertarianism into the mainstream and established the ideological groundwork for its continued expansion but he suffered from his supposed extremism. But what of a more moderate libertarian Rand Paul after 8 years of economic hemorrhaging and overwhelming encroachment of the federal state under Obama?

Cain surged, but ultimately fell due to the perceived unseriousness of his campaign and a couple of scandals. But what of a serious Paul Ryan pointing to his long-ago proposed plan for fiscal sanity after 8 years of  Obama’s economic insanity?

Would not Rand Paul or Paul Ryan have the ideological fortitude to do what is necessary necessary to bail the state out and keep her afloat? After 8 years of Obama would not the American public be begging to be rescued. Would they not look to anybody who was not a borderline-socialist Democrat for rescue? After 8 years of Obama and the loss of two establishment Republicans in a row would not the Tea Party and the grassroots have the strength to sideline the GOP establishment and run a hardline conservative?

If Romney wins, the US continues to slowly implode.

If Romney loses, Obama will heighten the contradictions of the welfare state. He will sink the Republic. Then, the right would simply have to grab hold of the opportunity to save her and set her on course once more.

Maybe the right should hope Obama wins.

The Bookshelf: 30 Bangs

I got my copies of Roosh’s books last week, and I read through 30 Bangs first, simply because it’s episodic nature and short length lent itself to being read through downtime during my rather busy weekend.

The book is simply a description of 30 different times Roosh had sex and the events and his actions leading up to the act. It is written in a very matter-of-fact, almost clinical, manner.

If you are looking to start learning game, this is not really the book. Game is present and you will probably learn something about it, particularly the game attitude, but this is no manual and the actual game techniques are sometimes glossed over in his stories. There is a small lesson at the end for the basic commonalities his success stories had.  If you are already learning game, his experiences might help you identify errors or find areas of improvement.

What I really like about this book is that it is a short, well-written, and interesting look into the life and experiences of a PUA, someone who has fully embraced the red pill. For those of us who (like me) have not tried game to any significant extent and to whom this kind of life is unfamiliar, it is a pair of binoculars allowing us to see through the windows into a player’s bedroom.

After reading this book though, I can say that I’m not very interested in the clubbing lifestyle. The descriptions of his nights out trolling for sex mostly seems joyless and mechanical. The book was obviously written analytically to deconstruct his experiences so they could be learned from, but I still expected some sense of enjoyment to leak through, but there was little. He could just as easily been writing about his experiences filling out TPS reports, for all the fun this book conveyed.

A couple times he mentions how a particular conversation or girl was fun or interesting, but usually it seems like he’s simply tolerating them and the bars for the hope of sex. For example, at one point he writes, “I was becoming skilled at tolerating stupid girls long enough to beat their pussies up in bed. Since she had a nice body with a tomato ass, I decided a little pain now would be worth a lot of pleasure later.” He writes similar things a number of other times.

While I’m sure having sex with lots of beautiful women is extremely pleasurable, the entire process seems unappealing. Reading Roissy and other game blogs, I got the impression that obtaining sex with game was a simple matter; a quick, fun conversation at the club with some gaming, then a trip to the women’s bedroom. Reading Roosh’s stories it seems to be a lot of trolling of clubs (and I personally dislike clubs/bars, as I don’t care for either crowds or noisiness, with the exception of metal concerts), engaging in conversations you don’t really care for with people you don’t care about (something else, I have a very low tolerance for), spending more time maintaining frame than enjoying yourself, then slowly weaseling your way into sex through manipulation and persistence.  I was struck by the amount of time/effort he seems to expend working his way from club to cab to apartment to bed to sex while slowly overcoming the resistance his partners put up; from my readings of game blogs, it had always seemed so much more breezy and quick.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it would seem to be a lot less effort just to pay for sex than to engage in all this for a few one night stands (I think I might have just had an idea for a future blog post) and the occasional short-term sexual relationship.

On the other hand, his day bang stories seemed less draining and effort consuming than his club game stories.

So, in sum, if you’re interested in knowing more about the life of a player, or for learning a bit more about game from real-life examples, I’d give this book a read. If you’re wanting to start learning game, try a different book first.

I found this book helpful, this helped me to know that I do not want the clubbing lifestyle. If I do ever end up fully swallowing the red pill, I will not be doing club or night game. It does not seem worth the effort to me. The temporary pleasures of sex, however fantastic, just do not seem to be worth the seeming grinding, joyless monotony of it. I’d either work on day game, pay for sex, or go without; any of those three would seem preferable.

One last note that’s probably totally unnecessary, but if you’re squeamish about sex or are a rabid feminist or whatnot, the book will offend you, but you could probably tell that from the title.

I still plan to read and give my impressions of Bang and Day Bang, but my reading list is filling fast, so I don’t know when I’ll get around to it. From this book, I’ve got a strong feeling I’ll probably appreciate Day Bang a lot more. I’ve also got Athol Kay’s The Married Man Sex Life Primer and How To Answer books on the way; I might read and review those first. We’ll see.