On Self Esteem

     Here in the US of A people have completely lost their minds. This all started back in the 50's or 60's when psychologists noticed that high achievers had high self esteem. This led to a hypothesis that if we could raise someone's self esteem, they in turn would become higher achievers.

     This hypothesis filtered over into the education community and the media and the relationship between self esteem and success was reduced to the level of absurdity. Little Johnny flunked his math test? He must have low self esteem. Jane is a whore? She must have low self esteem. Steve has started stealing? Well, it can only be one thing...low self esteem.

     Outcomes were completely divorced from the behaviors that caused them. People's failures weren't their own. Blame was placed on institutions, such as school, family or even society,  for failing to build up the person's self esteem. Consequently, we now have a nation of self entitled whiners, who expect everything to go their way without them having to do anything to earn success. They are then disappointed, angered even, they may even lash out when reality fails to confirm their inflated sense of self.

     There is a chance that you are part of the aforementioned generation. If you are, let this post be the antidote to the poisonous ideas society may have put in your mind.

     You are not special.

     Read that again and let it soak in.

     Even if you have some special ability or gift, nobody cares. And nothing will come of your gift unless you mix it with a lot of work. Even then nobody is likely to care.

     Don't expect to have people clamoring to congratulate you when you do find success. Your successes don't mean anything to anyone but you, your spouse and maybe your parents. Honestly, your kids probably won't even care. Your friends and extended family may actually be jealous of your success. Nobody else will care.

     That's the reality.

     Any unwashed hippies who hear this truth, will say, "Hey man, we're, like all in this together. We got to help each other out, man." I've known hippies like this, and let me tell you, the don't say these kinds of things out of the naive, altruistic goodness of their heart. No they say this because they are weak and lazy and they intend to be net beneficiaries of a "help each other out" society. They plan on receiving more help than they give.

     I hate hippies.

     In the event that you are one of the diligent few, unaffected by society's feel good drivel, let me also say: have low expectations. Many think because they aim high their outcomes will be correspondingly high.

     They won't be.

     A farmer may plant crops on 10 acres, but he doesn't expect to harvest all that he planted. He knows that drought, insects, fungi and floods will come. And when they do, they will decrease the yield. The farmer plants 10 acres hoping that he'll get 5-8 acres worth of crops.

     Likewise, know that the fruits of your labor will be less than you hope for. So never make plans based on best case scenarios. Instead, base your plans on the worst case scenario.

     For those of you taken in by the happy horse crap propaganda that they taught you in school, this might all come across as a slap in the face. Good. I'm trying to wake you up to the realities of the world. And slapping someone in the face usually wakes them up. If you go through life with a misunderstanding of reality, you'll be confused and frustrated when things don't go the way you anticipated. After years of this frustration you may have a mental break and find yourself on top of a building shooting at passersby, convinced that they are to blame for all of your woes.

     So when you think about it, this is a humanitarian piece. I'm helping to prevent mass shootings.

     In summation, you aren't special, very few people care about you, and your plans will be less successful than you hope. Deal with it. Who would have ever thought that this is the type of thing that would stop mass shootings?

Catch you guys next time.

Dose of Testosterone 7: Camaros

     Time for another round of pics that get your testosterone levels up. Today we take a look at my favorite muscle car of all time, the Chevy Camaro. Looking at these pics should motivate you to quite wasting time reading articles about the evils of feminism, get off your butt and try to get that brass ring.

Great car. Bad pic

Dose of Testosterone Part 6: Military Aircraft

     Most little boys go through a phase where they want to be in the military. I think this is partly due to males having a genetic drive to "defend the perimeter" as Jack Donovan puts it. But another part is that the military has really cool toys. Here are a few:

C-17

China's J-20 Stealth Fighter

Danger Zone.

Osprey

C-5 Galaxy

2 things you always need more of: cowbell and F-14's

Chinook

Apache

Sukhoi SU-37

Alrighty gents, that's it for today. See ya next time.

Petty Machiavellianism for the Modern World

     Psychologists are full of crap. Not completely full of crap, but largely full of crap. I think that the problem originates with the fact that most psychologists are leftists. And to be a leftist you must necessarily ignore the existence  of reality. This group then seeks to influence the lives of others. Also, leftism is a utopian ideology. That is, it is concerned not with what is, but what should be.

      These foundational problems lead the field of psychology to get behind some really stupid ideas. One stupid idea posited by the field is that passive aggressiveness is bad. They even have a diagnosis for people who frequently engage in passive aggressive behavior...as if it is a disease. The entry on Wikipedia states that passive aggressive behavior "is damaging". Really? It "is damaging"? As if that is a fundamental characteristic of passive aggressiveness. So if it is not damaging, is it not passive aggressive?

     Really, passive aggressiveness isn't good or bad. Its just a strategy, a way of handling things. I don't know where psychologists get the idea that things are always best handled in a direct manner. Frequently in life, dealing with things in an indirect manner is preferable to more direct means. In fact, when in doubt, use indirect methods. It is true when dealing with loved ones, for whom you have the best of intentions. It is even more true when dealing with your enemies.

     For the last 15 or so years, my wife has worked with a particularly horrible woman. When everyone else has to take on extra work, she is always able to get out of it. When the employees were given the more flexible shift options, this woman tried (and almost succeeded) in having the option taken away from everyone, because she didn't want to participate. She constantly makes life harder for others. For some reason, despite several changes in management, no one was willing to do anything about this problematic employee.

     But this woman has a weakness. She is obsessive compulsive and she hates change. Everything on her desk has a place and she can't stand to have people touch her stuff. Instead of waiting 15 years, hoping that management would some day do something about this woman, my wife & her coworkers could have taken matters into their own hands. Using passive aggressive methods they could have driven this woman into quitting.

     Since she is so particular about her work space, the other employees should have moved her stuff every time she left her desk. I'm not saying they should trash everything. That would have been too overt. But little things like moving a pen to the middle of her desk, slightly askew, would have bothered her. Or moving her horse figurine to the other side of the desk, moving her lunch to a different spot in the fridge, or turn her keyboard face down. These are childish things that wouldn't bother most adults, but they would have driven this woman crazy.  If she ever asked who was doing it, the whole office could then gaslight her by saying "No one went near your desk." After about a week of this type of behavior, this woman would have started looking for another job.

     Of course this does rise to the level of Cesare Borgia. But we live in crazy times and going around annexing neighboring cities isn't held in as high esteem as it once was. The fact is that this is the type of thing most people face in their daily lives. It may seem petty, but it is perfectly reasonable to handle a situation when management is unwilling. The methods above would have been effective in this instance and would have been deniable by the participants. That makes them doubly good. Another person in my wife's office who was willing to play petty office politics was able to screw my wife out of a major promotion and about a $20,000.00 per year pay raise. This person didn't gain anything by do so. Like the say, you either play or you get played. Who cares if someone thinks that being passive aggressive is bad. I'm sure Machiavelli would have approved.

Its All Your Fault!

      I have yet to achieve the life that I want. But there was a time when my life was much worse. I had job problems, family problems, marriage problems...basically, every area of my life was plagued with problems.

     Then one day, while driving home, I was replaying in my head various bad things that had happened to me. Replaying who screwed me, who wasn't there for me when I needed them. Then came a moment of clarity..."Its my own damn fault." Those were the exact words that went through my mind. In fact I was so deep in my own thoughts that I think I might have actually said them out loud.

     Yeah, I had a couple of bad bosses and more than a few bad jobs. But that was my fault. I knew they sucked. I knew they were going to screw me, but I stuck around instead of getting into a better job. People who claimed to care about me were nowhere to be found when I needed them. But had I been observant I would have seen that they never intended to be there for me.

     It was my fault. All of it.

     That was when my life started to get better.

     You can't change circumstances, you can only change yourself. Its deeply freeing to know that its all up to you. Sounds weird, but its true.

     Your success is up to you. Situations will change. Sometimes they will be more favorable, usually they will be less than favorable. But any situation that has stymied you, has been overcome by someone else. Which means that if you fail, it was your fault. But if you can identify the source of your failure, you can fix it, ensuring success in the future.

      Can't get a date? That's not the fault of feminism. That's your fault. Hit the gym & work on your social skills. Become a man that a woman would be proud to date. Your wife or kids mad at you? Maybe you should improve your communication skills. Drive a crappy car? Maybe you should put down the video game controller and start looking for a second job.

        If you want to rise above the horde, who mindlessly meander through life, you must constantly upbraid yourself.  Accept responsibility for everything. And constantly try to improve your shortcomings. The only thing you can control in this world is yourself.

Dose of Testosterone Part 5: Martial Arts

     

Impressive flexibility.

Remember kids, keep your hands up.

That was cool.

Aright gents, that's it for this post. Til next time.

Causes of Collapse

     The West is in decline.  There are probably many causes and they're probably somewhat complex. But I think you can point to some things and say, "That! That right there is part of the problem!"

     The legal system is one of those things.

     Once at a party a cop explained to me that if he gets called to a scene for a fist fight he arrests everybody involved. Even if 100 witnesses say that 1 person attacked another with no provocation, he doesn't care. "Arrest them both and let the D.A. and judge sort it out." were his exact words.

     I have a fear that this is pretty much the modus operandi for most police. How terrifying would that be? Imagine it; some drunk thinks that getting in a fight is the perfect end to an evening after striking out with the ladies. And despite doing everything in your power to avoid a fight, even after taking a few punches without retaliation, you may still end up standing before a judge simply for defending yourself.

     And seriously, where do people in government get off ?!?!? Of course the police have the authority to arrest an aggressor, but arresting someone defending their self is just another example of government overstepping its rightful boundaries. Honestly, I don't even think that the cops should interject in a situation if it simply involved a fistfight, unless someone involved wants to press charges.

     I think violence should be legalized. If two people want to beat the piss out of each other, fine. Go ahead. As long as they are consenting adults, then its nobody's business, not even the governments. I think that the prohibition on violence where all parties' consent is destroying this country.

     Prohibition on violence creates a moral hazard for douche bag behavior. People are incentivised to be mouthy wankers. And every man knows there comes a point where said wanker says too much, has crossed the line and needs his guts stomped out. At which point a challenge could be made and both men step outside to handle the issue like men.

     Women don't understand this. Many women are of the opinion that fighting is almost never justified. They constantly try to calm their men down and keep the from fighting. In fact I think that the prohibition on violence probably started with women. Women who thought that they should treat adults as though they were their children. But honestly if the prohibition on violence were lifted, fewer women would try to dissuade their men from violence.

     Certain weak men like to hide behind these laws. They know that they can say anything, and they will never be held accountable.

     Under my ideal legal system, you wouldn't even need the consent of the other person if they said certain things. For instance, if a man calls your wife a whore, he's consenting to have the crap kicked out of him. Maybe your wife is a whore, maybe she's not, but its none of his business.

     I'm not just for bringing back fist fights. I think we need to bring back the duel. Not only should adults have the beat the crap out of each other, they should also be allowed to kill each other so long as both parties consent.

This country would be much better off had someone killed Hamilton earlier.

     Under no circumstances should you be able to just go up and kill someone. But it would be nice if we had a system like what used to exist. If someone gives an offense so extreme that it would justify killing the bastard, a challenge could be made. If accepted, the participants would have to agree on terms. They would have to agree on time, date, location and weapons to be used. Because we're talking about killing someone, contracts would probably be neccissary so that grieving family members couldn't claim that this was an act of murder. These would need to be notarized and maybe filed with the city or county. The participants would also have to agree on an arbitrary third party to officiate & hold each party to the terms. Also each participant would need to bring witnesses.

     Some people will say that this is barbaric. I think just the opposite. I think civilization is only possible when people are held accountable for their actions.


    Til next time, gentlemen.

Pre Debate Analysis

     Next Thursday, January 14, 2016 Fox Business will host a debate of the GOP Presidential Candidates. As of this writing, Fox Business has yet to announce the candidates who will be on the main stage. It doesn't really matter. Most of the candidates never really had a chance anyway.

     Let me first start by saying that nothing in this article is an endorsemet of either party, any political affiliation, political belief, or any candidate. I don't have a political science degree, or anyother degree for that matter. Also this post is largely inspired by Scott Adams's (the guy who writes Dilbert) writings on this election cycle on his blog (http://blog.dilbert.com/).  He has mostly focused on Trump's superior pursuasion tactics. Robert Greene's now defunct blog (http://powerseductionandwar.com/), has also been very influential.

The Non-Contenders

     First I want to discus the field of non-contenders. Guys like Gilmore, Huckabee, Walker, Jindal, Graham. On the DNC side, Webb, Chafee & O'Malley. Every Presidential election, non-contenders throw their hat in the ring. And I don't mean obscure nobodies complaining about rent being too high. I mean political insiders who should be aware of their non-contender status. If you are like me you probably dismissed them as vain and detached from reality. But now I wonder if that is really why they run. Just humor me.

He had to know that he never had a chance.

     Currently we live in a 24/7 news cycle. The nesw media has over a year's worth of programming that needs to be filled. And the time that the stations will dedicate to the election is largely inelastic. No matter what happens, election coverage is #1. Floods in Texas, "How will this effect Rubio's stance on global warming?" Terrorist Shootings, "What is Hillary's plan for gun control?" In this environment, a candidates biggest enemy is time. More time means increased chances for something to go wrong.

     So could the entrance of these non-contenders into a race that they can't hope to win have an alternate strategy? I wonder if maybe the non-contenders are there to act as blockers for the real contenders until just before or after the early primaries. To spread the election coverage across as many candidates as possible. Under this theory, Jindal and Graham never were suppose to win the primary, they were there to abosrb bad press. Every minute the media spent talking about Graham, meant they weren't giving negative press to the Party's real contenders. Maybe the non-contenders were aware of the role they were to play, maybe not. From a strategic perspective, I'm not sure it matters. What matters is that every time the press makes fun of O'Malley for trying to rap, means they aren't hanging a stone around Hillary's neck by talking about Benghazi.

The Trump Problem

     The GOP insiders may or may not have problem with Trump. I suspect that they do. I think they see him as a threat to business as usual. But Trump is his own nuclear deterrent. He doesn't need the GOP. If they piss him off he can run third party, split the GOP vote and thereby hand the election to the Democrats. Internet writers tend to think that candidates are affraid of crossing Trump because he will crush their campaign. I don't think so. Some of the candidates at the bottom of the polls would most likely be willing to jump on that grenade for the good of the party if it would guarantee success for the establishment. But with the aforementioned nuclear deterrent, such actions would only make matters worse.

Say what you will, this man knows how to fight.

     David Horowitz has said "Politics is war with different weapons." The GOP doesn't get this. They are the stupid party. The first thing that I think the GOP candidates should do is stay in the race. Second they should steal Trump's stategies, henceforth referred to as weapons. Third the weapons should be employed in any and every way except against direct attacks on Trump. The goal is not to directly take down Trump which would result in him claiming that he wasn't treated fairly and use the treatment as justification for running third party. Instead the goal is to increase each candidates' appeal to the voters. They should try to out-do Trump at his own game. Those at the bottom should say things that are at least as outlandish as things Trump has said. Those outlandish comments would then get coverage that would have otherwise went to Trump. The goal is to drown Trump out.

Undecended Testicles

     As for the serious contenders (Rubio and Cruz) and could have beens (Bush and Paul), they have made a major miscalculation. I wonder if this is due to influence from political consultants. Or if they are really detached from the body politic and too blue blooded. Or because of a lack of real understanding of the American psyche. They are all too good, too perfect. Americans don't like this. Least of all conservatives in fly-over country. G.W. Bush, B. Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, R. Reagan and J. Carter all had an unpolished "man of the people" image. All had hick accents. And they didn't try to be too clean or too polished.

See that rounding in his upper back? It's because he doesn't have spine.

     Not only do these candidates try to be too perfect, they also lack what Trump has in spades...thumos...spiritedness. They could get by with their other failures if they had fire in their belly. Not raging like a madman. But a determined and focused intensity. With that they could inspire more confidence from voters. Paul and Bush are particularly bad about this. Paul needs to turn up the passion and spend less time making long drawn out arguments and more time working developing
short emotionally charged statements. He should attempt to stir up voters' emotions first and then give them arguments to rationalize their emotions. But stirring up emotions is the more important part of the equation.

I'm not sure there is any hope for Bush.

The President Who Could Have Been

     When I look at his politics, Rand Paul, could be winning this election easily. His stance on the issues should give him appeal to grass roots concervatives in the primaries and he could even have significant appeal to Democratic voters in November. But as the old song goes, "it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it." His political beliefs could appeal to a broad range of Americans...if he had framed them the right way. But he didn't and left the door open for his opponents to frame them for him. He framed military cuts as "real financial concervatism". The problem is that to the hard right, no number is too high for military spending. This argument should have been framed more like this:

      "Our men and women in uniform deserve better than the rampant misuse of funds that has been the norm in this monsterous buearacy known as the Department of Defence. The DOD hasn't passed one audit as mandated by law in the last 20 years. Every dollar that is misused or mispent is a dollar that can't be used to develop new technologies, upgrade old equipment, provide additional training or fund VA hospitals."

So close, yet so far, Senator.

     This way he frames himself in favor of the troops and against waste. This would make it hard for them to paint him as against the troops or soft on defense.

     He has also brought out his anti-interventionist leanings too early. Saying that he wouldn't have toppled the regimes that Hillary and Obama had. He needs to back off. Its too early for him to try to fight Hillary. He needs to defeat the other Republicans before he starts worrying about Hillary. And even if he did manange to damage Hillary's reputation who's going to remember it come November? He needs to focus on differetiating himself from the rest of the GOP. He can do that by being more consice in how he would handle ISIS compared to how other candidates have been. When other candidates blather on with vague notions of "desimating ISIS", "destroying ISIS" or "carpet bombing ISIS", Paul could be a little more precise. He could try to frame it like this:

        "I see the war with ISIS as an just a small isolated part of the broader War on Terror. The war on terror isn't a conventional war. It isn't like going to war with another Nation. We should not treat this like WWII, The Gulf War or the wars after 9/11. It is a long protracted, unconventional war against small groups spread all over the globe, that may not even have connections to one another. As such I am very concerned about candidtates who fall back on conventional tactics just so they can appear   to be strong on defense. This war, in my estimation, is best fought by using the men from our Special Operations and Intelligence Communities. We can't afford to get into long, protracted and expensive conventional wars. We should get in, get the job done, get out and start preparing for the next engagemet. No occupying territory. No nation building. No prolonged boots on the ground. Get in. Get the job done. Get out."

     I also think that Paul thinks that by setting himself up as a non-interventionist as opposed to Hillary's hawkishness he will gain votes from the anti-war left. Which I agree, he will. But by the same logic wouldn't he risk loosing some votes from hawkish Republicans who are soft on other issues. I'm not sure that this play of his will be a net gain, even if makes it past the primary.

Well that's it for this post. I may have an analysis of the debate if there is anything worth analyzing.

See ya next time.

Dose of Testosterone Part 4: Hot Rods

There are some things that men just love. Hot Rods and classic cars are two of those things. I've never met a man who didn't like them. This seems to baffle my wife. And she's not alone. Hot rods are just one of those things that lots of women just don't get. 

I don't know if it is the craftsmanship, the beauty or maybe nostalgia, but something about these beautiful machines from the days of yore, just resonates with me. 

Maybe its not a hot rod, but it does look nice.

This is awesome. Probably completely uncomfortable...but still...awesome.

I know I'm old, because I look at this beautiful machine and think, "I'm not climbing in anything that is that low to the ground."

 

If I had a daughter, I would totally buy this for her.

That's it for this installment. Catch you guys back here next time.

2 Places I Would Rather Spend Christmas

     I'm not a big fan of holidays in general. And I really dislike Christmas. Call me crazy, but I just don't like the frantic nature of it all. "What are you bringing?" "Are we getting together at your house or your sister's?" "What time?" "Are we playing dirty Santa?"

     It's all a big pain in the butt. And all I end up doing is catching up with family members that I really don't care much about and watching my brother's kids unwrap presents. I could literally think of hundreds of things that I would rather be doing.

     But it will not always be like this. One day I will have the financial resources to do what I want for the holidays.

     "What are we doing for Christmas?"

     "I don't know what you're doing, but I'm going on vacation."

     With that said here are some pics of 2 places where I would rather spend Christmas:

1. Miami

     There isn't any reason that I want to go to Miami, I've just never been. I'm sure that one trip will be enough for me. I don't really like people, and I really hate crowds. And Miami seems like it will be crowded even in the off season. Apparently peak season starts in December and runs through April. So maybe this isn't the best time for me to go. But its better than wasting time with my family.

2. Cancun

     Again, this is just another place I've never been. My wife went for her honeymoon to her first husband and is dying to go back. 

Snorkeling in an underground river sounds like fun to me, but I'm not sure if my wife will like it.

Shopping is something my wife can really get into. It is how we spend 90% of our vacations.

  

That's it for this post. Sadly I'll be spending this Christmas with family.