BART, Americans, and Attitudes, vs The East

This is what the best BART station looks like.

Yesterday I had my only trip on American public transportation in recent memory and it was even more disappointing than I expected. I love trains, I love cities built around trains, I love being able to go places without having to lug around a huge metal box, but now that I’ve bothered paying attention to it, Bay Area Rapid Transit does not run a metro. It’s not a heavy rail system. It’s not even a light rail system. It will never be a heavy or a light rail system. Comparing my experience riding BART to the one riding Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway and it became instantly obvious that BART is just a glorified parking lot shuttle that just happens to run on the rubberless kind of wheels.

But this isn’t only the BART’s fault. Even if by some hand of god all the people in the administration on down were removed and replaced with perfect candidates to fill every conceivable need, including the contracted union construction workers who are the mafia in all but name and the Department of Transportation guys who are all bought out, BART would still be garbage – because it doesn’t go anywhere by itself. If your destination is Oakland, Berkeley, or San Francisco, fine. If you’re going anywhere else, you take BART, you get off at your final station and then what?

Walk the rest of the way?

BART… and I’m back in a parking lot.

“But the population density is too low! We’re not crowded like Hong Kong!” is the common response and until now I grudingly accepted it as the truth, the reason why everything is shitty. If only we had more people in the San Francisco Bay Area, if only more people wanted to come to Silicon Valley, home to the most valuable companies in the world, everything would be fixed!

Then I realized that it’s exactly backwards. Low density isn’t the reason for lack of results, low density is itself the intended result – among a bunch of other intended results. Sure, the people want a fast high quality public transportation system. They probably want it to be free too. But god have mercy if it comes at the cost of their backyard, or if it causes buildings with more than 3 stories to pop up anywhere before the horizon. If someone really wants something they know they can’t have everything and can usually come to some sort of compromise. But the public, uneducated on little and sold on everything, compromises for nothing. So, as a result, we pay a few billion dollars every few years to keep it afloat, and otherwise keep it out of sight out of mind, ignoring that the system was outdated when it was introduced almost half a century ago, and with all the money poured into it has essentially never updated since.

Everyone who’s gotten to highschool has this figured out, even if they only believe it’s true of people they disagree with. This is all fairly common knowledge:

The people will accept politicians being stupid and wasting billions of dollars on pork barrel projects, so long as the people get to sit comfortably in their sofas at home calling politicians stupid for wasting billions of dollars on pork barrel projects.

Now what’s not common knowledge is that it’s wrong – specifically, it’s not “the people”. It’s not a function of homo sapiens, it’s somewhat a function of masses and democracy, but there’s something more accurate we can say, that no one will ever say:

The American people will accept politicians being stupid and wasting billions of dollars on pork barrel projects, so long as the American people get to sit comfortably in their sofas at home calling politicians stupid for wasting billions of dollars on pork barrel projects.

BART sucks because Americans suck.

I don’t mean this in the ‘you allow people in power to screw you!!!’ sense; democracy is a sham, and it’s unreasonable to say that unorganized masses are “allowing” organized interests to do whatever they want. I mean this in the sense that the American pasttime of schadenfreude against their political leaders is an attitude they take everywhere. There are the big problems which, fairly, only a very select few with power can do anything about this moment. Then there’s ten thousand little ones which everyone can do something about. Things which add up and eventually make the world a better place.

Things which Americans won’t do, and will defend to the death not only are they right in not doing it, but that you’re wrong and weak in wanting it done to begin with. It’s not important if you’re actually wrong or weak. It’s not important if they’re wrong either.

What’s important is they get to call you the names, and being comfortable while doing it.

This is what one of my rides on BART looked like. I don’t have pictures of the other ride, but there were a bunch of really dirty people “teens” in really dirty clothes each taking up a whole bench, and empty boxes and bottles here and there.

I suddenly don’t like software engineers.

Two doors per side per car, seats are arranged front/back except for doors, which have one side-bench per. Not shown in picture is the map of the system, which is either once per side or once per car.

This is what an older MTR car looks like.

Some of them have TVs mounted on top of the central bars too. 2 per car.

4 doors per side, all seats are arranged as sides, no padding, bunch of things to hold onto.

All these differences aren’t so important. Lower density system, you can afford put in wider comfier seats. Comfy is good. Makes sense. What is important is that BART had a paper printout of the system occurring 1 or 2 times per car, while MTR had 8 of these:

Does Silicon Valley not have that because of lower population density too? We can’t scrounge up enough money because lower ridership, and who cares it’s just an unnecessarily fancy display that only has one purpose anyways?

How about the audio announcement then? I could never make out what the operator was saying on BART, partly because half the time riding BART is louder than flying turboprop, but also because the PA system was trash and the operator didn’t enunciate. MTR I could hear everything just fine, even if I had to wait for the English version of it. It was also all prerecorded. I guess the population density isn’t high enough to justify prerecording. It isn’t high enough to justify the operator saying the name of the station before the train arrives either. Or sometimes, saying the name of the station at all!

Man low population density causes a lot of problems.

This was at the Kam Sheung Road MTR station, effectively about as backwater as you can get in Hong Kong. It is on the inside door of the restroom. The restroom at the time had the janitor chilling in his utility closet; in Hong Kong public areas in general you can often see janitors and other custodials doing their work.

Oh, thanks for reminding me.

I’d show you a picture of what the inside door of a restroom in a BART station looks like, but there are no restrooms in BART. Apparently though the janitors which I’ve never seen and which think trash littered cars are fine are paid 270k a year (USD not HKD). Because they deserve a living wage. Or something. Overworked understaffed? Maybe throw a little bit of higher cost of living in there too.

Now, on the BART website, they claim certain stations actually do have bathrooms. Supposing they bathrooms do physically exist in the stations as they say, they don’t fit the definition of public. What kind of restroom is it if a member of the public who wants to use it can’t find it?

Someone who alighted at my station on a train before mine asked where the exit was. I can’t blame him, because this is what an aboveground BART deck looks like:

The far side actually does have its exit in-frame.

This is what the Tin Shui Wai deck looks like. I specify because they’re all obviously visibly different in some way. If you memorize the colors on the walls or pillars, you can tell where you are in the line. BART is the same concrete wherever you go.

There is no exit in this picture.

Both of the above depicted stations have their exits below their current floor. One of them is significantly easier to find than the other. Are exits easier to find if it’s higher population density? An inch of glass is more expensive than another foot (thick!) of concrete?  I’ll admit the sign isn’t particularly helpful but that’s one error out of a hundred corrections. Why are there two decks instead of one, anyways? If someone mistakenly missed their stop and got off at the next one, one of these stations would fuck them if the return train arrived at the same time, and the other wouldn’t.

Obviously, the American one is the better one.

Am I just salty? Y I Mad Doe? No, it’s impossible that I might be right on top of that. Everyone claims debates and discussions are about truth but most people jump to pointing and laughing at the other guy the first chance they get and declare victory after that. Sorry – most Americans. Call someone salty or anti-American or any number of names and it doesn’t matter what they say anymore. Am I anti-kid if I don’t give a fat kid candy? These are the same kind of people who will recoil and put their hands up if you start calling them imbeciles, but we’ll get into that topic another time.

American attitudes toward everything is can be summarized in

  1. Fuck you got mine” and
  2. I’m/We’re the best“.

Must be because I’m not AMERICAn enough.

Who cares about the rest of the world when you have AMERICA?

To begin with the state of public transportation is mostly an afterthought because when it’s brought up it’s simply written off. Who cares about public transportation? I have a car. I can get where I want to when I want to. What, too poor to have a car? None of my business. Don’t ask me to pay taxes to fund someone else’s life. Then they’ll turn around and complain about how traffic is so bad lately and they have to get up earlier and earlier so the freeway moves at the actual speed limit rather than at 10mph.

It simply doesn’t occur to them that everyone else thinks the same thing and cars have geometries and physics which cause certain effects. It isn’t some economist rational actors model where everyone’s carefully and quantitatively measured out how much they value each thing and voila, now we have a shitty public transportation system as well as a shitty private transportation, but all of this is okay because we value detached single family homes so much. None of that goes through their head. It’s literally just “I don’t care, I don’t see a problem, why are you yelling at me? I was promised owning my own home in the American Dream! If you say I shouldn’t have one then fuck you!”

Why do aboveground BART stations have two decks instead of one?
Because if you miss your stop then it’s your fault you’re an idiot.

Why aren’t there bathrooms in BART stations, or if they exist, why can’t they be found?
Because you didn’t look hard enough, or if they don’t exist, why didn’t you just take care of business before leaving the house?

Why doesn’t BART have a clear announcement system or a display that shows where in the system you are at all times?
Because you should know which stop you’re stopping at anyways.

Why does BART allow trash on its trains?

Are you saying you saw trash and didn’t clean it up? Why aren’t you doing your part? If you did, why are you complaining? The problem got solved, didn’t it?

If you’ve heard the line “You didn’t get the job because you just weren’t passionate enough”, this is the same thing. Every systemic problem that’s brought up turns out to be the result of a lack of individual responsibility, effort, and faith – until they also happen to have a problem with it, then it’s always a call for somebody to do something, as long as it doesn’t turn out that “somebody” includes them. Not my tax money. Not my car. Not my backyard.

Or in case of BART employees, Not my job.

Hong Kong Central Library, not MTR.
I don’t want to talk about the state of American libraries.

Whose job was it to put this label up? Did it need to be put up?

Do you think he was paid more or less than 270k a year (USD not HKD)?

Considering it’s some text on laminated paper secured by tape, it was probably decided and put up by someone lower down the chain than whoever put up this other one:

This is on a pedestrian path on the side of a mountain.

These little things put life into what’s otherwise an environment that just happens to have other people in it and is just somewhere you have to be in order to get to the next place. It’s not just some path, it’s a paved path with clean railings and cleaned plates that have a contact number on them indicating someone is involved in maintaining it and they care about their work. It’s not just an elevator to the library, it’s one whose surfaces are cleaned every hour and someone decided it was important to let people know it’s clean – clearly not someone at the top but someone much further down.

Meanwhile, BART operators could care less if you heard them or if you know where you are. BART police could care less if you’re getting robbed by 50 “teens”. Or murder, which I won’t bother linking because it happens so often none of them are worth noting anymore. Everywhere you go in America you feel that people are basically just showing up for the paycheck. Nothing is improved, nothing gets better over time, and if really terrible things happen as a result of ten thousand little things not having been done and not building up to anything larger, hey, I was just collecting my check. That wasn’t in the job description. Hell if I’m going to let you add things to it. Better pay me more next year though. I have a union.

And this attitude goes all the way up.

A high-speed railway connecting Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong, railway was brought up in the late 1990s by the Government of Hong Kong. This Regional Express Railway (RER) proposal was developed in the 1994 “Railway Development Study”(RDS); it foresaw a continual growth of Hong Kong’s population over the next two decades and strong demand for cross-border passenger traffic. The Hong Kong (SAR) Government commissioned a second Railway Development Study in March 1998. The Study went further on the British proposal of connecting Hong Kong and China from Kowloon. […] Since the typical timeframe for rail projects, from conception to completion phase, would take eight or nine years, the Railway Development Study recommended that the Hong Kong (SAR) Government should commence as soon as possible, so that the new express railway could be constructed in time to meet capacity demands.

This sort of talk of foresight seems fairly common among public planners.

Wow, 2040! They’re planning 20 years ahead!

But you look at the past 20 years and for BART it’s taken 15 years to still not completely build a single new station 5 miles away from the current terminal. They’ve been using the same train cars since the system was built in the 1970s, and the technology was outdated even back then, and they have the gall to talk about 20 years in the future.

America has the best people in the world though right? Immigration land of opportunity diversity is strength blah blah blah wow, train stations must be the hardest thing ever to build if it takes them 15 years. Maybe we should get Elon Musk to build them.

Meanwhile in China:

“But Chinese stuff always breaks and they always break regulations” Should I compare how often MTR or Shanghai trains are delayed or broken down, to how often BART trains are delayed or have murders? I’ll be the first to preach mainlanders are terrible but there’s things that are objectively better and things which are objectively worse.

“But China is communist and uses eminent domain” what’s wrong with eminent domain?

Let me repeat that: What’s wrong with eminent domain?

In broader terms and different words:

Why do cities exist, and what would an ideal city look like?

Rich peopleville.

This is the BART station in Walnut Creek. Out of all the stations, this is probably the one where most Americans would ideally want to live next to. San Francisco has rent out the nose for a tiny box, Berkeley same idea, Oakland has “teens”… This, on the other hand, is perfect. Single family homes, short distance to highway, to public transit, to shopping malls, to DMV, and if there’s parties or events in the bigger cities, there’s no need to haul a car there to find or pay ridiculous prices for parking. All you’d need to do is

I think I figured out where the creator of this tagline lives.

The problem is Walnut Creek can only be true for a very small number of people. Works fine for people who already lives there, Fuck you, got mine, doesn’t work for everyone else. And unless some Lee Kuan Yew appears, the land divisions set in that image will always remain. There will never be any development into higher density housing on the left side of the freeway because people will always hold onto their house, and if they let go they aren’t going to let go at the same time. And the city planners will never go against The Will Of The People because democracy.

But, also because of democracy, they do want to create more business and more jobs so they can make more money, which means more people will have to come from elsewhere to do the work or at least be customers and pay the bills, and they will come via… cars.  There’s only so much BART parking space, which at most stations is always full, and it’s not like it’s that close anyways once you get there. A train that’s louder than a plane, doesn’t run on time, only comes every once in a while, has trash lying around like it belongs there, and when I get there I have to see this?

Closest buildings on one side of Walnut Creek station.

I have to walk through parking lots where I as a pedestrian am clearly an afterthought? You want me to use this train, which means leaving my car, but at the destination I have to wait 10~30 minutes for a bus, there’s no taxis, no light rail no pedestrian paths with any nice scenery, all of which put me right next to with no barriers inbetween, one or two ton cars going by at 30+mph? I have to deal with this as I walk 10~30 minutes just to see how many shops? And I have to carry everything with me the whole time because coin and baggage lockers don’t exist, because it’s just expected everyone has a car?

Closest buildings on the other side.

Might as well just take my own car the whole way then.

So then we have clogged freeways. And the attitude towards this is “oh well”.

So are you going to tell city councilors off? Or is it not a journalist’s job description to do that?

The American people will accept losing extra hours of their life 250/365 days a year waiting in line to go to work, so long as they get to sit comfortably in their own little metal boxes with speaker systems tuned to their favorite radio stations playing their favorite music, and read some journalist on some website say “Ouch” about their daily experience.

The average person can’t do anything about traffic or how cities are set up. They want their own things, live their own life, and that’s about it. Having a place to live, being able to get to work, being able to shop at nice places, and being able to visit a lot of friends, without a lot of time – these are all things I think everyone wants.

In other words, these things are why cities exist.

This is the equivalent of Walnut Creek station in Hong Kong:

Station is underground. Park on roof. Lots of residential + 1 commercial building on top.

A mall of 3 floors and 123 shops awaits you the moment you step out of the paid area.

A whole grocery store without having to step outside.

I should’ve taken more pictures.

The park on top.

Ignoring the cost: How many people live in those buildings? How many people can get basically whatever they want, see the sights, go to work, without ever having to leave this complex?

One article estimates that there’s 70,000 residents, hotel guests, and office workers occupying this space: about 0.14 square kilometers.

The population of Walnut Creek in 2014 was 67,673 and its square kilometers is 51.

Imagine how much parking/road space 70,000 cars takes.

Kowloon Station/Elements/Union Square is a really nice place and I’m sure a lot of people around HK come here for various reasons. And they get there by… train. Buses are frequent, pedestrians get elevated and undeground walkways to not have to walk on sidewalks all the time, where there are sidewalks there’s rails so it feels safer, light rail connects to heavy rail, heavy rail comes so frequently they don’t print schedules, and, even though there are backwater places in Hong Kong, new developments aren’t spread out single property divisions anymore. The MTR corporation with the assistance of the Hong Kong government gets land and develops it as a single vision, Kowloon Station being the current newest and largest one completed.What we currently see wasn’t even developed all at once; the station was done 94~98, the current mall opened in 07, and the buildings on top opened in years from 00~10. But it was all done under one architect, one corporation, one government.

This isn’t the only way to do things, the Japanese do it much more organically, but in both cases there is no “NIMBYism”. The Japanese accept it when someone decides the land is worth enough to start building higher than all the surrounding buildings. The Hong Kong government opens up or claims lands and decides that certain things need to happen, and is generally effective at it. I’m sure HK and Japanese residents more informed on the details will have their valid complaints, but overall, the major desires are met for a very large number of people.

Compared to what BART did over about the same period (1997~2011):

The invisible station in the center under the highways, a parking lot north and south. Maybe a few of the apartment blocks starting with the inverted triangle? I don’t know where exactly BART-owned land begins or ends here but it doesn’t really matter. No matter how you cut it this 15 years had, to say the least, a lot less accomplished.

It’s not so much that there’s not a Kowloon Walled City v2: 2 American Boogaloo popping up near/in Silicon Valley (though it should).

It’s that there’s nothing.

You built a dinky station… and like a building or three?

Are you serious?

What have these fuckers done with 15 years of their life? Remember when you were still in diapers and daddy showed you a highway and a field and said there’d be a train station? Well now that you’ve finished highschool and college degrees are worthless, daddy can get you a job at that station! Nevermind that its floorspace is about 3 minutes long. It was really hard! Kids these days don’t understand hard work.

While doing a bit more research on dates I found this image on wikipedia. It’s the newest station, which started construction in 2009, currently in 2017 is half operational, and was supposed to open in 2014. This is what it looked like in 2014

The rails shown aren’t BART rails, they’re national freight rails.
In other words, they’re unrelated.

It took five (5) (V) (五) years to build the amount shown in the above image.

Okay whatever no use shedding tears over lost idioms. Now that it’s built, next to old NUMMI new Tesla factory. Great! Finally BART serves a purpose other than being a glorified parking lot shuttle for San Francisco. People all over SF Bay Silicon Valley can now work for Tesla and not have to drive! Saving the planet is awesome! Insert more boomer marketing taglines here. Maybe we have to drive to a BART station first, but BART… and we’re there! Just hop off the train and walk the rest of the way to work!

See that T-shape above “Tesla Delivery Center”? That’s the factory entrance.

All 2 miles of it. Pop quiz, what’s the average human walking speed?

Given that number, would you spend that amount of time walking to work? After spending the probably 10 minutes or so to drive to the station, assuming you can find parking and get on the train just as it arrives (trains are every 15 minutes during rush hour) the probably 30 minutes on the BART ride itself, after all that – would you walk the amount of time you calculated on a path that looks like this?

This is a 45mph road. It’s also half the walk. No, the other side has no sidewalk either.

“But Tesla looks good on a resume”

Yes… Tesla’s the best. If you’re really passionate about helping mother Earth, you’d do it. America’s the best, if you really treasure your freedom, you’ll put up with 60 minutes every day each way to go 20 miles, a distance which might as well be in the middle of nowhere because it’s all single family detached residential around here. Stop complaining already. Everyone else has to deal with it too. If you don’t like it why don’t you leave? I just suck it up like a real man. I’m proud of my country. I don’t like it either,

but look at me,

I don’t complain.

This attitude is why I hate Americans. “My country, right or wrong” – except worse, because it’s not about foreign vs domestic, it’s about “Fuck you, got mine“. There’s no reasoning going on, there’s no considering of alternatives, there’s no constant seeking for improvement, it’s “eh, who cares, fuck you, got mine”. American gamers say those who are better than them “have no life”, and say those who are worse than them “casuals”. Americans who are more successful than them are “lucky or “talented”, but when they taste success themselves it’s because they have “passion” and achieved it through “hard work”. It’s so prevalent everywhere it’s would almost be funny, except they get really serious when the shit hits the fan and still refuse to believe that any of this is related.

People want housing to be close to jobs and shopping. Higher population density means more people are closer to the same amount of things. Metro systems, which have guaranteed right-of-way on their rails, connect speedily and reliably even more people to the same amount of things. This speed simultaneously connects those people to more areas than before, meaning there’s more areas competing with each other, driving the price down of, among other things, rent. All of these things are objectively desirable. All of these things are required in an ideal city.

But the people don’t care. And the city planners don’t care. The public transportation workers don’t care. The public transportation leaders don’t care. No one cares, until it looks like it might be time for them to get their cut. Then it’s not in my backyard, not my job, sorry the project was more complicated than expected, it’ll cost twice as much and take three times as long, man that janitor worked really hard this year, he deserves a raise. And then it’s back to not caring. Maybe once every five years we’ll do a week’s worth of work. Maybe once every four years they’ll pay attention. And we’re the world police superpower anyways, it’s always going to be better to live here. If those slanty eyed chinks start getting uppity we’ll just nuke them. Time for a nap.

“That’s just how America works, you have to learn how to play politics”

Americans are so far up their own ass in marketing they can’t see what’s real anymore.

I say “they” because I don’t identify with any of what I described. I say “Americans” because that’s the largest and most accurate group for which I can see these traits. They appear in idiots everywhere, but in America they appear in general from bottom to top.

I also know, from bottom to top, it’s not true in Hong Kong, and from what I’ve heard it’s also not true in Japan. It’s not a “people” thing, it’s not genetic or inherent in human nature. It can be changed, it can be fixed. Hong Kong has problems with their attitude toward society, and so does Japan, but there are always imperfections, and the attitude towards that is “we will fix them“. Whatever the actual distribution, the rule of culture is to do your part. Society there naturally pushes people to contribute more and more.

Thanks to the isolation of suburbia, I’m not fully AMERICAn.

What does society in America tell its people? How do Americans treat each other? Not just the hello how are you nice weather today, but the actual systemic results?

BART… and I’m…

What does America think about anything that happens outside of America?

What do Americans think of anyone who has ideas about how the world could be?

Because fuck you, that’s why.

On Free Marketers’ Free Marketing of Free Markets

“The Free Market creates higher quality products at lower prices” is a tagline masquerading as an explanation, a simplification of a relationship of opposing parties down to one constant result. Any time something odd happens, libertarians et. all will say “it wasn’t a true free market”, “capitalism != corporatism”, or any number of words they define at that moment purely for rallying purposes.

These are the three parties that marketists marketers will talk about:

  1. The seller,
  2. The buyer, and
  3. The other sellers.

Supposing, for the duration of this post, that other parties and factors from government to culture and infrastruture to topography are as irrelevant as they say, they are still wrong about the balance of these three, and will basically be wrong about the balance everywhere even if the model was a neighborhood garage sale, a simulation run by a class of college students, or the same simulation run by children. Communists don’t understand human nature, and Marketers don’t understand it either. Libertarians are often pointed out as having a very high population of autists, which makes sense if we look into how they see the world: “I want it, therefore I will be given it”.

Let’s start with the seller.

People driven by profit are inclined to take as much money as they can while putting in minimum effort. Wherever it can, it will attempt to maximize in these two directions: it will sell down to whatever people are willing to accept, up to whatever price they are willing to pay. The best situation is for people to give them any amount of money they want for nothing. People have heard famously about 100$ Nike shoes costing 1$ to make, but their measly 11.25% profit margin isn’t the holy grail. “Rent-seeking” isn’t it either, they barely do much better at 12%, and were only at 2% before the start of the second great depression. No, the holy grail is much higher than that. The holy grail is 100%.

They are not your friends. Their best interests are not and will never be your best interests. They’ll try to be your friends. Just like how the street hustler with the cards will tell you you’re such a pretty girl, aw thanks you’re so nice. But if they can rig the cards while making you believe you can follow them, they will. And if they can make you feel at home while getting some of their actual friends to pick your pocket, they’ll do that too. Which they of course do, in whatever form it takes for their industry.

“People aren’t that mean!”

You’re paying for a product which is 97% profit.

Unless my blog is so great someone printed it out, you used it to read this post.

No need to disagree about how “the people would never stand for that”. They do. They have been for 20 years. It’s probably true in a number of other places too. So let’s talk instead about how it works and see if we can’t find out something that might predict where profit can be made, rather than waiting for libertarians marketers to complain afterwards about how something or other wasn’t a real free market.

The reason why they believe things shouldn’t happen this way is because of the buyer. Sellers can sell for whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean anything without the buyer, and the buyer will always want higher quality at a lower price.

…”And therefore the higher quality will appear at a lower price” would be golden, maybe someday a libertarian will actually say it and then I’ll have another permanent pet toy, but that’s basically what they believe and espouse without irony or further explanation. Tell this to a child and they’d know that something’s up. How is it possible that, when two people with opposing goals negotiate, one just always wins, and wins everything they want at the cost of the other guy? No middle ground? No give-and-take? Just a “And I would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids”?

It should be obvious that if the buyer wants something that the seller doesn’t it won’t happen either, and marketers will recognize this logic when presented with their favorite S&D graph, but completely forget it otherwise. Outside it they use quotes like

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.

which is surprising, or unsurprising, because they don’t realize the meaning of it being a well-publicized quote about consumers, from someone who didn’t make a name for themselves on consumer advocacy, but the exact opposite. The customer can fire everyone? Really? Can someone name the last time something like that happened? Everyone hates Comcast and EA, when’s the last time something substantial happened at those companies in any direction the customer wanted? Anyone?

The biggest problem in the model is that there isn’t one customer.

Every individual transaction may be one seller and one buyer but the vast majority of transactions only exist because there’s one seller and many buyers. Only a very few businesses can be made off of only one buyer, like being an artist in the Renaissance, or being Boeing, Bechtel, Raytheon, or Tesla today. Everyone else needs a bunch of customers. It’s basically true to say “the seller”, it’s basically untrue to say “the customer”.

And these customers don’t know each other – meaning if one guy is screwed the others won’t know, and if they do, they won’t care. Even if they do know, does it mean anything beyond an Angry reaction on Facebook? Does it affect the seller in any significant way?

A big thing happened a little while back; United Airlines beat up a customer to unreasonably get him off a flight, all recorded and known around the world minutes after it happened thanks to the wonder and ubiquity of smartphones. Reddit’s subforum for cat videos had nothing but pages and pages of stuff on UA, and apparently UA’s stock dropped by more than $1 Billion USD. Stock market being, we’re told, a reflection of consumer opinion.

Here’s a graph of UA stock. Can you tell me when the incident happened?

Are you looking for the biggest drop? It’s not so obvious is it. It’s somewhere in these last three months. Here’s the graph for the last year, which won’t help either.

The other problem is buyers generally don’t know anything about the product. It’s easy to say people want a higher quality product at a lower price, which is how you know it’s just a marketing line. Chasing the words will only lead you into the predetermined holes. In abortion you’re “pro-choice” or “pro-life”, but how can you say you’re against choice or against life?

Let’s ask an answerable question: How does a buyer know something is higher quality?

When you think of an average person looking up products to buy to fulfill a particular need, and they’re not simply buying the same thing they’ve bought before, they’re not just doing whatever their friends said, and they’re out looking for whatever is the best actual thing for the job, what do you think of?

That’s right. Reviews. Or if it’s Amazon/Yelp, not even the reviews, just the rating distribution. It better be mostly 5/5’s and have 100+ reviews or forget about it. The other routes would be it’d be whatever the bigger review magazines said, or if in a physical store whatever the Sales Associate™ said, or some brand with trustworthy-looking graphic design.

People don’t know what they’re buying and are buying only because they’re told to.

“Well what else could it be?”

Reading specsheets. i.e. Looking at the actual thing money is being paid for.

The reviews part is important too but we’ll get back to that in a bit.

When switching to a new case a while back I bought fans for my computer, a few Fractal Design Venturi HF-14s. Aside from positive reviews, I bought it because I knew a bit about what the product would actually do based off of what it said. Rubber corners means fan vibration doesnt lead to noise. Multi-size means I can use a larger fan i.e. push more air through my smaller components. It’s not a sleeve bearing so it’ll last longer. There’s a number for how many dB’s of noise it’ll make. There’s a lot of other stuff too which I don’t know how to read, but of what I do know, and I know some, it looked pretty good. Here’s their page on the product (backup link).

I also got a new fan recently because it’s summer and it’s hot, a Honeywell 7″ Power Air Circulator, but only because my mom had one too and I fiddled with it beforehand: quiet, small, high airflow, and the rotation is stiff rather than flimsy. But if I hadn’t had this experience, I wouldn’t have gotten it, because there’s nothing about it I can find beforehand that makes any sense. There’s no specsheets on it from Honeywell. On a Venturi box most of the specs are listed on the back. On the Honeywell box are:

  • 7″
  • 3 Powerful Speeds
  • Turbo FORCE Power
  • 25% Quieter
  • SAVE up to 20% on Energy Bills

and that’s it for specs. The back is in Spanish.

7″ and 3 speeds are the only specs on the box, everything else, including the stuff I did bother to list, is nonsense. I can tell you how much noise a Venturi makes, says right on the box, 26.5dB. I wouldn’t know if it makes 25 or 27, but I know what 20, 30, and 40dB are so it gives me a rough idea. “25% quieter” doesn’t tell me anything. Quieter than what?

25% quieter claim is based on internal sound test (#08-017) comparing model HT-900 to another similar sized air circulator, HT-800.

What’s the problem with listing the number on the box?

What’s that supposed to mean anyways? I need to buy your HT-800 first? Wouldn’t be the worst thing ever if I could access this “internal sound test #08-017”, but that’s also not public information. And what’s with the rest of it? “Turbo FORCE Power“? Graphic design from the 90’s doesn’t keep the hot air away. Do I need to go to the dollar store to pull examples of big bang words in fancy fonts and colors paired with products that aren’t worth the time spent in the drive over? Again, the fan isn’t actually so bad, but how would I know? Or, in obverse, I don’t know if there’s actually significantly better fans out I could’ve gotten instead of this one, because all of the stuff any of them list in their advertising is complete hot garbage.

Sure, Fractal Design could be lying to me, maybe the fan actually produces a louder 40dB instead, but Honeywell could’ve given me a trash fan and I wouldn’t be able to say anything about it because Turbo FORCE Power doesn’t mean jack squat. With the Venturi I know there’s certain other fans out there that are better at this or that, but for the size I had, and a price range I was willing to pay, it was the best in terms of airflow and noise level. I don’t know anything about the Honeywell except that I turn it on when it’s hot.

The same holds true for most people about anything they’re buying. They want something to fulfill a need, they look up what people have been saying about various products that claim to fulfill that need, they get one, and that’s it. It could be better, it could be worse. They don’t know. They don’t have a clue. And they don’t care; if they’re told it’s 5/5 stars and it doesn’t have any obvious problems for 6mo~1yr (depending on the person), it’s perfect by them. It just so happens there’s quite a lot of perfect products on Amazon and restaurants on Yelp waiting for everyone. God Bless America.

I’m not saying this way of doing things is wrong. If you can’t tell the difference in quality and you think it’s fine then for you it probably is. Let the people who care about what you see as minutiae deal with whatever they think the problem is. People only have so much time in a day anyways, no one person can be expected to be educated and perfectly informed on everything. Just recognize that you basically don’t know what you’re doing for most of the things you’re buying, you most likely aren’t getting the best, and are making decisions based off of pretty pictures and silver words.

For libertarians though:

This is supposed to be the grand ultimate force which is supposed to oppose money.

Certainly in some fields “the” customer holds more power than not, but it’s never, ever due to any populist reasoning. It’s more that a few powerful buyers with very strong opinions and very specific goals saying to the seller “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse”, and less of everyone else absentmindedly reciting “The meek shall inherit the earth”. Buyers who only buy a product once or otherwise only think about it and then go on with their lives have no power in any field. Buyers who are recognized as informed and thus guide others opinions on the matter – those have power. They make the changes, everyone else is just the tool. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; you don’t fire everybody in the company the chairman on down, popular reviewers do. Maybe. I haven’t seen it ever happen. But if it happens, it’ll be because of them, not because of any stupid Hollywood-tier Power To The People crap.

The more a seller relies on buyers with opinions, the more the balance shifts towards the buyers. The less a seller can be influenced by other people in power, the more the power shifts toward the seller. For higher quality lower cost product to exist, there must be powerful buyers whose desire is higher quality lower cost products. This is the full logic chain, not “if: competition, then: better cheaper stuff”.

There’s also plenty of powerful buyers whose desire is something other than higher quality lower cost products, a topic which I won’t get into in this post. Suffice to say, shilling is a thing. A really big thing.

Read a handful of Amazon Vine reviews, and tell me how many of them you think were written by a real person. Expand to big reviewers in general. Remember, they get free products from the company and make their living off of them. See also “Sponsored Content” and “Native Advertising”. Or just look at Starbucks.

The final party is the other sellers. There’s generally not a lot of other sellers. Certainly if there’s more of them, then it’s more likely that there’s going to be variances.

But even then it’s not like it’s all competition all the time. Even amateur markets like Artist’s Alley at anime and comic conventions have organizations. However many of them there are, there’s always lot more of you. Why is it that basically every stall you go to and every poster or charm you see, they’re all selling at about the same price? It’s not like some kind of reverse auction where they’re all scouting around the place all the time, starting at various different prices and all cut down over the course of a convention so they could cut into the profits of whoever was selling cheaper.

Because you’re faceless, and they’re not.

Even before the internet and “price-matching”, look on any older box, you’ll find that the price was already on the product. “MSRP”: Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price. And basically, unless it was Christmas Shopping Season or some other special event, that was the price for that thing, everywhere. That number can’t come to exist if we accept the libertarian individualist state of nature explanation of the world, where the manufacturer simple ships the product to a distributor, who cares who actually sells it in the end, let them figure out the price themselves I already got my cut.

No, obviously there’s a supply chain, distributors and retailers which have stayed in business, have connections, and use general agreed-upon practices and markups. They talk to each other and come to agreements. They don’t just roll over and say the customer wants higher quality at lower prices, whats my competitor got, time to offer higher quality at lower prices. Unlike you, they have to deal with the other guy tomorrow, probably the day after too, and potentially ten years from now. And the other guy has a lot more impact on them then literally who. Listed MSRP hard to find these days, but its existence and disappearance suggests certain structures, structures which generally haven’t changed, structures which show more cooperation with each other than with you.

Even if they only have one meeting with each other a year, it’s probably between a couple of their bigwigs, making a deal of some sort, setting up information sharing. What’s your connection to any of these manufacturers or retailers? One purchase? Maybe one review whose star rating is seen by 50 people? A call to customer service?

And then what? You got a higher quality product at a lower price from a competitor?

And that’s why this whole system is the best, thank god we aren’t communists?

If we assume it’s an average buyer with an average product, then it comes back to the same problem as before: There’s no knowledge that it’s actually a better product. What was better was the final opinion, because of the product not breaking or reading more shining reviews or friendly customer service that happened to resolve the problem this time rather than with the nonresolution with the other company, or who knows what else; whatever it is: not the product. “The free market provides higher quality products at lower prices” is literally completely unrelated to the actual experience, to most anyone’s actual experiences, yet it’s chanted at anything and everything nonstop all the time.

What sellers actually do: Sell poorer products at higher prices.
What buyers actually do: Look at whatever has the most positive/popular reviews.
What sellers actually do: Pay well-known reviewers to review positively.
What buyers actually do: Buy anyways.

This is the actual result.

“But it’s wrong and probably illegal for them to do some of the things they’re doing, let me try and find some law that supports my argument, then I’ll show you why it isn’t actually a free market” is not relevant. Sellers in a market want to make more money while having spent less to do it, and buyers in most markets, who number in magnitudes larger than the sellers, have no clue what they’re doing, put those two together and whatever fancy jargon you make up aside, the cards always fall this way. Maybe the details differ. Nike makes 10 cents per dollar rather than 97. Whatever. But 97 is possible, is happening, and the more companies do it the happier the people are.

That’s right: The more companies profit, the happier people are to buy from them. If the marketers’ ideology was true you’d expect to see the opposite. If people were actually so concerned about lower prices then there’d be info spread around about companies producing whatever product and compare all their profits to see who made the least. Assuming all their products cost the same, this should approximately mean that whoever is profiting the least put the most money into doing the work, therefore a better quality product. What we actually see is everyone wanting to wear Nikes driving Teslas drinking Starbucks while using their iPhone.

People want to spend money on expensive things that they’re told everyone else likes. They don’t need to know what’s in it as long as it doesn’t obviously break, they just need it to have the best reviews and be on the top of all the lists and the tip of everyone’s tongue. Nevermind if it actually breaks, or how it breaks, or how soon it breaks, technology is really complicated these days doncha know? The customer service guy was nice and I like the font and logo the brand uses. I’m proud to continue to support a company that says it’s the leader of innovation into the future. Nevermind if they do or not, who cares anyways, looking at numbers and comparing stats is for nerds.

This is supposed to be the grand ultimate force which is supposed to oppose money.

It opposes with as much resistance as you’d expect.

On Libertarian Morality

Economic Inequality Is Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice

by Don Watkins, for The Federalist, 2016 April 14

Regarding businessmen, for example, we should condemn those who lie, cheat, and steal. But we should condemn them as individuals for their dishonest and predatory actions.

Universally, all white collar crime gets punished multiple degrees of magnitude less than hood crime. Condemning one businessman and not all of them is a concession that a couple of years in a comfy cell for frauding millions of people out of billions of dollars is approximately the right response.

There’s value in condemning a dishonest businessman over a dishonest person. A person’s role matters. A negligent student is nothing, a negligent mother should mean something extremely serious but doesn’t thanks to a certain demographic in tandem with a certain political structure, a negligent father has a special derogatory word made up just for him. Businessmen of today are lords of the past. It’s one thing to say they should be able to get away with more – maybe they should? But that’s not the argument libertarians make. “They’re just the same as everyone else!”

Replace “the rich” with “Hispanics” or “women” or “Jews” in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups?

Good thing this isn’t a problem then.

Actually being against prejudice is even more stupid than buying Hanlon’s Razor, which I’m pretty confident was created to cover for corruption. You are prejudiced that your key will turn on your car, the switch will turn on the light, the food you buy isn’t rotten, and that you won’t get assaulted just walking down a street, unless you’re in South Africa, Detroit, Berlin, Paris, or London, then maybe you would. And why would that be reasonable? Is it because of ley lines? Some miasma? Special ghosts haunting those areas? Some other magic? Maybe it’s global warming? But we’re all “just” people right?

Equality is just for show. Your ten fingers are all different lengths and your two eyeballs have different strengths, you treat your mother differently than you do your wife but we pretend we’re all equal because as a public narrative repeated ad naseum at no one in particular and only believed by initiates, “it’s good for business”.

That’s why libertarianism exists. “It’s good for business”. Full sentence: It’s good for millionaires’ business in screwing over fresh cheap labor. And, on occasion, it’s good for businesses screwing over other businesses. Full sentence: It’s good for some bigger businesses screwing over other smaller businesses. And there’s no world outside of business. Nevermind that there are other narratives which are better for everyones’ business. “It’s good for business”.

Everywhere outside America immigration is primarily a cultural issue, but here it’s terrible to think about closing borders because startups might suffer. You know, those small businesses whose entire purpose is to sell out so that its owners can strike it big and always results in all its employees getting laid off because the buyout was for purposes of obtaining patents and the “brand”? Forget any other discussions, forget the state of demographics in this country, or unemployment, how the current generation of young adults have no future except grinding a life of poverty living in a truck at the parking lot of their dream job. If we limit immigration, startups might suffer.

Oh. No. Not the startups. Anything but the startups.

Prejudice encourages dehumanization – it encourages demonizing “the other” so they are seen as less than human and therefore unworthy of respect.

Whose problem is this? Is this an appeal to me to be a better person at any cost to me all for the benefit of someone else? Come back with a billion dollars and a sentence to few years in jail and then we’ll talk about “dehumanization of the rich” or whatever you want. Of course, the billion has to come first.

Should have plenty of billions laying around. You did seize all those assets right?


We need to ask ourselves: Do we really think of rich individuals as human beings?

I can tell you how rich people in this country think of poor people.

No, I don’t have any citations. No reputable sources. I guess I’m just making shit up.

Making shit up that’s just magically on the mark every time.

Do we ever so much as ask: Did they honestly earn their money?

Considering most people quit their bosses and not their jobs?

Did they gain it by dealing voluntarily with other people, through an incalculable number of win-win trades?

Inside systems with many involuntary parts that favor them.

Remember: Libertarians think taxation is coercion and theft.

This is prejudice, plain and simple.

Repeat after me: The end goal of knowledge is prejudice.

What’s worse, it is not directed toward traits that have no bearing on a person’s character, it is directed at something that is in fact a moral achievement.

A literal statement straight from the mouth of a libertarian that having more money is a “moral achievement“, and that this moral achievement also, simultaneously, has “no bearing on a person’s character“.

Cult of Entropy.

This wasn’t a waste of my time after all.

When I discuss unfair treatment of successful businessmen, I almost always hear comments like, “Oh, boohoo. What do the rich have to complain about? Look at everything they have!” This reflects a crass materialism, which amounts to the notion that money solves everything, and that no one can be hurt by or object to mistreatment unless he’s poor.

We live in an advanced technological society, and enjoy a level of wealth, health, comfort, and opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. What made it possible? The effort of producers, on every level of ability, but with the most credit going to the men and women of extraordinary ability: the inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors who drive progress – and earn a fortune in the process.

Materialism is good or bad depending on the intent of the author in that particular paragraph. Or maybe the author wants it both ways; insults people for being materialistic but believes that they probably still believe it anyways, why not use that too for a little extra cha-ching I mean, impact? Maybe the author doesn’t think of his audience as human beings.

Or maybe this is all “human being” means to him.

originally discovered and commented on Facebook, 2017 April 17
edited and added upon for better flow as standalone

The Machinery of Order

I’ve been out playing a videogame the past few days, and Saint’s Row: The Third has got to be the most fun game I’ve ever played. I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who asks. I got the game packed with all of its DLC for 25 (normal cost: 100) on Steam’s summer sale; it’s still at that cost for the next 24 hours or so, and 50% off until the 22nd. Just the game itself costs 13 (normal: 50).

It may be the best game I’ve ever played. It doesn’t take the title for sexiest models or greatest storyline (TERA; Muv-Luv Alternative). Many things, like the income system and the general open world gangster setting have been observed in other places (Assassin’s Creed; GTA). However, the writing was what put the piece together. The humor was really what kept me going – I never really cared for driving across the map to do a car theft just to drive it back to the other side of the map. Weaving around or evading cops was pretty fun, but it wasn’t anywhere near… good. I’ve had chuckles or moments of excitement and tension in a game before, but it was during Saint’s Row: The Third that I had my first time laughing out loud and excited at doing what I was doing.

It was the superior writing that illustrated to me the other most important reason why I found the game fun:

I was guided through the whole thing, and while I wasn’t guided I didn’t know what was going on.

I’ve finished the main storyline, and I still don’t know where things are. I’ve used maybe half the guns available to me and don’t know how to operate the other ones. I’ve stolen cement mixers, motorcycles, and schoolbusses, but I still haven’t found a stationary lamborghini or a truck head to make my own. I’ve touched watercraft a grand total of twice and both times for missions, and I’ve used airplanes once because I wondered if there were any. I was at the last mission when I figured out there was a bonus for doing nutshots, and only shortly before that did I figure out that using the phone menu to call certain “homies” would summon them to fight alongside you.

A while ago I pondered the reason why I stopped playing Skyrim. I thought it either had something to do with the fact that I took on too many quests at the same time, or with me looking up stuff on the wiki. At the time I took the former more seriously, but didn’t revisit it when I got bored of the game. Having too many things to do affects your ability for purposive action in a fairly obvious manner: it’s the definition of a dilemma if we throw bad consequences in, and the definition of paralysis if we don’t. The second one, however, has more value than I understood then: the ability to know where things are before you’ve looked for them with no linked consequences though (i.e. paying for maps in-game, or doing favors for an NPC who then shows you how to do this or that) warps your mind. The more you can obtain advantages in something without putting in resources (all-encompassing for risk, time, capital, etc.) relative to that, obviously you’d care less about it. If you learned a whole course online and not from the professor you were enrolled with, you wouldn’t give him an ovation in the last lecture. If you had an innate talent for something, you wouldn’t feel as attached to the skill as the guy who worked his ass off to get to the same level. For many activities this caveat can be overlooked, since we actually seem to be fine with not caring about our jobs or classes, and we actually do need to build a base understanding of many things that have a very low probability of intriguing people. In a game however, you are only doing one thing – playing the game (If you were only looking up, say, shooting techniques and not running techniques, it would be different.).

These two are part of a larger principle.

I’ve quoted John Titor on how knowledge is a function of time and situation – I already do not believe that information is strictly good. It was clear to me that there are better and worse situations for any given piece of information. But now, I am taking it to zero and infinity: Some knowledge must always be known, and some knowledge must never be known. A rather awkward wording since “always” and “never” would be read as time adjectives, but the structure at least mystically captures my intent. If it is true that knowledge is a function of time and situation, then it is clear that it is at least possible for some things to never be good.

However the devs ended up balancing the economics and the damage and the sizing and all the factors of Saint’s Row: The Third, the important thing was that it kept me on rails. The fact that it is open world and you can mostly do what you what mostly how you want as long as you aren’t in missions is tangential to why the game is amazing. It is quite possible for a story to be mind blowing and intense without giving you any options at all – it’s called a book, or a movie. And there are many of them which are better than supposed open-world games. In Skyrim, I played it for the main storylines. I didn’t enjoy sorting through what I could carry around. I gave up on alchemy early on. Smithing was only so I could have cool stuff to use so I wouldn’t die during those main missions. Dragons were okay, but not why I played the game. In Just Cause 2, the only thing that kept me going was new trinkets. The story wasn’t too good, and I started loathing the game after a while because you can’t ever outdo the AI. There were no big interesting things to do. It was always an, oh, I can do anything I want to…. but I don’t want to do anything. The average free-to-play MMORPG these days is also, by definition, open-world. But you aren’t seeing any of them at the top of any charts, and rather than playing one of them, it’d probably be better for you to watch Fight Club again.

The best open-world videogames are those which show why these characters are the main characters, and why these storylines are main storylines. It isn’t just because they have screentime dedicated to them (an absolute value). It’s because they have more screentime dedicated to them (a relative value). It’s because you give them the screentime, and you know why you are giving them more screentime. This I contend is the reason why truly free and true sandbox games are never super big hits and never really remembered. The Sims allows you to create your own character and build your own house, but it gets repetitive real quick because it’s only about the next gimmick. Cities XL allows you to build your city however you want. With some rules of course: if you put your residential right next to heavy industry and have shops nowhere to be found, people aren’t going to come to your city. But even with these rules, there’s nothing to create. It wasn’t a creative act – after the first few placements, things I did were not positive anymore, but rather anti-negative. I was no longer building, but fixing. I need to build more of this, or more of that. No real sight of the big picture, the only thing seen is what to do on the margin. The world becomes the margin and only the margin – and because what that margin is about changes on a moment to moment basis, because there is no unifying purpose or whole, life itself becomes halation.

It isn’t just the “getting more stuff”, or “go to work make a family grow old with your love” that’s halation. If you live in the margin, all of it is halation. You can’t escape it. The margin is the halation.

“All this choice made it possible for me to do better but I felt worse.”

“There’s no question that some choice is better than none but it doesn’t follow from that that more choice is better than some choice.”

“The value of choice depends on our ability to perceive differences between the options.”

It may be a useful perspective to see differing people and professions as simply the training and experience which allows us to make choices. Ignore the non-person logistical details of muscle memory, jargon, capital, and business connections. If we just look at the person logistics, the mental logistics, this is all there is:

The ability to perceive differences is what differs one mind from another.

Everything else – religion, culture, discipline, language – is a tool for that, because differentiating is what allows us to act in reality. What is creativity, experience, or leadership, but the ability to decide on the better one where it counts, to perceive differences and thus live in a world that others don’t even know exists? This is the reason division of labor exists in any group – because better decisions are made by those who can perceive the relevant differences. Those “professionals” are used as such not because they have a higher probability of making the right decision, but because it significantly lowers the probability of horrible effects from coming into existence.

I was an anarchocapitalist for a long time, and the most asked question (aside from “who will build the roads”) was “should everyone really have access to nuclear weapons”? I always had some long answer about how everything would be decided by the free market, how nukes would be expensive and they’d probably have some really stringent contracts and controls. Kind of bullshitty, really. It’s not really access for everyone then is it? Should everyone be able to have a nuke, yes or no? Most people answer no, but they don’t have a principled answer because they live inside halation. “No because people could get killed” means nothing, because it’s really easy to point out where murder is the best possible option (read: good). And then they run through random topics like headless chickens, talking about capital punishment and the prison system, whatever. The answer is no because people don’t know how the fuck to use a nuke.

The same concept applies everywhere because in 99% of possible human activity, you don’t know what to do.

There are some people better than others, at any given point in time. Yes, you could learn. Yes, you too could gain some of the abilities the pros at whatever field have. But right now, you don’t know. Right now you don’t have the skills, the perception reservoir. Do you disrespect a 70 year old kung fu master now, because you can beat him up and eventually you might be able to learn everything he has to say? Do you look down on doctors’ advice, because if you spent enough time on Google and Wikipedia, you too could make an informed decision? Do you ignore the captain and flight attendants’ advice or orders because you might eventually go to flight school and learn all the things there are to learn about safe conduct aboard airplanes? Would you just ride alongside in a cycling race, even though your failure to understand peloton mechanics could do anything from ruining the race or ruining the lives of more superior competitors? It doesn’t matter what you could eventually do if you spent however much time on it, and this concept will still apply even when humanity gains immortality. One can not act now with the power he will have later.

It is a fact of life that you will have situations where your best course of action is defer agency to do as you’re told. Better people do not see more options. They see less. It is the people who don’t know any better who see everything at the same time, not knowing what to do or how to act. The best person for the job in any given field is the one that sees the fewest and most correct options. Not so obvious is that the fundamentals of anything are the most difficult. It is obvious, however, that the best people in their fields are the professionals, or the pros.

The best people at social organization, i.e. those who are best at understanding and managing the condition of man both in themselves and in others, are the aristocrats.

Just as the pros should make decisions because they are the best at finances or engineering or art or whatever, the best at politics should rule in politics. Aristocracy – rule by the elite. And of course, there is a best of the best.

He’s called the monarch.

Note that any reactions about slavery or feudalism or imperialism or things like that are all simply uses magic words. I have not mentioned any specific political policies (outside of the nukes thing). What I have done is go through the logic and ended up here. Another common reaction I saw when I argued anarchocapitalism was that it was simply a world of chaos, and that eventually, gangs would form and some dictator would be on top – and we need a state to counter that. This is more correct and desirable than they think.

Equalitists bitch that we are oppressed right now, but really, right now is about as close to what they want as reality can get it. You have all your choices of salad dressings, bread, lettuce, apples, and cakes at the supermarket. All your life choices and change you could make whenever you want just by going back to college. All the women in the world are now open to you through a massive array of online dating sites. Co-ed dorms. Co-sex bathrooms. Co-sex workplaces. The more equal we get the less happy about that we get. People are confused about why things aren’t getting better, and think that if only things would get better, they’d get better. Really. They don’t realize that the problem IS the confusion.

What we have right now is an extremely high amount of chaos. Professors aren’t taken seriously in their lectures, and less important fields are now on equal ground as more important fields, political leaders are seen ss more electable if they are more like the common man. The hundred million choices at the electronics stores. Cultural relativism. Philosophical relativism. Identity relativism. Everything might as well be fucking equal now even if it isn’t yet; getting things more equal will not change anything because all it does is dissolve MORE things into the halation. Marriage, religion, tradition, and politics have already gone to shit. You name it, it can go to shit too.

Gangs form in chaos because they are better at the unifier than most people. They are better at providing happiness all things given than others are, and they are upheld as leaders. If this is not true, the gangs fall apart because the group is not as good as another group. Small groups of superior skill will always form, and power relations will always be established because they are symbiotic. Dictators are simply whoever happens to be the best of the best at the given point in time. Those who do not survive a reasonable test of time are brought down and remembered as tyrants. Those who do survive and prove themselves to be that much better at the unifier than everyone else for a long period of time are remembered as heroes.

You have people who you defer to in your lives. You do. Maybe you don’t know their names, maybe it’s Wikipedia. But you defer to some human agency, in some factor. You defer to them not in the same way you’d defer to an opponent or an enemy, not in a purely responsive manner, but in a submissive manner. Maybe it’s not even an entity, but some idea. The philosophy you subscribe to, no matter how much you’ve made it yours, was contributed to by someone else. You did not choose everything in your life. Someone else makes choices for you in some way, and you like it. If you don’t like the choice, you at least like that you don’t have to make the choices that led to that choice. If your mother made you or bought you all your meals and you liked that better than having to drive out to wherever, buy stuff and come back to prepare everything yourself, you deferred to your mother and she had power over you. We are not free agents. We are parts of greater wholes, whether we are the monarch who makes the political decisions for a nation or we are a child who decides what dolls she wants to play with. The monarch respects and follows the advice of his advisors or mentors. The child does her chores and eats her vegetables.

If the monarch does not defer and does not make good decisions, he will be overthrown. If his advisors plan behind his back and work against him, they will be executed. If the child does not defer and chooses bad things, she will not have a fun childhood. If her parents are too controlling, they will not have a good time as elderlies. All optimal relationships are symbiotic. If the quote “A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man,” seemed familiar, that’s because it was from The Godfather.

We are all children who no know nothing in some aspect of reality; players who need game world designers.

I loved Saint’s Row: The Third because the devs were masters. I’d join the Saints if I were in Steelport because they are the best, not just because they have the aesthetics and style, but because they are the most powerful, morally correct, and funny of all the groups. The open world game structure is great, but as Just Cause 2 showed, without a great plot the freedom means nothing. Who cares if the mechanics are amazing, if the game moderators are always there to screw things up? Why does it matter that the items look good, if they’re in a game where the market is inflated by farmers and nobody at the studio has a fix for it? I’d rather read a book, oppressive as the storyline is, than deal with that. Similarly, there are many, if not most, things in life where it really would be better for society and individual health if people didn’t need to choose things. Yes, we all know how good freedom can be. But it is not the only thing that is required.

Order (aka happiness) is the general unifying principle of human activity. Not freedom (aka equality).

And Order is created through Authority.

The Unifier: Jack Donovan’s “The Way of Men”

There’s this picture of me, before I started preschool, that I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

I don’t particularly remember what occasion it was, probably Halloween or something, but I was over at a guy friend’s house and we were on a couch with a girl inbetween us, waiting to get a picture taken. We were only introduced because all of our moms were friends, but that didn’t really matter. The guy was my best friend and I treated him like a brother; the girl was a friend too and I treated her like I treated my sister. For whatever reason though, the girl latched onto the guy and they were moving away from me. I was used to taking pictures stock-still, but if both of the other people in the picture with me were going to be playing over at one end of the couch, I should join in too right? Basic stuff, even kids understand this.

But for whatever reason… I was rejected. Either one of them or both of them wouldn’t let me join in. So, I moved to the other side of the couch, and pouted, like all kids do when they don’t get what they want in public… except this time, everybody was content with it. Happy with it, even. All the grown-up women were laughing, my sister was laughing, and the guy and girl who I thought were my best friends were also laughing. All laughter, all happiness, a bright light flashed, and I was the only one alone unhappy, and now more importantly, confused.

The guy and girl didn’t get together. The girl’s mother was actually really strict. Before middle school, the guy’s parents divorced, and he moved away. We’re all around 20 now, and though I’m Facebook friends with the guy, I can’t say I know him at all. He’s a completely different person – that of itself doesn’t mean much, but he’s changed from that open and spontaneous “friends forever” boy I loved, the guy who seemed to be happy to triumph in getting the girl and showing it off for everyone to see… to someone dark, brooding, with no big dreams, no passionate and silly relations, no personality on the street where every stranger would look on and think, “I’d like to find out personally what that man’s all about”.

He had lost “it”.

Just like everyone else.

I have a need to derive things from the ground up. I have this need everywhere I go, in everything I do. It is inescapable, and I do not care to escape it – I encourage it. If this need ever goes unfulfilled, you have yourself a >99% certainty I will be bored of it within three months and 100% certainty I’ll not care about it at all within a year.

I need to derive things from ground up.

I need to understand every single link, every single reason anything is true, from a point which is “natural”. It could be calculus, where the idea being shown is the truth of the Epsilon-Delta definition. It could be a movement, where the idea being shown is how you should personally be involved in the political change of something. It could be just a motivational message, where the idea being shown is why you should believe in yourself and your ability to succeed at anything you put your mind to. In all of human life every activity starts with an understanding of something, which leads to either more understanding or a course of action. And for me, understanding needs to be absolutely sure all the way to “Ground”.

“Ground”, or the natural state, is where we are comfortable naming our knowledge as axioms or assumptions. We all know of math classes in school or university where, rather than actually following the professor who gives “useless” rigorous proofs in class, many of us simply memorize how the method works and that’s good enough. We know that there is a more grounded understanding than ours, but we are satisfied with our Ground. Even better examples are Biology and Psychology, famously known as “memorization” classes, but the Ground idea exists everywhere. It’s why the classic philosophy question of how to answer a kid who asks why the sky is blue, then why does the air diffract light in that way, and then ad infinitum , seems so silly to us. Some of us are fine with just accepting that the sky is blue; that is our Ground. Others of us are fine with accepting that air happens to reflect light in such a way, that light operates with such and such wave properties, that the sun creates light in such a way; that is their Ground. Some of us don’t feel that’s enough, and search for even more Grounded answers – that would be the people at CERN and NIF.

I believe the choice in Ground is only partially arbitrary.

Those who think of classes as “just memorization” never end up actually caring for the subject matter. People who think of activities as nothing more than following the set of instructions they’re told or handed will not think back fondly on those times they spent – they may even think of it as a waste.

However, kids who have all their life seen math as an art, a way to explain and see the world, something they can engage theirselves in and something they can produce real and amazing things out of, have a passion for it most people can’t understand. See this video of Terence Tao. There are three notable figures in it, Mr. Tao himself and two faculty members. You can see very clearly that Tao is in love with math. One of the guys is in love with Tao. And the other guy just doesn’t give a shit and treats it like an interview. You don’t even need to read his body language or need to listen to his tone. The fact that he keeps using vague words like “gifted” and “talented”, these facetious and arbitrary Grounds, shows that his opinion is really just filler and he believes it.

As for people who only follow instructions but think of their activities as more than just being a cog in some machine… look at any brotherhood, ever. Did mafia boys ever think of their job, no matter how small, as just something else to fuck around with while they were on earth? Do battle-hardened soldiers treat their orders like a college freshman treats his math homework?

I accept that different people have different inherent tendencies on where to rest their Ground. Not everybody’s going to like math, or psychology, or whatever subject or hobby here. Few people will care why the sky is blue, how tire spokes hold up the entire weight of bikes and cars, or insert any fact here. I’m an aspiring aerospace engineer whose dream is to get people to space, but I think of the entire world as flat when I go out cycling and I really couldn’t care less about the solar activity going on this second. Ground is as relative as Truth – it depends on your Purpose. My purpose right now involves me getting a degree, so I care more about math than I did in middle school. Currently my purpose does not involve studying solar winds, but it may someday and my Ground will change to force me to pay more attention to the physics of that and its intricacies.

However… I’ve always believed there was a Ground of All Grounds. A more fundamental “theory of everything”. It could be improved of course, as everything can be improved – the Grounding process is called “learning”. But to improve something, it must first be there.

And it was missing.

I think we have more people in society now that describe a feeling of missing something, “There’s just something missing in my life, I don’t know what’s missing”,

but yet they describe something very tangible, very very close to them…

Bicycle Dreams

If I had to pick one point in my life where my life “started”, it was that point where that picture was taken. And if I had to pick one question, one line my life has revolved around, it is “Why do people do what they do?”

“Because they love it”, “Because they have fun”, “Because it makes them happy” has never cut it, and until recently I have always read such lines as lies and all who used them as liars. Happiness, you say? Why are you a snide little bitch when it comes to certain topics then? Why do you blame others when you encounter misfortune? Or perhaps most importantly, how exactly does walking into a large building and giving paper to somebody or showing a plastic rectangle to a machine and then obtaining some machined material make you “happy”? (I just described buying stuff.)

How the questions were linked was uncertain to me, but I felt they should be linked. It just felt like, even though they happened at different times under different circumstances, that the questions belonged with each other. After all, I’m still describing the same person, or the same group of people. If we consider larger scales, we’re also in the same geographical location with the same culture in the same era of time speaking the same language, and we’re all people, not aliens or something.

I’ve been told all my life that those questions are separate, that they shouldn’t be asked with each other because it’s apples to oranges.

As if “fruits”, “stuff to eat”, or “plant reproduction methods” were all invalid categories.

All my life, everything has been sorted into disconnected categories, like subjects in elementary school. Just like how everything was done for an hour, bell, do something else, bell, repeat until 3:15PM, every question posed and every activity done in all spheres of human activity seemed… isolated. Unmeaningful. Not special. Like scrolling through pages and pages of videos or images, on your hard drive or on some site, of 3D or 2D women getting nailed so you can jack off, just to get it over with, just to do it and be in bed for the night. Which one you pick doesn’t exactly matter. Really, the fact that you jack off doesn’t seem to matter much either (after you’re finished). Point seems to be just jack off and get it done with.

Except you’d just rinse and repeat and do the same the next night, so there’s no real point at all.

I’ve searched for a meaning to those categories for as long as I can remember. Any category. Every category. Sorting fruits and vegetables makes sense because historically we’d need to know what to eat and not to eat so we don’t get poisoned. But why does it matter or not we get poisoned? Because we want to live. But… why? The answer to the meaning of life is quite simply to reproduce and to propagate. But even armed with the meaning of life, it felt like I had not reached the Ground of All Grounds. There was no unifying idea.

I’ve tried on many hats.

I’ve been all over the spectrum politically both in breadth and depth, everything from the average vanilla democrat to the social democrat / Marxist to the conservative white nationalist (I’m not white) to the anarchocapitalist.  Politics and economics did seem to give a much better explanation than the non-existence and non-explanation any average person would give. But none of it was based on any personal desire that I could “truly” connect to. Equality, liberty, or even just money – none of these things unified anything outside of a specific bubble. Money famously fails to explain why people choose to start a family. Liberty and Equality are just high minded talking points.

Psychology looked promising because it claimed to explain how people think, but it only talks about people in context of themselves and is riddled with silly assumptions. Sociology isn’t cutting it; it talks too much bullshit, not enough real patterns about real questions, and is completely at the whim of politics. Linguistics, with the powerful Sapir-Whorf, was able to show many differences I had not thought of, but in the end it was only a dry “form defines function” truth and not something which provided any direction.

That’s the other thing, right? You can look back and be like “Oh I did good”, but then there’s also those times where you know you’re going to win – you just pulled something off, something which took great discipline and awareness, a passionate drive and the graces of fortune. But the timing window has closed for all that opposes you. Nothing can stop you anymore. You’re going to win, and the only thing that is left is for the fat lady to sing.


is amazing.

I’ve gotten close to the Ground of All Grounds with my own attempt of unifying Discipline and Motivation, a glimmer of the correct feeling I think I should be getting, but it ultimately fails – as I have always stated it will. I only talk about how to improve individual behavior. I talk about social dynamics only as a side note, as a way to improve something else.

One of the reasons why I’ve been interested in antifeminism and the manosphere is because it’s just like another psychology or socio class to me. I believe that, perhaps here, I will find the unifying idea I’ve been searching for. Many things I’ve learned have indeed explained a lot. Why women fall for bad boys, why there’s sexual harassment suits everywhere, the fact that women are not even socially shamed for lying about an event which would throw a man in an isolated steel cage for over 10% of his entire lifetime and grant her more money than she’d ever know what to do with (I just described false rape accusations). On top of the bad news, I learned many amazing things as well. The logistics of how to approach a woman, how the way we’ve been trained to look at the world is inconsistent with multiple real and otherwise obvious thigns, that you need to actually be an interesting man with an interesting life if you want a woman to be interested, and many other things on what to do. It’s all made a lot of sense. It was definitely something much greater, much more true, much more real, than some political movement or theory in psychology.

I felt I was getting closer but nothing I read and I knew that it was somewhere here, but not even the intro and summary to the manosphere hit it right on the head.

It was here though.

And I’ve found it.

The Unifier is in Jack Donovan’s book “The Way of Men”.

In the 70’s the American Army did a scientific study on soldier psychology. They researched stress levels when fighting aliens and the effectiveness of certain motivations in new recruits by comparing psychological evaluations of soldiers during the two world wars and the early BETA conflicts. They found and interviewed retired veterans from every corner of the globe.

They found some interesting results in the part of the survey asking why front-line soldiers fought.

What do you think the most common reason was?

Well, the obvious answer would be… for the sake of humanity or the Earth – And in the older wars, for the sake of their country I guess…

Wrong. That’s the reason given by soldiers who’ve yet to be sent out or are on their way to the battlefield. Some keep thinking that way even on the battlefield. But it seems that the more unfamiliar they were with real warfare, the more likely they were to give idealistic, political answers, or what their education told them. The families of those being sent out probably want to hear reasons like that in order to help them accept the painful truth.

Then… was the correct answer fighting for their relatives or loved ones?

Unfortunately, no, that’s also one most common before reaching the front lines. It also seems to be the real motivation for many of those being sent out.

In the end, the most common reason was… they fought for their comrades.

Surprisingly, whether they were fighting humans or BETA didn’t change this result. They didn’t want to let their comrades-in-arms die after living through battles with them. That’s why they fought so hard. Far below in second place, was the fear of being killed by the enemy.


That was why the retreating German Army resisted so fiercecly near the end of the German-Soviet war, for instance. The fear of what would happen if the Soviet Army took them prisoner was enough to reinvigorate the German Army, whose equipment and morale were in ruins.

What about you, Captain? What do you fight for?

Me?… good question… I think… I fight for my comrades too. I want everyone I’ve fought alongside to live at least a little longer. Not that I don’t want Alternative IV to succeed or humanity to win the war. If I’m ordered to infiltrate a hive, I’ll obey, even if I have no chance of survival.

But, once I’m inside, it would be difficult to fight to the end for that reason alone.

Maybe because I’d start to want something more concrete to fight for…

Maybe because I’d start wanting a reason to believe my death would not be in vain…

– Capt. Isumi to 2nd Lt. Shirogane, “Muv-Luv Alternative

Donovan’s book is relatively simple.

In the first half of the book he discusses the four virtues of men, and in the second half he discusses history and society today. In addition to the standard fare structure, the reading and wording are very accessible, and the ideas have plenty of citations. Some pages feel like they’re missing “something”, until you flip the page and find that the reason why there was a blank area on the previous page was because the last part of the paragraph was moved for a long footnote on the next.

What Donovan fills the simple and generic structure with is what makes “The Way of Men” The Way of Men and The Unifier.

What is masculinity? Ask ten men and you’ll get ten vague, conflicting answers. Unlike any book of its kind, The Way of Men offers a simple, straightforward answer-without getting bogged down in religion, morality, or politics. It’s a guide for understanding who men have been and the challenges men face today. The Way of Men captures the silent, stifling rage of men everywhere who find themselves at odds with the over-regulated, over-civilized, politically correct modern world. If you’ve ever closed your eyes and wished for one day as a lion, this book is for you.

– Book description,

Many people easily Ground at “These men are angry at the world, just men being men”… even men who are angry at the world. I’d seen this book advertised before on several occasions and I didn’t get it for that very reason, that broken-record reason that you hear everyone saying whenever a man does something society doesn’t like. We all know it’s always going to be men too, because if women do something society doesn’t like, it’s because somebody or the system (“The Man”) has wronged them. It’s always men. But we don’t ask why. Even those of us who are unsatisfied with this Ground (mostly men, because obvious reasons) can’t help but be swept along almost all of the time, because there’s not enough to hold onto.

We know that men don’t just do shit because they’re crazy. In this age where everybody goes through almost literally the same experiences from age 6 to 18, it has become harder to imagine the theft or drug dealer or serial killer or activist or literally anybody that isn’t exactly like the sitcoms we see on TV as someone who’s truly alien. We can’t say anymore that these people were raised in the wild, lived without language and human interaction, and then just happened to do this thing. We can’t imagine that the cannibal or homosexual or rapist is just someone from another community, another culture anymore, because we all live in the same culture. We can’t explain it away.

But we do, and that’s why we’re all scared and confused. We hear “This person is just like that because they’re unique”, “Men are just being men”, more of this “just bad apples” isolated incident bullshit every single time, and we know something’s wrong with it. The average 30 year old LA gangster has gone through about the same experiences as the 30 year old prodigy CEO in Europe – people living in those two areas would have been much more different even just one thousand years ago, less than one step in the path of written history. We know that something, somewhere, is going horribly wrong. If that something wrong is in the guy on TV, it’s also in all of us. Or, if it’s the “system” that’s wrong for the guy on TV… that’s the same “system” that’s over our heads as well.

We know enough about Ground, intuitively, that something somewhere is wrong, and that we need to seek the Ground of All Grounds in order to begin to really fight and change anything. Unfortunately, the Ground of All Grounds these days is a fucking commodity. From Vegetarianism to Occupy, from Saving the Planet to 9-11 Truth, every god damn whore and her pimp is selling meaning. A friend of mine is interning for some startup, and he asked me to help him put up an ad for it last night. So I went to the site, and guess what I found the slogan was?

Experience Real Life. Can you imagine? They’re selling you YOUR OWN GOD DAMN LIFE.

If there is one problem about this book, that would be it. It’s sold. It’s another book about not selling out, but it has to be sold. A message in media, criticizing the form it has been delivered in. For anyone who still can see reality, and definitely for any jaded consumer, it is going to be hard to believe yet another manifesto which claims to tackle a large problem in a small amount of space. It has come out in a nonoptimal form in a nonoptimal time.

But really, that’s not the fault of the book. If fault is to be distributed, it should all be to the times.

Problems which are inevitable and a threat to all things good must be solved in some way. Everyone recognizes that those who complain about how violent revolutionaries should instead seek to work within the system to change its direction while people are being murdered for walking across the street have their heads on backwards. There’s a set of priorities we know must be adhered to no matter what. But the moment it’s not so overt anymore, everyone becomes those guys who have their heads on backwards. It’s not okay if just anyone is murdered for walking across the street, but it’s okay if they were all locked up instead. Or no maybe that’s not okay, but it’s okay if people were just separated and different. Or no, that’s not okay either! WE NEED FULL EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! But you have to do that through the established channels. Otherwise it’s not okay.

All this standardizing based on what’s okay. What’s acceptable. Everything that’s not “don’t do that”.

Not what’s desirable. Not what is worthy of praise. Sure we always get the TED talks and the political campaigns about how this or that should be done, but once you look at the concepts themselves, they’re all just negations of something else. Equality is for ridding the evil differences between people. Education is for saving the children from horrible experiences of never being in debt. Peace is for democratizing a nation and getting rid of those bad fascists and people who disagree with us. Never discussed is what’s honorable. Never is something tried and achieved, suffered and accomplished.

Always this god damn running away.

The Way of Men holds the fucking line.

It states, simple and clearly, that there are four virtues all men everywhere and from all times admire, and should respect, for those ideas are inherent and necessary for the role men play in reality. The virtues are Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor. The role all males play that we can never avoid, and should never avoid, is – for lack of a better word – Man. In these gender-free times, the idea that men have to be Men means less and less – and that is not correct. There are certain things men cannot become, without destroying or corroding all that we know and love out of existence. Cultural relativity and all other relativities be damned. There are things that must happen at all times.

Drawing from history, discussing evolutionary psychology, and touching on philosophy, Jack Donovan lays out exactly what it means to be a man and why the meanings make sense. It is not something that can be achieved once and forgotten about; it is a code of conduct, an ideal of perfection, something for which you must strive for at any and all points in time to even be near it. Being a man, Donovan argues, is not something men choose to want. Like the natural tendencies to be intrigued by this or that subject, The Way of Men argues that all men want to be men.

It is this desire, this inherent need, which causes many if not all of the true social problems we have today. Not only are men being forced to not be men, they don’t know what it means to be a man. They know vaguely what’s respectable. They know that this man is fit to be a mentor and that one is just forgettable. But there is no coherency in the mainstream culture about what it means to be a man. A real man does this. A real man does that. But in our hearts we all recognize the same problem as it exists in politics and inspirational talks: everyone’s talking about something to evade. About fixing some problem. Not about accomplishing a dream. Nothing about something to run towards.

Men aren’t the kind of creatures designed to run away.

Donovan builds civilization from chaos in front of your eyes in the second half of this book, and weaves not only sense into why societal things are the way they are and why it seems to be getting worse, but also constructs a cautionary and inspiring tale of how history itself operates – for what is history, but a story of men creating reality?

In and of itself, Jack Donovan doesn’t explain too much in this book. He doesn’t discuss the manosphere’s topics of picking up girls and female psychology in starting divorces. He doesn’t talk about national problems about welfare and healthcare, of war and economics. He doesn’t do the muscle work and elbow grease for explaining every single empire throughout history, why they rose here and fell then. It really doesn’t say too much at all.

But what it does say, unifies everything else. It is a set of ideas which causes all others to adhere and organize in the way they do.

There have been criticisms from the Humanists to people like me – they say I shouldn’t deconstruct things so often. That I should look at things “as a whole”, because there are many things you can’t know about something by studying it alone in a controlled and nonexistent environment. I agree with this criticism fullheartedly, and I turn it back to them and everyone else:

You are ignoring men. It is not Liberty or Equality or Social Welfare which holds civilization up. Men are the glue which holds everything together, and Men are the ones who created it, and Men are the ones who will create civilizations after this one has fallen, and Men will be there again to create it again and again, for the duration of all time.

I recommend this book to anyone and everyone, men and women alike. If the understanding you seek of something has anything to do with “Why do people do what they do”, this book will help you understand it. For women, it can help gain an insight into who men really are, not some vaguely humanized version of the laughingstocks on the glowing screen. Of course, for men, learning who you are is a great reason to read this too. But more importantly, this book also points you in the direction you need to walk, shows you an image of what you want to do, and will need to do, for all things good, holy, and sacred.

“The Way of Men”, by Jack Donovan.

I have added the author’s site to the blogroll on the right.
is the excerpt that got me to buy the book.

Anyone Who Calls “Discrimination!” Is A Scrub

And if you’re a white person, when was the last time you felt any privilege for being white. Never for me, I feel like as a white male, I’m under personal attack most of the time.

Apocalypse Cometh

You can’t win against people who play the victim mentality.

It’s not doable. Attempting to engage them on the battlefield of ideas while adhering to the rational rules of engagement will leave you in a very very sad place. Those who have the victim mentality are capable of doing, for many people, the equivalent of breaking the laws of physics. Why are you blaming rape victims for rape? Are you not hiring this man because he’s black? She has the same qualifications as the man you actually hired, are you a misogynist? Race, sex, class, beauty, age…

…”Discrimination”. Always that damned word.

For the duration of this post I will assume that equality is a virtue or praiseworthy value. Which, I must emphasize, it isn’t. I will also engage in other, less than graceful practices.

I like my boring and straightforward style of analyzation and I try to keep it while on this blog, but this “~issue~” boils my blood.

Every time anyone talks about discrimination I feel like I’m in an emperor’s new clothes scene. It is inevitable that the person crying wolf “inequality” will talk about how the other person believes something evil, and talk about how they have been harmed by it in some way. It doesn’t even matter if that other person has said anything. Have you noticed that? It doesn’t matter if the other person has said anything yet, but it is an unspoken social rule that you hold true what the accusing “victim” has claimed. There is no “until shown otherwise” clause; it is impossible for the accuser to be wrong. How could She possibly be wrong? Everybody knows that every last human being always has some innate bias they can’t remove. So this person must have it too! And He must be shown the right way and punished. It is for the greater good; it must be done.

Everyone’s known for forever that blacks basically have a get-out-of-jail free card called “racism” whenever they want to use it, and they’ve had it at least since the Civil Rights movement. Congressional White Caucus would be racist, we don’t see any C. Chinese, Arabian, or Indian Caucuses, but a Congressional Black Caucus is perfectly fine. We still have that whole Trayvon thing, even though it was revealed that Zimmerman was actually some Cuban Jew or whatever and not actually white. Black history month. The works. You know it, I know it, it’s the elephant in the room.

Women have a similar card called “misogyny”. It’s almost common knowledge these days that the courts are designed to prosecute rather than serve justice and that plea bargains are encouraged by public defense lawyers to an insane degree… but the public has barely given a thought to the frequency of false rape accusations, even though it’s clear to anyone who gives even half a look at the newspaper once a month can tell that “sexual harassment” has become a super big deal to the point where the physical action of having your hand on some woman’s ass can eliminate your income and basically any chances of getting future income for as long as you stay within these 10 million square kilometers because you’re put on some national public “offenders” list… all while your accuser is awarded much fame and cash, often from your pocket.

I just wrote out the long, non-euthanized version of “sexually harassing a woman can get you fired and jailed”. Sounds more powerful, doesn’t it? Doesn’t just sound like something you could only read about now does it?

By definition false rape accusations, whatever their percentage (you know logically it must be nonzero), increase proportionally to the rate of rape accusations. How many accusations have you heard recently? You want to know what can make a grown man cry? This isn’t even touching on rates of cuckoldry, a word which you probably haven’t even heard of.

More likely than not, you know about this societal screwing over of men, even if not consciously. It’s because it’s been ingrained in your thought processes via how language is used. You know that men are treated like shit. Just like whites are treated like shit, and young people are treated like shit, and every “oppressing” category is treated like shit.

An assigned reading I was doing for my socio class helped me figure out exactly why -this problem- we face seems so elusive. The week’s topic was on social constructs, and the reading was an excerpt from Lareau’s “Unequal Childhoods”. On page three Lareau writes,

America may be the land of opportunity, but it is also a land of inequality. This book identifies the largely invisible but powerful ways that parents’ social class impacts children’s life experiences. It shows, using in-depth observations and interviews with middle-class (including members of the upper-middle-class), working-class, and poor families, that inequality permeates the fabric of the culture.

If these inequalities were so invisible, then why are they THE ONLY things that are talked about?

I’m sorry, I asked a rhetorical question. Bad form on my part.

People always talk about how we shouldn’t talk about race, and how there are environmental factors or childhood experiences or whatnot and all these other things, but really, who talks about race anymore? In the intellectual sphere, when was the last time someone actually tried to claim that race contributed even the slightest to any trait? Nobody, because guess what happens to them once people find out. Who talks about race? Nobody, other than these people who say we shouldn’t talk about race.

The whole argument structure itself is a joke to begin with. The original is of the form “[genes] can’t explain everything, [environment factors] are in a high correlation with [some set of events or attributes]”. First of all, nobody who believes in race or genetics believes race/genetics can explain everything; strawman. Second, the argument form given is a nonsequitur; just because there’s some correlation with environment doesn’t invalidate any kind of correlations with race/genetics. Sure you can choose to focus on one rather than the other, but that’s not what we’re doing as a whole are we? No, people try to start a fucking witchhunt no matter who the person is, even if it’s a Don at Cambridge. No taking into consideration why people believe in race/genetics, or in what ways they believe it or what strength they believe it – no consideration of breadth or depth – if they say they’re even considering it exists, bring out the god damn pitchforks.

You see the same fucking image, copy-and-fucking-paste, whenever any touchy-feely scrub cries wolf “inequality” on any other issue. “We” keep on responding to shit that isn’t there. The argument against income inequality, that if women really earned 70 cents on every dollar a man makes for the same job then every business would rush to replace their entire workforce with females to realize a massive amount of savings, is a broken fucking record AND YET women still claim oppression and patriarchy and evil shit. Say the slightest thing that gives seed to even the tiniest suspicion that women could be anything other than pure heavenly and faultless innocent angels, and you’re labelled as a misogynist. Doesn’t matter what statistics you have, haven’t you learned that only statistics which support the correct opinion are correct yet? You’re an adult, you should have learned this by now. Logic doesn’t matter either. Any person with half a brain now would realize that they want miles and miles between themselves and any potential discrimination lawsuits; if anything people who are less skilled or are more ugly are being hired in greater proportions than equal conditions. But no. People are evil no matter what the cost, because they’re evil!

There is a specific type of person that I am attacking.

It simply happens to be, but it is the average liberal of the masses, a person who claims the moral high ground because they are intelligent and educated, and tolerant of diversity. Their goodwill is endless, from feeding the poor to feeding the African children, from saving paper to saving *the* whales and the whole of this heavenly body.

It is also a position that, at the slightest hint that someone disagrees with them on certain issues,will batten down the ad hominem hatches and fire the righteous torpedoes. Have you noticed that? The moment someone disagrees with them fundamentally, all these people do is try to find out what kind of person this is and then proceed to derive characteristics based off of that. Oh, Zimmerman was white? Killing Trayvon MUST have been a hate crime. Oh, you’re a young man who thinks that the current system of marriage and dating has something wrong with it and it’s not the patriarchy? You must be a shut-in slob who hates woman, why don’t you go and buy a hooker.

Average response to my kind of criticism has been “Not All ______ Are Like That”. I have not known a response to this. Now I do.

I now know I can’t respond to it.

It doesn’t matter how many statistics I cite about how race is the best predictor for violent crime, they can always claim that it was done wrong or funded by some ~evil~ organization. It doesn’t matter how wrong or obnoxious one of their members can be, they can always claim that that person wasn’t a REAL feminist. No matter how right I may be, there will be exceptions. No matter how wrong they may be, those wrong examples and statistics are the exceptions. AND ALL THE MEANWHILE victim mentality reigns and grows stronger and louder, with purely (read: supported only by) emotional appeals, imagining some delusional painted dystopia to avoid.

And they can afford to fix these nonexistent problems, because they aren’t the ones doing the fixing, and they can force these people who don’t want to work, to do it, for free. Who loses and ends up toiling harder and longer when there are institutional forces to change the race distribution, irrelevant of actual skill? The oppressor group: the whites. Who loses and ends up toiling harder and longer when there are institutional forces to change the sex distribution, irrelevant of actual skill? The oppressor group: the men. It is the law of all such “social justice” organizations and movements to work in such a parasitic fashion, and it is also the law that these will not survive indefinitely.

Because they are parasites, you can’t attack them directly. You can pull a gun on another man, but you cannot pull a gun to shoot your infection. But once you realize they are parasites, you know that the proper response is not to outfight them, but to outlive them.

Outperform. Show that people you are better than the equalitists and masses who huddle around and reinforce each other’s notions of reality. Show that you are willing to subscribe to your own views, to anyone’s views as long as they treat you with respect and as long as their views are consistent with reality and pertinent to your interests.

At worst, all you need to do is point out the structural contradiction in their pretended argument, noted above. Otherwise, ignore them. You’re probably a better person than they are in every other aspect of life. Shine there.

There is no “And if it doesn’t work” clause. Everything has a chance of failing.

Do you want to fail while outliving, or while succumbing to a simple “u mad xD?”


This will be a post I will link to in the future if anyone calls “Hate Speech” or “Discrimination” on me, or asks how to get past the accusations of.

While I have been gone I have been introduced to, and have been reading, “race realism” and “the manosphere”, respectively. I’m not too interested in the former so I won’t talk directly about it too much, nor will I give a precise and rigorous definition about it. A layman’s understanding has sufficed for me: race exists, and it can be used as a predictor for various biological and non-biological traits and attributes. No big surprise or anything for me, I’ve always taken race as something which exists but “shouldn’t be talked or thought about”. The second part has simply been removed, so I may mention it from time to time. It has always puzzled me how everyone could talk about super hung black men and micropeen Japanese men, but yell for mommy any time black IQ scores are brought up.

As for “the manosphere”, it is a term which refers collectively to the pick-up artists / seduction community and the men’s rights movement. Its main unifying factor, at least in my point of view, is the idea that men these days don’t know what it means to be a man. It is not a given that male means man; increasingly, male actually means absolutely nothing at all. Aside from basic philosophy and motivation topics (like the ones I’ve discussed here),  a lot of discussion rests on diagnosis of society in relation to sex. It probably isn’t too much of a stretch to say that the average young man today thinks of society as having no mechanics which operate off of sex, and only knows of how to interact with the opposite sex as someone of a different sex based off of what they saw as a kid in Cinderalla, what they read in Romeo and Juliet, what they see on Jersey Shore and vague stories they can’t relate to (and thus can’t understand) from their parents and grandparents about proper courting. The manosphere attempts to illustrate in various ways how differences in men and women, from their biology to their psychology to their behavior patterns, interact in society – either in today’s, or in hypothetical ideal or dystopian ones.

Reading people write on such topics are truly a breath of fresh air. Even reading motivating stories feels stale sometimes because of how common and socially accepted they are. But I’ve always felt in my gut that something was wrong and some idea wasn’t being touched on which could vastly explain much of social interactions. The idea that I am a Man and that this fact requires something of me and sets my social position which is expected to do some things in some ways, in some sex-based system, is, if not what i was looking for, at least something which has vastly better predictive and explanatory powers than the standard equalitist theory of everything.

I am open to discussion on these topics, as I am actively reading up on them and looking for more. The ones I currently find are the highest quality may be found on the blogroll links to the right.

I simply get quite livid whenever anyone starts to say that I am ignorant or intolerant or use some form of ad hominem against me because I am considering socially taboo ideas. I don’t particularly care for attempting to never get mad at anything – case in point, many equalitist shits subscribe to the “outlive” idea I wrote above; you can just see it every time they talk smack about you but then end it with a :3 or a :] or some shit fucking smiley DESIGNED to piss you off. Being mad has its uses, I abhor the lobotomized “happiness” many people seek. I find this victim rent-seeking mentality a very serious issue and worthy of riling my emotions, but the little equalitists shits correctly believe that them getting me mad and getting me to spend time responding to them is equivalent to acknowledging a loss.

This entry is my compromise.

In one go, I have not only given an explanation of my beliefs on discrimination to both supports and detractors, but also links to content of similar opinions on the matter. A written out and detailed post that will far outlength any particular criticism, but can be used to respond to each criticism – and though at first it may seem to be an instant win because I have spent so much energy responding, over time it means less and less. The more people and more instances in which I refer this post, the more and more total amount of mental and energy each of my opponent will use in raging against me will exceed the total amount of energy I used to write this one post, one time.

If that pisses them off, good. You gave me a canned “umad;)” response, I give you a canned bitchslap full of “fake” evidence to piss you on. GG bitches.

I believe, though, this way creates the best balance. I can’t get everyone to agree, nor do I think that’s a worthy goal. I believe what I have done here allows me to maximize the amount of people who will consider not only my point of view, but also learn to consider other socially taboo ideas either from others or on their own.

Outside of learning ways to improve passion clarity, that is the greatest goal I have – to help people achieve what they want to achieve, by showing them that no matter how creative they think they are, there is always a new thing to learn, a new way to learn, or new way of looking at the world entirely.

Kind of disappointing that something as simple as how a knee-jerk ad-hominem response to racism (belief in race) needs to be clarified as nonrational. But what needs to be done, needs to be done.