Monthly Archives: May 2012

30 Days of Discipline Conclusion

So, I reviewed the 30 Days of Discipline and had an update on it. I finished the 30 Days earlier this week, so here’s the conclusion.

For my main project, I got a decent start on it, even though this month has been the busiest I’ve had in a long time. In addition, I accomplished a number of smaller tasks that I’ve been meaning to get to for months. The 30 Days, really helped me in accomplishing things and freed up a lot of time that I otherwise would have wasted.

As for the other stuff, I followed the rules #1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, & 12 very well.

I did not accomplish my goal for #11 as I made a mistake on my affiliate project, had to restart, and learning the website creation tool I’m using is taking longer than thought, but I got a good start on it.

#4 was the hardest, just as I thought. Since my last update, I did well for the third week, but had trouble over the weekend. I reasserted for the last week, but my discipline failed near the end of the week.

#5 I got sick in the middle of the third week, so I fell off for a few days, but other than that I mostly kept up with it.

#7 I just plain forgot about in the final week. It’s the easiest thing on the list, but it was also very easy to forget in the mornings.

Overall, I would  recommend trying the 30 Days. It’s not easy, but it’s a good way to build some character.

Out of all the habits I’m going to keep # 6, 8, and 9. I’m going to half-ass #3, cold showers suck too much with too little benefit to continue with them, but I’m going to keep up doing lukewarm showers, rather than the hot showers I did before. #3 is one of those things I’m going to try to limit, but probably will only be moderately successful with.

Advertisements

The Bookshelf: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

I previously mentioned that I was reading Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Having now completed reading the book, here’s the review.

The book is a pro-natalist book arguing that your self-interest should lead you to have more children, that having kids should be easier than you think, and that you’re parenting style is not really going to affect your children’s long-term outcomes.

The book is written in a typical popular economics manner: a light-hearted tone, but keen on being technically accurate and precise. It’s very readable and simplifies the issues and studies to be understandable to all. The arguments are well-supported by scientific studies, common-sense, and coherent logical arguments. THe Overall, it’s a well-written book.

As for content, the book is divided into eight chapters and is fairly short at less than 200 pages (238 pages if you include references and indices).

The first chapter argues that the parent’s happiness counts too and that a parent should lessen their own parental workload for their own benefit (and their family’s).

The second chapter shows very clearly that, as long as you are a typical first world parent, your method of parenting has no real long-term effect on your children’s futures and you should not feel guilty about lessening your workload.

Having demonstrated that your parenting has no long-term effect on your children’s future, the third chapter lays out how this should practically effect your family life.

The fourth chapter attacks the notion that society is more dangerous for children now than and the past, and shows clearly that kids are safer than they have ever been.

The fifth chapter argues that if you fully look at the long-term consequences of having children, you will have more than you currently have, because you overestimate the work of children in the near future and underestimate the value of children when you are older.

The sixth chapter argues that, contrary to the arguments of the over-population crowd, more children are not bad for the world, rather a larger population and more children are a positive benefit for the world.

The seventh chapter gives some tips for increasing the number of grandchildren you have.

The eighth chapter talks up the benefits of fertility technology.

The ninth chapter and final chapter is Caplan’s clarifications and responses to common hesitations and counter-arguments presented in a dialog format.

Overall, I would recommend reading this book. The subject matter is interesting, the book is well written, the arguments are clear and persuasive, and more information on one of the most important decisions in your life is always a good thing.

Conclusion:

If you’re married, plan to marry, have kids, or are considering having kids, I would fully recommend you read this book so you can make family decisions with accurate knowledge.

If you never plan to get married and/or have children, this book will may not be relevant to you, so you may not want to read it. You may still want to read it if you are interested in natalism or family issues or simply to consider (re)evaluate the long-term impacts of your choices.


Lightning Round – 2012/05/29

Mentu writes one of the best posts I’ve read on Christian game, a must for budding patriarchs. Read it now. I think I’m going to start learning game now.

Also, for patriarchs: a great list of things to teach your son.

Increasingly worthless. Related. Related to the related.

The state as God produces some odd thinking.

As an example: the left goes into the vapours whenever someone thinks about even touching their internet privacy, but you’re crazy if you don’t want the government forcing you to reveal personal aspects of your life for the census.

They sold themselves to the state under the social gospel and are reaping the rewards.

I wonder how common this actually is. Am I a sock-puppet?

I’m sure someone on the manosphere will object to this. Assuming any Quebecers are actually part of the manosphere.

Men’s centres are not welcome; men are too irresponsible and not educated enough on gender issues to have them.

The punishment for false rape accusations should be brutal.

Hehe.

Mugabe as UN tourism ambassador. About what I’d expect.

Sometimes you worry about the next generation.

(h/t SDA, Althouse, Smallest Minority)


Patriarchy: Restraining Males

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.


Choose a Spouse Who Would Resemble the Children you Want

I’m currently reading Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. The book is a pro-natalist argument for why you should have more kids for your own benefit. I’m not reviewing it now, maybe next week when I finish it, but I came across something I’d like to highlight.

After thoroughly dismantling the nurture assumption in Chapter 2, he concludes that how your kids turn out has almost nothing to do with your parenting and is heavily dependent on the genes your pass to your children. In Chapter 3, he then talks of the implications of this, where he wrote this:

The most effective way to get the kind of kids you want is to pick a spouse who has the traits you want your kids to have. Genes have the largest effect on almost everything on the Parental Wish List. The right spouse is like a genie who grants wishes you are powerless to achieve through your own efforts.

Often when choosing spouses young men look for love, sexiness, compatibility, and/or motherhood qualities; all things of how a women would relate to her husband and children.

What is often overlooked is that your wife’s genes will have a heavy impact on the type of child you will have.

Even good advice given on the matter of choosing a wife can neglect this matter. Dalrock has a good post on choosing your wife, as does Athol, but both focus on the potential wife’s qualities and the way she relates to others, not on the genes she will pass down to your children.

Now, if you choose a beautiful women, she likely has a base level of healthiness, and most are naturally inclined to screen out unhealthy (ie. fat, ugly, or sickly) women from being bearers of their children, but think about other traits, personality traits.

Is she stupid or slow? Your kid will probably turn out less intelligent. Is she irresponsible or ditzy? Your kid may be more likely to be less responsible. Is she prone to emotionalism or anger? Your children will likely be as well. Is she generally unhappy? Lazy? Immature? Disloyal?

On the other hand, if she’s a responsible, intelligent, self-disciplined women, your mutual children are far more likely to have those traits.

Also, look at traits that may not be as cut and dried. Do you want your children to be devout or traditional? Family oriented? Success oriented? Artsy? Liberal? Etc.

Choose a wife that is and increase your chances they will be, not because of parenting methods, but simply because the genes she will meld with yours will be more likely to cause your children to be predisposed to those attitudes.

Anyway, something to think about for budding young patriarchs.

In the same section, he then goes onto to say:

Another implication: The macho, irresponsible “bad boy” is an even worse deal for women than he’s reputed to be. Not only will he be emotionally and financially AWOL; the children he fathers will probably give a great deal of grief to any mother who struggles to raise them right.

So for women, when trying to convince the irresponsible but charming alpha to settle down (or simply having sex with him, accidents happen), think about your future children. Not only will he likely be a bad father, but even if you can convince him to stick around and take of your kid, do you really want to raise an asshole?

Your child’s alpha genes may potentially have some benefits, but your son of an alpha will be much more likely to break your heart. I’ve seen the emotional turmoil an irresponsible alpha can wreak upon his mother, do you really want that?

Think long term.


Game Theory in The Boondocks

Tom undergoes the travails of a beta male. Enjoy.


Lightning Round – 2012/05/22

Remember, your superiors know better than you how to raise your children. (In this case, your superiors are the least competent of those our college system has pumped out).

Government theft can sometimes be more blatant than usual.

The government also hates it when you deprive them of their theft.

Never forget that Paul Krugman, while intelligent, is a complete idiot. From 2002, “Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.” And people still listen to him.

Greens have just as much disdain for life as the reds did.

Steyn writes a great article about Geert Wilders. Read it.

CDMN has an interesting conversation with Christian marriage counselors hamster. Spin once and spin again.

(h/t SDA)

 


Feminism: Contributing Factor to Obesity

It looks like it’s fat day over at In Mala Fide with two posts on obesity today.

The first is on the feminists’ contradictory positions on two unhealthy body types: fat and anorexic skinny. Manuel questions ‘why the contradiction?’

My answer: in our modern prosperity, it’s much easier to be unhealthily fat than unhealthily skinny, so people will justify their lack of discipline and condemn those who judge their laziness. Not much different from his.

The second by Frost argues that obesity is a spiritual problem. People eat to fill the spiritual gap in their lives left by consumerist culture.

I’d agree with him on this, but I think there’s more to it.

Everywhere you see discussion of the obesity crisis and everybody decries this, that, and the other thing.

Fast food is often blamed, even though fast food in itself doesn’t make you fat. Consumerism, advertising, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, pop, etc.

One thing that is never discussed is feminism, even though I think it is one of the most self-evident contributing factors of the obesity epidemic.

At one time, mother would be at home: in the morning, she’d make a good breakfast for her children and husband, and send them to school/work with a healthy bagged lunch. She’d cook in the afternoon so a healthy supper was waiting for when everybody in the evening. When the kids got home from school, there’d be some baked goods or fruit for snacks.

The mother would provide healthy, home-cooked food for the family. She would make sure her family ate well (“finish all your peas”) and that her children would develop good eating habits. She’d make sure here kids got enough outdoor play (ie. physical activity) to stay healthy.

Now women work, and mother no longer has the time to bake, to cook meals, and to supervise her children’s eating and play habits.

Breakfasts of bacon & eggs, home-baked bread, or oatmeal have been replaced by sugary cereal. Lunches of sandwiches, fruit, and milk or leftovers have been replaced by cafeteria food (burgers, fries, and pizza) and lunchables. Home-cooked dinners have been replaced by microwavable meals, fast food, restaurants, and easy cook dinners. Snacks of home-baked goods have been replaced with chips and candy.

Mom is no longer home, so kids are unsupervised. Instead of “no snacks until after dinner”, kids come home to an empty house filled with junk food. Instead of mother teaching good eating habits to her children, they learn eating habits from peers (chug! chug! chug!) and TV. Instead of mother yelling at kids to turn off the TV (or video games, radio, books, etc.) and go outside to play, kids lounge around supervised by Mario & Luigi.

Now, obviously feminism isn’t the only factor in obesity, others would include spiritual gaps, easy entertainment, laziness, an overabundance of food due to prosperity, etc, but it is still a factor.

Feminism is likely a leading contributor to obesity; it is hard to see how any discussion of obesity can occur without at least some consideration of this.


Shameless White Male Privilege

So, this post on white male privilege by some sci-fi author has been making the rounds.

If you’ve ever spent time in the race-baiting and/or liberal weenie area of the blogosphere, you’ve probably heard the term white privilege before; it essentially it means that whites (and males) have inherent social advantages over others (minorities and females) that they don’t notice.

The post provides a fairly good analogy of the concept, and the author mostly avoids the moral superiority, butthurt, and male-shaming/white guilt that invariably accompanies liberal’s discussion of privilege. He doesn’t sound at all like the smarmy, self-hating, morally superior Tim Wise.

Now, among the right, conservatives, the manosphere, etc., the concept of white male privilege usually doesn’t gain much traction, and for quite a while it didn’t for me either; but after reading about it some, I’ve decided that I’ve got to go against the grain of my ideological brethren on this topic.

White privilege probably does exist; so to male privilege.

****

Immediately, many reading those will protest: what of affirmative action, what of political correctness, what of family court, what of chivalry, and so on and so forth. Sure, there are many number of things that are  against males.

In fact, I’ll go further and say that most codified discrimination that still exists in Western society, is either anti-white (occasionally anti-Asian) and/or anti-male. Codified discrimination against minorities and women has been almost entirely eliminated.

But that’s irrelevant to the concept, as white male privilege goes beyond that.

****

So, why do I accept this concept?

I’ll start with male privilege. Yes, females have some advantages over males: family court advantages, being the sexual gate-keeper, chivalry, less chance of prison, etc.

On the other males have so many more social advantages; I’ll just list what I think is the big one:

Unless I go to jail, I really never have to worry about rape. In fact, I almost never worry about my physical safety in relation to other people.

From what I understand, women keep their physical safety in mind quite a bit.

As for white privilege, the big one is this:

White is “normal”, other races are not. If someone describes me it’s based on height or hair colour or some other characteristic. When someone describes a minority to me, race is the first descriptor. In addition, there are no racial expectations placed on me either for bad or good; I never have to think about how I reflect on my race.

There’s more, but you can look elsewhere, this page is not a justification for the concept of privilege. All that’s necessary for my actual point is that I accept the concept of white male privilege.

****

If you doubt the concept of white male privilege honestly consider this:

Would you trade being male for being female if given the choice?

Would you trade being white for being a NAM if given the choice?

Probably not. You know it’s awesome being a white male.

****

Side note.

Don’t act like white males are victims, even if you don’t buy the concept of white privilege. I hate that.

Sure, some there may be some injustices (ie. family court) and these should be fixed, but creating white males as a victim class to rival other victim classes in being victims is just pathetic.

I disdain when feminist activists act like women are victims and I disdain when racial activists act like victims.

Life’s not fair. Deal with it.

You will eat shit; stop pretending that the shit you eat is worse than others’ shit, and because it’s worse it somehow makes you a better person or more deserving. It doesn’t.

Acting the victim only makes you weak and pathetic.

End side note.

****

Of course, white male privilege is not the only privilege there is.

The single greatest social privilege any person can have is parent’s who speak English. Oral and written English is the most useful skill any person in this globalized (ie. anglicized) world can have.

There’s the privilege of being born in North America in the 20th century. The most prosperous and safest civilization of all time.

Not being born a disabled is a great privilege.

Everybody has a wealth of privileges they don’t notice and aren’t grateful for.

As P.J. O’Rourke said to his daughter: “Honey, you’re cute. That’s not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That’s not fair. You were born in America. That’s not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.”

The focus on white male privilege, and white male privilege alone, is sometimes silly. Rarely do I see the other privileges (except maybe wealth) talked about. That’s besides my main point though. I just wanted to point out that you have other privileges that you may not be aware of.

****

Now, here’s the part where most of those talking about the concept of privilege try to make you feel guilty for having privilege and try to turn you into some bleeding-heart idiot.

I’m not going to do that, because I’m not an emotionalizing liberal; I’m an analytical, cold-hearted conservative.

Instead, I’m going to explain why white male privilege exists.

****

Why does it exist?

Simple: White male privilege exists because white males built the greatest civilization in the history of the world.

In particular, the people of a small island off the coast of Europe created and molded the modern world. The Germans, Italians, French, Russians, and Spaniards had some influence, but English liberalism (not modern progressivist liberalism, but Lockian liberalism and Burkian liberal-conservatism) is the basis for all the greatness of modern society.

English liberalism led to the creation of universal freedoms; allowing people to go about their personal and economic business free from worries of arbitrary exercises of power by those with power.

English liberalism championed and created the ideological basis for the free market, the single greatest engine of economic production ever conceived by man.

English common law created a system of justice where the rule of law prevailed, process was paramount, all were protected equally, and where state power was checked by law.

The protestant work ethic and individualist values prepared the English individuals to drive the above.

British heterogeneity in language, race, religion, and political culture created an English culture used to absorbing the best of other cultures.

Given these strengths, English civilization became the preeminent civilization for the last four centuries. (The USA is a part of English civilization).

All it’s real rivals, until the current rise of China, were other white European civilizations who shared some values with Englishmen. (No, the Japanese, Muslims, and Ottomans were never/are not a real threat to English civilization’s preeminence).

****

This great civilization was created by Englishmen for Englishmen (and their families); through their blood, sweat, and tears.

Englishmen fought numerous wars against the continentals to keep themselves free and to spread English values.

Rightly or wrongly, Englishmen fought overseas to acquire territory and resources for Englishmen and to spread English values.

The English economic engine was built on the toil, risk, and ideas of Englishmen.

English political culture and law was created and protected by Englishmen.

By doing so, Englishmen created the civilization we currently live in. It is also the richest, most powerful civilization in the history of the world.

****

White, male privilege exists because of this: English civilization was created for Englishmen by Englishmen.

Every liberal writer on privilege ignores this, but it is essential to understanding.

Why should white males feel guilty for enjoying the privileges their forefathers created for them?

Do not white males have the right to enjoy the civilization they created for themselves?

(You may be asking yourself right now, aren’t I conflating Englishmen and white males? Just wait, I’ll explain.)

White males absolutely have every right to enjoy the privileges they have created for themselves.

We owe nothing to no one.

****

So, what did the English do, having created this unprecedentedly wealthy, free, and powerful civilization?

They shared it.

Think about that. Englishmen created a civilization with power beyond anything the world has seen, but instead of doing what almost every civilization in history would do, they shared it.

They invited their conquered to join their prosperity. They shared their freedom with their slaves.

****

What do you mean they shared it? That’s not what I learned in school.

First, they gave it to non-English Europeans: the Irish, Scots, Germans, Norse, etc.  Other than French Quebec, they have been fully assimilated. We allowed them into our country and they adopted English values. They hold to English law, English individualism, English liberty, and identify as English (ie. American, a subset of English). In North America, specific types of European blood don’t matter very much. (As an aside: some interesting maps that may illustrate what I mean). They are all honorary English. Europeans of ethnicities have come to positions of power.

I don’t have a drop of English blood in me, but I am English to the core.

Englishmen gave it to women. They gave the benefits of English civilization to women through the family and mores of chivalry. Then they were extended the vote. Then they were giver more rights and privileges through feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc.

The blacks were fucked over by Englishmen who had them as slaves, yes. (Although, not as much as by other Africans who enslaved them in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there).

But, then Englishmen fought a war to free them. Who else, other than Englishmen and a couple of other English-influenced European countries have freed their own slaves en masse out of morality? Who else other than English civilization fought a bloody civil war to free another group from slavery due to compassion? Then, decades later Englishmen allowed their ex-slaves full legal access to politics and economics. They created affirmative action and the welfare state to redress past wrongs. Until today, where the Englishman’s ex-slaves are in a far better position than they would have been had they never been enslaved in the first place.

Others, such as Asians, Jews, Latinos, etc. all had a similar process where we allowed them to share in what Englishmen have built.

****

Now, these happened over long time-scales yes, and there were abuses by Englishmen, yes.

But how many civilizations, other than Englishmen (and some English influenced European countries) , have willingly and freely given power, wealth, and freedom to ex-slaves, conquered peoples, immigrants, etc.?

The American welfare state is a program for the mass transfer of wealth from Englishmen to everybody else, put into place by Englishmen. Other than Englishmen, who else has created an political-economic system where they willingly transfer vast amounts of wealth from themselves to others?

By the standards of power politics, Englishmen have been downright generous.

****

The more Englishmen shared, the more entitled others became.

Rather than being thankful we allowed others into the prosperity and freedom we built, they demonized us as oppressors.

They demanded more, so we gave them more. Rather than gratefulness, all we earned were more demands.

****

Now, you might think to yourself, didn’t others help create English civilization? What about black slaves? What about the Chinese railroad workers? What of Gurkhas? What about English women?

Yes, they did. Black slaves helped build the Southern economy. Chinese immigrants did help build the railroads. Gurkhas, Sikhs, and other such “warrior races” helped expand and defend English territory.

But so what?

These are all exceptions. The vast majority of the blood, sweat, and tears expended building this civilization was that of the Englishman. This no more invalidates what I have wrote, than the average white male not having an easy life invalidates the concept of white privilege.

As for Englishwomen, they helped preserve English culture and pass it on to the next generation. In the main, they did not build it. This is not to invalidate the importance of preservation and transmission, they are essential, but they are different.

****

So, next time some emasculated liberal, rabid feminist, or race-baiter starts going on about white privilege this, male privilege that, just put on a smug smile and tell him/her:

Damn right we have privilege and we Englishmen earned every last bit of it. Instead of whining about it, how about some gratitude? We created unimaginable wealth, unprecedented freedom, and a fair legal and political system for ourselves. We created all this, then we willingly allowed you to partake in it. Stop whining about a couple small advantages we still have for creating all this and enjoy what we gave you instead.

Do not let them make you feel white guilt. Do not let them make you feel shame.

You’re privileged. That’s awesome. Enjoy it.


The Bookshelf: The Spartan Entrepreneur’s Guide to Making $100 per Day Online

This is a review of The Spartan Entrepreneur’s Guide to Making $100 per Day Online by Victor Pride.

The guide is short (27 pages) and written in the same straightforward, matter-of-fact matter as the author’s blog. It communicates the plan it lays ou t simply and without wasted effort. Other than that, there’s not much to say on the writing style: it’s functional, but you aren’t reading it for entertainment, you’re reading it for the plan, so functional is good.

So onto the guide itself: it is exactly what it is advertised as, a step-by-step plan to making a livable (you won’t get rich off this plan) income through affiliate marketing without SEO manipulation. The entire plan is laid out in easy-to-follow steps that show you exactly what you need to do. The plan is realistic and simple to follow. Although, simply does not necessarily mean easy, this will take a couple hours of work each day.

I haven’t started the plan, but I’m pretty sure if you followed it and put the effort in,  you would make a decent income off this. Even if your first attempt doesn’t net as much as you want, it would be fairly simple to simply do the plan again for more income.

So, why haven’t I started the plan if I’m sure it would make money?

Simple, I’m uncomfortable with the plan. While I’m fairly sure the plan would work, I don’t really care for the method as is; it isn’t productive. It would make money, but following the plan you wouldn’t create anything of value to anybody. It’s above spam, but only by a bit.

As the guide itself says:

Remember: This is not a method to save the world, it’s a method to make you some money.

This just kind of rubs me wrong way: I don’t like feeling unproductive. If I go into business for myself, I want to be somewhat productive and create something of value. My largest complaint about my current employment is the lack of feeling productive, and simply switching to something else that leaves me feeling unproductive, would not be much of a gain.

On the other hand, after thinking about it, I figured out a way to do something moderately similar that will produce something of value. It will require more work on my part and will be slower to get off the ground, but I’ll feel like I’m adding value, so I don’t mind. So, as a start-off point with some thinking and rejigging, this problem can be overcome and the guide can be used as a base to work from.

Conclusion:

This guide does exactly what it says it does. If you want to make $100/day (or so) from affiliate marketing within a month or two, this will likely get you there. If this is all you want and you’re willing to put in some work, buy the guide.

I don’t like that the plan doesn’t create anything of value, so if you want to feel productive or suffer from the Protestant Work Ethic, the guide might not be for you. You may want to buy it anyway, as it can provide an intro to affiliate marketing without SEO or be used as a base for something more productive, but it may rub you the wrong way.

If you are not willing to put in the work necessary or are incapable of self-motivation, this guide will be a waste of money.