Rethinking Memorials

We do funeral services wrong.

After some guy dies, a series of people get up and talk about how wonderful he was. He doesn’t get any benefit from hearing how great everyone thought he was and they all feel bad about having lost such a great guy.

A better way to do it is to have an appreciation ceremony while the guy is still alive. Get his friends and neighbors and family and civic group together and talk about how much he means to all of them. Things will be said that wouldn’t normally be, tears will be shed, and everyone will get on with their lives.

Then, when the guy dies, have a different kind of memorial. “He only knew three jokes and he couldn’t be stopped from telling them every time he was in a group.” “Just never let him eat cabbage. Lord have mercy, he could pollute the whole room.” “He was a good father but that man could not keep it in his pants. I swear, half the time we were married I wanted to castrate him.” “Sumbitch never did pay me back that thousand dollars he borrowed.”

Put the memorial together like that and his friends and neighbors and family and civic groups will remember why they’re glad he’s gone. To put the cherry on top, instead of a church choir singing Amazing Grace, have a kazoo soloist lead the congregation in the macarena.

(Yes, I’m aware that for decades some churches have conducted pre-memorial get-togethers for their elderly or sickly congregants. Good idea. They did one for my late father-in-law, not long before he was housebound with untreatable cancer. Brought him to tears.)

The Daily Donnybrook n Stuff

Come and listen to my story bout a man name Mike,
A political blogger, kept his finger in the dike.
Then one day he was bein’ a good host
And he made up a fine way to let the readers post.

Comments, that is. Blogger tea.

Update! Muchos gracias to Steve for taking up my slack and covering for me here. Follows, the rest of the usual Donnybrook schtuff, if only to keep the all-important Eyrie link atop the main page.

Welcome to Ye Aulde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

Mike @Substack


New Eyrie posts go up every Monday and Friday, although the time of day may (and most likely will) vary. Mike’s latest Eyrie offering is available for perusal here: Screamin’ meemie Monday!

Please do consider subscribing to The Eyrie, gang; subscribers receive email notification whenever each new post goes live. All Eyrie articles are getatable (yes, that’s really a word—trust me!) for one and all to read and enjoy totally free of charge, regardless of subscription status. However, a paid sub is required to unlock commenting privileges—an almighty incentive to kick loose and chip in if ever there was one. Thanks!

Recent Comments

A Modest Proposal 2

I just heard Trump’s press secretary (whose name I have been unable to find; one might almost think that such news is blacklisted) say that several “major” “news” organizations are no longer invited to the White House briefing room and that invitations are open for bloggers, streamers, and such to apply for press passes.

Go for it, Mike! You can be the greatest one-legged musician, blogger, and White House correspondent that the world has ever seen!

2
1
1
2
1

A Modest Proposal 1

Why are we deporting illegal aliens/non-uniformed members of an invading army? It’s a terrible waste of resources. There’s the money and jet fuel and what-not that it takes to return the pieces of shit to their native shitholes.

But that’s not the worst of it. We have a terrible shortage of blood and transplant organs, we are told. We have tens of millions of non-persons. Why are we wasting this valuable resource?

Cheaper to Leave Her

You may have heard about some corporations getting in a batch of new hires and then, on the first day of training, offering them $1000 if they quit and never come back. I can’t quite grasp the psychology of how it works (meaning that I have three incompatible notions) but companies which hire for phone banks and customer service jobs report that they save money by doing this, so I’ll take its effectiveness as a given.

What if we extend this to our personal lives? Specifically, to dating? Despite two generations of women being able to get any job they can do (and quite a few that they can’t) and decades of “I don’t need no man”, everyone knows that the vast majority of dating expenses are borne by the man. That pattern continues if dating turns into a marriage.

It would be an interesting experiment for a man to go on a first date, pay for dinner, and then tell her, “This was a good evening and I enjoyed your company. Now I’d like to offer you a choice: we go on more dates and see where this takes us, or I give you $200 cash right now and you never contact me again and don’t mention me to your friends or on social media.”

I don’t know how well the corporate experience, adding trainees fifty at a time to a pool of a thousand and maybe losing a couple to the cash offer, maps to dating one woman per evening and a dozen or so in a year and ending up with only one at the end. Still, it would be interesting to see a few men try this and total up how much they spent in a year versus how much they spent on ordinary dating. And also total up how much action they got each way and how many dates turned into solid relationships.

Blast from the Past, Thanksgiving Edition

This essay was first published on Daily Pundit in 2017. More applicable now than then, I think.

——

I have one. You have one. We all have a tard in our family circle. If you’re lucky it’s not a blood relative, just a boyfriend or in-law, but they’ll be showing up at the big family get-together for Thanksgiving.

Not just any tard, either. A Progtard.

They’re sort of like the Terminator: They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. And they absolutely will not stop, ever.

Unlike the Terminator, progtards aren’t dangerous except in large groups or if they’re in position to ambush you from behind or to file a bogus complaint with your employer. Progtards are mostly pathetic, and they’re even more amusingly pathetic when they’re angry and self-righteous.

Herewith, a guide for dealing with the tard at the table. This will be most useful if you have someone to work with, someone contemptuous of sloppy thinking, of feeeewings, and of self-entitlement.

(If you’re the sole hard thinker at the table and you’re surrounded by progtards, you can still use these suggestions, but I wouldn’t bother. I’d just grab the carving knife and lay into everyone at the table. But that’s just me.)

College Mockery

Mocking modern education — indoctrination, rather — is a good place to start. Many progtards are in college or have recently gotten out. (I’m not saying “graduated” because so many don’t, especially not within the old normal of four years.) This is in large part due to many people being soft-headed progs before they grow up and get the stupid knocked out of them. College is for most a prolonged childhood which allows them to avoid growing up. It certainly doesn’t educate them in any meaningful sense. And it costs an arm and a leg.

Thus, our first line of attack.

(Remember, we’re not trying to enlighten the progtards. That’s hopeless. All we’re doing is entertaining ourselves by getting them all riled up.)

“So, how much does your college cost per year? That much? Wow. How can you afford that?”

This can lead to criticism about mooching off of parents or taxpayers. That’s unlikely to impact the progtard directly, on account of an inflated sense of entitlement, but might help to get others on your side.

“How much are you having to borrow every year? Ouch. So you’ll be a hundred grand in debt. Oh, it’s taking you six years to graduate? A hundred fifty grand. Wow. That going to be, what, a grand a month for twenty years?”

“So, how are you going to make a living so you can pay that off and still have a place to live and get a car and stuff?”

“That’s a good goal, but how are you going to get there from here? How do you get your foot in the door to get started? Is your BA in Music History going to get you a job at all? Will it let you pay your school loans? ”

“Wouldn’t you have been better off not going to college? You could have lived at home, interned for minimum wage or even for free for a working musician, gotten some real experience, and not had any debt when you were done.”

“Does anyone really think that degree is worth anything? Why did you even bother getting it?”

“My nephew did two years of electrical tech in community college, lived at home, and worked part time to pay for it. He got a job with the power company straight out of school. He didn’t have any debt and he just bought his first house. He’s twenty-three years old.”

There’s meat left on those bones, but that’s enough to start the poo flying.

Communism, Socialism, and Progressivism

Don’t miss the chance to bring up the repeated failures of socialism and its inbred kin. You can’t quite say that every progtard truly believes that socialism et al would make the world a better place, but if you did say that you’d be off by only a few. Note the comment above about getting the stupid knocked out of you — socialism and such are stupid ideas that sound like they should work, and they sure do appeal to the lazy and untalented and envious, and you don’t realize they don’t work until you’ve had the stupid knocked out of you by the real world. Students, educators, bureaucrats, and some other so-called adults who have lived their lives as hothouse flowers never quite learn that a lot of nice-sounding ideas don’t actually work.

“You know the amazing thing about socialism? It’s so good at destroying wealth that it doesn’t matter if everyone’s equal. They’re poorer than even the poor people in the oh-so-unequal capitalist countries.”

“No, I take that back. The most amazing thing about socialism and communism is the number of people they’ve killed.”

“Tell me, how many more times does socialism need to be tried before it’s ‘real’?”

“Have you ever noticed how often socialist countries have to be bailed out by capitalist countries after natural disasters? Why doesn’t it ever go the other way?”

“Socialized medicine. What a cute idea! Too bad it never works for long. Back in the 1980s, American socialists pointed at England’s national health system as the best example of how nationalized medicine would work for everyone. Then when that started to show problems, they started pointing to Canada. Canada’s socialized medicine had just started and looked good … until rationing and problems became obvious a few years later. Now anyone wanting to show an example of socialized medicine done right has to just lie about all the problems it has everywhere. But next time for sure, right?”

Keeping the Poo Flying

There are a few miscellaneous poo bombs you can throw if the conversation and acrimony are slowing down.

  • Che really was a cowardly murderer, you know.
  • Wouldn’t it be neat if the global warming scientists would show their data and algorithms so it could be peer reviewed?
  • Yes, that short, blue hair does make a statement. It says, I’m going to be a lonely cat lady before I’m forty.
  • Aw, competition isn’t fair because it means that not everyone will be a winner? Aw, let me call you a wambulance.
  • You’re right, things are different than when I was young. When I was your age, it was almost impossible to make a living unless you worked for someone. Going into business for yourself took a lot of money to open a store front or you had to be in a big city or be willing to travel all the time. Now you can write software or books or make videos or do odd jobs all over the world for basically no money down. You have it so much easier now.
  • I wish that women only were paid 79 cents on the dollar. I’d fire all my male employees, hire all women, and save big bucks on payroll.
  • Why is it cultural appropriation for me to eat tacos, but it’s ok for Mexicans to wear blue jeans and use cell phones?

And lots and lots more, but we’re up to 1200 words, and that’s plenty enough.

Enjoy your dinner!

5
2

Disposable

Any individual man is disposable.

More broadly, any individual person is disposable. Even a George Washington or a Nikola Tesla could die in infancy and the species would muddle along. But as a group, men are more disposable than women.

Everyone knows this. All but the most broken societies are organized around it. “Women and children first” in a catastrophe, men are conscripted and sent off to die in wars, the jobs with the highest death rate are overwhelmingly filled by men.

It makes perfect sense, of course. The most primal instincts are to stay alive and to reproduce. A mammalian species which loses most of its females before they reproduce will probably go extinct. A mammalian species which loses most of its males before they reproduce might not even notice. See, for instance, the deer population in the United States. A sizable fraction of the bucks might be killed in any year, between hunters and other predators and car accidents and Winter, but the population comes right back up.

That’s for most species, either loners or those in which the males and females are equally able to obtain food.

Humans are different.

Humans obtain resources by specialization to a degree unknown in any other species. Humans choose to work in a specialized field according to their own opportunities and abilities and preferences.

And there’s the rub. Most of the jobs which keep modern society functioning are held by men: keeping the electricity and the water flowing, constructing buildings and roads, growing the crops. Any individual man might be replaceable but losing even 20% of men would cause systems to fail. The species might not be doomed but society as we know it would be.

Women are still essential, of course, because they are needed to produce the next generation. Any one woman can make only so many babies, so we need them all in order to keep the species going. Each individual woman is valuable and important regardless of her material or economic contribution.

… Or is she?

In modern, industrialized society, a large and increasing fraction of women have no children. The fraction of women who never have children went up from about 1/20 a couple of generations ago to 1/4 or even almost 1/3 today.

In almost all cases this is because they choose not to. In the past, most childless women were infertile or suffered repeated miscarriages. Today, fertility problems are much reduced and miscarriages, while individually tragic, are less common and are less likely to result in ongoing problems. That leaves choice. Some women never wanted children at all. Some put it off until they were emotionally or financially ready but by the time they’re ready they are unable to bear children. Some “can’t find the right man”. Some do indeed have fertility problems but they were caused by hormonal birth control or years-long use of IUDs or STDs left untreated too long.

We see the effects in birth rates and in demographic distributions. The United States, Canada, most of Europe, Japan, mainland China, and South Korea all have birthrates below replacement level. Their populations are either decreasing or are being sustained only by immigration. This has serious implications on societies and economies. Without a steadily-increasing population, most consumer economies will be shaken or or destroyed. Without a supply of younger workers, who will produce the goods and perform the services that an ever-aging population will need?

Demographic collapse signals societal collapse.

Demographic collapse is the result of women’s choices.

Demographic collapse can be halted only by women choosing to have more babies.

Women’s value as women was always based on their ability to have babies.

Women who choose not to have babies should lose that intrinsic value. No more “women and children first”. Now it’s “women /with/ children first”. No women-only college scholarships. No welfare for childless women. No hiring preferences for childless women. Draft childless women for war and send them to the front lines.

A woman who does not have children should be valued only for the value she brings. That is, what she does that others value enough to pay for. Just as men are.

Doctors (almost half female in the US) and nurses (overwhelmingly female in the US) are important but most people can go quite a while without needing to see them. Linesmen (overwhelmingly male) are unappreciated because if they do their job right no one notices (and because they don’t need college degrees) but if they disappeared, chunks of the nation would notice after every storm and the electrical grid would fall apart within a year or two. Garbage collectors (overwhelmingly male) are looked down on for their dirty, smelly job (and no college requirement) but if they all disappeared, people would for sure notice within a week. Sewer workers, doubly so. Modern city life would become impossible very shortly.

The loss of workers in jobs typically held by independent women would have, shall we say, somewhat less dire effects. If every social worker in the nation disappeared overnight, how long would it be before anyone noticed? If every HR department in every corporation was depopulated? If every not-for-profit little art gallery had to close?

If the ability to birth the next generation will not be used, if one is a net consumer of resources and wealth, who really is disposable?

5
1

Choices and Consequences

We all watched in 2020 as politicians and pundits and pill-pushers said that anyone declining to get the Covid shots — “anti-vaxxers”, “refusers”, “covid deniers” — should be denied health care. Almost half of the US population nodded along with the stentorious proclamations that “actions have consequences” and “why should we help people who won’t take one simple action to keep themselves and everyone else safe?”

To people on the sane side of the spectrum, those demands sounded just a tiny bit tyrannical. The people making the demands sounded just a tiny bit unhinged. There was no science backing the “safe and effective” claim. There was no science behind the mask mandates or the six-foot distancing rules. There was almost no data backing the claim about the deadliness of SARS-CoV-2. And, of course, the people screaming the loudest about mandatory “vaccinations” were the same people who screamed about “My body, my choice!”

A few years on, it’s public knowledge that the disease was not as deadly as claimed. The mask mandates were useless. The distancing was useless. The shots failed not only the “effective” claim but the “safe” claim. Many people won’t admit these things, because that would mean admitting that they were wrong, but it’s widely understood.

The unhinged demands to identify “refusers” and to deny them healthcare are even more unhinged in light of the evidence. Not that the lunatics who made the demands will ever admit it. The best we’ll ever get is the tepid “Mistakes were made on all sides. Let’s just forget it and move on.” from late 2022.

How about, No. I remember your face, I remember your name, and I remember your words. I’m not going to forget it and I’m not going to “move on”

One good thing comes from the demands, though: There’s now precedent for demanding that people follow good health practices or be denied healthcare.

The obvious first target: Obesity. Over half of adults in America are overweight, and almost half of the children. Excess weight is linked to any number of health problems, including but not limited to diabetes, joint and back problems, liver problems, and mental disorders. Obesity is tied to an increase in almost all causes of death.

Between government-provided or -subsidized healthcare, the Obamacare mandates that individual health and lifestyle choices not be taken into account when setting private insurance premiums, and hospitals increasing bills to subsidize those who can’t or won’t pay their own bills, everyone pays for the increased healthcare costs of the overweight.

I demand that fatties be denied access to healthcare other than weight-loss clinics. Why should we help people who won’t take one simple action to keep themselves healthy?

2
1

The Next Debate

Donald Trump stated that there will not be a second debate between him and Humpy Harris. He should have a second one, but only under certain conditions. He needs to take the obvious flaws of the Tuesday debate … and turn them up to 11!

1. Trump will stand at a Presidential-appearing podium with an American flag behind him.
2. Humpy Harris will not attend and will instead be represented by a marionette with plainly visible strings.
3. The moderators will relentlessly grill and fact check Trump on everything he says, allowing him as much time as needed to flesh out his proposals, er, dig himself into a hole.
4. Whenever the Humpy Harris stand-in is asked to answer a question or to reply to Trump’s points, her hallmark jackass laugh will play.
5. The moderators will immediately clap and congratulate the marionette on its insight, knowledge, and compassion.

This idea came to me today after some idiot said something stupid. I’m posting it here because a handful of people with large megaphones read this site, or at least used to, and I’m hoping someone will pick it up and pass it along.

1
1

On Bailing and Bailing Out

You’re on a ship and it’s taking on water. What do you do? Do you help bail the ship or do you find a lifeboat and take off by yourself while the others are busy? Unless you’re close to land, your odds are not good in the lifeboat. On the other hand, if you try to save the ship, your survival depends on other people and other factors beyond your control. But if you get in the lifeboat, you’re either on your own or you’re with others who put themselves ahead of the group’s well-being. Is it better to stay and bail or to bail out?

Another scenario, even tougher: You’re a hoplite in a Greek phalanx or a you’re a Roman legionary. You’re up against a very tough enemy. You can save yourself by leaving your place and deserting the unit. If everyone else stays to fight, you have a good chance of getting away safely. But here’s the kicker: Every other hoplite or legionary is thinking the same. If enough desert the line, the enemy will trample those who stayed and then will be free to hunt down the individual deserters. Your safety actually depends on everyone else choosing the good of the unit over their individual good. Paradoxically, your individual good is best served by working for the group good.

The scenarios can be more complicated. There might be only one lifeboat, so only the first to give up have a chance to save themselves. The leaking ship might have ship’s officers assuring everyone that everything is fine, there’s no leak, it’s just a spill from someone carrying a bucket of water. Just go back below deck and leave this to those whose job it is to keep things running. Even worse, the ship might have people knocking holes in the hull, while others demand that they be allowed to express themselves as they see fit.

What do you do when your nation is foundering? Do you give it your all to bail and to encourage others to help? Do you bail out and try to find safety in another land? Do you determine that the nation is going down no matter what and scarf up as much of its wealth as possible before abandoning it? Or do you tell yourself that things will be fine because the country has pulled through problems before?

It’s easy to say “I’m fed up with it all and I’m dropping out.” It’s a lot harder to say “I still have hope that things could be better, and I’m going to act on it.”

Of course, it’s plain foolish to go down with the ship, still bailing as the water goes over your head. The trick is figuring out whether your efforts on the bailing bucket will do any good or if the situation is hopeless and you need to save yourself.

Is the United States at the “every man for himself” point? I don’t think so. Are we at the point that we all need to bail — and to throw overboard those who are knocking holes in the hull — or we’re going to sink? Absolutely.

7
1

Luxuries on Credit

Luxuries are the nice-to-haves in your life, not the need-to-haves. By definition, you can get along without luxuries. You may want that eight-day luxury
cruise but you don’t need it.

You certainly don’t need to be borrowing money to go on that cruise. If you have the extra money sitting around and have nothing better to do with it and you want that vacation, sure, go ahead. If you have borrow in order to go on that luxury vacation … What are you, some kind of stupid? Don’t tell me, let me guess: you put it on your credit card and you’ll pay off the 24% loan over then next ten months, unless something comes up and you have to stretch the payments out a little more.

The same goes for a lot of things that we buy. If you’re an American and not in a city with good public transportation, you need a car. You don’t need a new Volvo XC90. You probably need a cell phone. You don’t need the latest iPhone-whatever in the rare color which costs $200 extra. You need a pair of shoes. You don’t need a pair of Giacometti shoes. And so on across myriad purchases of overpriced goods because the consumer gave in to peer pressure or advertising pressure or the desire to peacock in order to signal their worth.

All that, bad as it is, is chicken feed compared to a wasteful, overpriced luxury which most people view as a necessity. You know it as “education”.

You need a way to make a living. For most people, making a living above the bottom rung means acquiring some skill or knowledge that sets them apart and lets them get a high-paying career.

Can any honest adult claim that modern colleges provide employable skills or knowledge to their students?

The vast majority of college degree programs have no hope of being economically useful. In theory, the student could learn how to think and how to research and how the world works no matter what major he goes into. In practice, we know that’s not what happens. Students are indoctrinated, taught what to think rather than how to think. They learn almost nothing of any economic use.

Employers realize this. Many graduates are less employable than they were before they started college. See the recent articles on students with certain degrees or with any degree from certain universities becoming “dispreferred” in today’s tightening job market. (I’m talking about the United States in mid-2024. YMMV in other places and times.)

I keep mentioning the economic value of a college education. There’s a reason for this. There are plenty of reasons to further your education, many having to do with personal improvement or personal fulfillment.

Personal improvement is a worthwhile goal but it needs to be targeted toward achieving some purpose, preferably a purpose whose progress and effect can be measured and which will make you a better person. “Be my best self” ain’t it. “Spend years of my youth and $100,000 with teachers who tell me that I’m a victim and deserve reparations” definitely ain’t it.

Personal fulfillment is almost always a luxury goal. “I always wanted to know more about 18th Century French literature.”

Those might be worthwhile and might not. As something to do in your spare time, great. It’s good to always keep learning, to keep your brain flexible. It’s debatable whether it’s worth spending money on courses. The internet has fulfilled its promise of making the world’s information available to the public for free. Why aren’t you taking advantage of that? What do you gain by listening to a professor in person rather than in a recording? What do you gain by sitting next to bored students who don’t know anything either?

More valuable than your money is your time. Is it the best use of four years of your youth, to take courses which the college thinks you need so that you’ll be “well rounded”? More to the point, do you have the luxury of wasting years of your youth on this?

Another consideration: At age 18, do you really have a deep and abiding interest in 18th Century French literature? Or are you going to college because your parents pushed you to or because of social expectation or because you don’t want to get a job and this lets you put off being a grown-up for a few years, and you needed a major and this didn’t look too hard?

Put it all together and you should think twice and then a third time before planning to go to college straight after high school. You want to become an accountant? Go ahead, if you have the aptitude. You’re not sure what you want to do so why not get some loans and spend the next four to six years figuring out what you want to do? Wave off! Danger, Will Robinson!

Get a job instead. That year you spent picking items in a warehouse might not have advanced your life goals, but you got paid for the time and didn’t go into debt or use your parents’ savings for the time. And maybe you found that driving a forklift is fun and not to difficult and getting the certification was easy enough and now you have a decent-paying job that you can do for a few years. At worst, you’ll have realized that low-end jobs are absolutely not what you want, that firms your resolve to get a good education so you can avoid them, and when you do go to college in a couple years you will make good use of the opportunity and not spend your time screwing around, as many students do.

Or if you want to make your living as a musician or a painter or such, just why are you going to college? Find an artist who makes a living at it who’ll take you on as an apprentice. Even if you don’t get paid for your work, you’re not paying and you’re not wasting your time in writing essays about the effect of the seafood industry on the price of blue paint.

All that said, there is one good reason to attend an Ivy League or other top-rated college: Contacts. Even if you major in something useless and never use anything you learn in class, your Harvard or George Mason classmates will include future political movers and shakers, elite corporate C-suite denizens, and the like. If you talk to as many people as you can, get contact information, and make a bit of effort to stay in contact after graduation, you’ll be in contact with a pool of influencers — real influencers, not puffed-up social media “influencers”.

Your professors can also teach you many things outside of the class’s syllabus. This is available at all colleges, not only the Ivy League. One of my former coworkers was mentored by his advisor in registering patents on tiny changes to existing patents and then licensing them under threat of legal action. Perhaps not the loftiest of careers but apparently it made the prof several hundred thousand per year, almost 30 years ago.

I don’t mean for that example to denigrate this kind of mentoring or additional instruction; it’s simply an example which I saw playing out over a year or so. Aside from the teaching assistants, your instructors will almost always have achieved a good measure of academic success and some will have achieved commercial success or be well-regarded experts in their field. If this interests you, identify these professors and learn all you can from them.

Finally, there’s spouse-hunting. Many years ago, when only a fraction of the young population went to college, it was a good way to meet intelligent, motivated people with good prospects for careers and success. That’s much less true today. With close to half of young Americans continuing schooling past high school, college clearly is no longer exclusive. With inordinately relaxed standards for admission, continuance, and graduation, college does not select for the hard-working, either. Still, some of your classmates will be bright, hard-working, and aimed for success, probably a higher percentage than you’d meet in the workplace or through your mother’s friend group. As I said before, identify them, start talking, and see where it gets you.

Bottom line: Go to college in furtherance of some specific goal, probably monetary in nature, if the payoff will be worth the expense. Go ahead and go if you or your family is rich and won’t be bothered by the expense. Otherwise, get a job, get an apprenticeship, or just spend time on the internet and in the library.

Your bank balance will thank you.

2
1

Indie SciFi/Fantasy Recommendations

Here are some SF/F recommendations by independent authors:

Worm – Wildbow https://parahumans.wordpress.com/

Superheroes and supervillians and a worlds-ending danger. The opening chapters are pretty rough but get past them and he finds his stride.

Pact – Wildbow http://pactwebserial.wordpress.com/
Pale – Wildbow http://palewebserial.wordpress.com/

Fantasy with the viewpoint character dropped into things and having to figure them out to survive. I haven’t read Pale, the sequel, yet but Wildbow says that it was fun to write, so that’s a good sign.

Collective Thinking – Tower Curator https://www.towercurator.com/collective-thinking/

Is the world what it is or what we make of it?

Bitter – mooderino/V Moody http://royalroadl.com/fiction/10293 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078NK1GTV?binding=kindle_edition&ref=dbs_dp_rwt_sb_pc_tkin

Isolated girl sneaks into a virtual world and levels up her life.

How to Avoid Death on a Daily Basis – mooderino/V Moody https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/5288/how-to-avoid-death-on-a-daily-basis

A group of young adults are pulled into a fantasy world. Main character is a jerk, but he’s a pragmatic, survivor jerk. My only complaint is that the tenth book, the series finale, isn’t finished. He started it, threw it away, restarted, threw it away, restarted, gave up. Still, it’s good through the nine completed books.

Mother of Learning – nobody103 https://www.fictionpress.com/s/2961893/1/Mother-of-Learning https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CHSJ19J9?binding=kindle_edition&searchxofy=true&ref_=dbs_s_aps_series_rwt_tkin&sr=8-1

Dropped into a time loop. Make the best of it. Recommended. Very highly recommended.

Super Powereds – Drew Hayes https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074CDM25G?binding=kindle_edition&ref_=dbs_s_ks_series_rwt_tkin&sr=1-1

Superhero also-rans, made good.

A Wand for Skitter – ShayneT https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/a-wand-for-skitter-worm-hp-complete.730018/

Fanfiction of Worm and Harry Potter. Very good, better than most original fiction. OK, I’ll admit that that’s damning with faint praise. Many Crowning Moments of Awesome, and a few humorous reactions to those moments.

Francis Porretto
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/fporretto

Couple dozen shortish novels, most of them vaguely tied together by reference to common characters. This hasn’t been a problem; just blerp over unrecognized names. Consistently high quality. Even with the couple that I didn’t much care for (romance genre just isn’t my thing) I could see the craftsmanship.

Bill Quick
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=william+quick&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=digital-text&rh=p_27%3AW.T.++Quick&s=relevancerank&text=W.T.++Quick&ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1

Good suspense/thriller books. I don’t much care for this genre but they’re well done. The older books are notable for predicting technology and social trends decades in advance. When I read Systems I kept going back to the copyright page to confirm that, yes, it was published in 1989. Just one example: After 9/11, Tom Clancy’s Debt of Honor was pointed at as evidence that someone had thought of flying a plane into a building. Well, Bill beat Clancy by five years.

William Palafox

I’ve read only Sands of the Undead and started another (don’t recall why I stopped reading; busy with work, probably) and was impressed. Genre shifted a couple times, so what it’s about isn’t what you think it’s about.

PS Power
https://pspowerbooks.com/

I have mixed feelings about this. He’s wildly imaginative and was spitting out a short novel every month for years … but the little mistakes drove me up a wall, especially in the earlier works. Also, his series tend to converge into one big universe and you need to read all earlier works to follow what’s going on. Still, they’re creative and mostly enjoyable.

Sarah Hoyt

She’s gone indie so I’m including her here. No introduction should be needed.

2
1

Spending Gap

You’ve heard of the gender wage gap. Unless you’ve just woken up from a thirty-year coma, you’ve had “seventy-nine cents on the dollar!” shoved in your face almost daily since about 1990.

It’s a lie, and everyone except children and imbeciles knows it’s a lie. (Side note: if you find someone who isn’t simply repeating the line for her own benefit but truly believes it, ask which one she is.) But set it aside.

There’s another economic gap, a real one, in the US and most of the Western world. No, I’m not talking about the racial earnings gap. That’s another lie. Nor am I talking about the savings gap, the retirement income gap, or the home ownership gap. Lies, all lies, once you control for factors other than sex, race, and such.

I’m talking about the spending gap.

Women in the US control about 75% of discretionary spending. The exact number is debatable because of fuzziness around the definitions. However, the exact number doesn’t matter. The basic fact is not in dispute. In fact, a number of women’s magazines and business journal tout it. “Women control most of the family’s spending. And that’s as it should be.” “Women drive the consumer economy. Your business plan must recognize this.”

(Another side note: Isn’t it strange how large swathes of law, business, and public policy must be distorted for the tiny fraction of the population which is intersex, nonbinary, or post-op transsexual, but when it comes to studies like these, everyone is either a man or a woman; if there’s any other category, the numbers are too small to affect the results. Strange!)

If we need non-stop ad campaigns and blaming and working groups and corporate promises to “do better” because of a (fictional) 21% pay gap, then surely we need to do something about a (real) 66% gap. Unequal outcomes are plain evidence of discrimination.

I call for a public awareness campaign to call attention to this situation. An inequity has already become an iniquity. We need to stop it before it gets worse. This campaign should be funded to thrice the level of the past forty years of “wage gap” campaigning, to reflect the relative injustice.

I call for a government watchdog commission to monitor floor space in retail outlets, advertising, and number of products in both physical stores and online shops.

If the spending gap is not rectified in a timely fashion, I call for regulation of commerce. It is unlikely that merchants will willingly reduce their profits in the name of equity, so they must be forced. Quotas may be needed if guidelines do not result in equality. If every corporation had men filling at least 50% of its board, executives, and C-suite, this would give a voice to those currently discriminated against. There is no acceptable reason not to mandate this.

Discrimination of any kind cannot be tolerated. The difference in consumer spending is proof of discrimination. Any steps necessary to eliminate it are not only justified but required.

The Daily Donnybrook, and other fine things

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

Mike @Substack

New Eyrie posts go up on Mondays and Fridays, although the time of day may (and usually does) vary. Mike’s latest Eyrie offering is available for perusal here: Screamin’ meemie Monday!

Please do consider subscribing to The Eyrie, gang; all subscribers receive email notification whenever each new post goes live, and a paid sub is required to unlock commenting privileges.

Of Toddlers and Termagants

Following has some analysis and some prescription but is mostly a rant. Ignore if you wish. I understand fully.

“My wife tried to tell me I was wrong and that this is what happened back then. It didn’t sound right to me so I checked it online and found that I was right all along. Of course, I’m not dumb enough to send her the link showing that I was right.”

I came across that (heavily reworded) statement a while ago. It annoyed me considerably. What kind of pampered babies have Western women become, that they cannot tolerate being told that they were wrong, or even that someone disagrees with them? What kind of harridans are men putting up with?

What kind of spoiled child has to get her own way in everything?

Worse: How badly beaten down or pussified are Western men to put up with having to tiptoe around wives and girlfriends, always careful never to give offense or to dent their precious egos or do something that they don’t like?

I’ve come across any number of similar statements, in person, in articles, and online in various fora and message boards. “I’d like to be able to let you stay until your apartment is ready but my wife wouldn’t like it.” “I wanted to go hunting last month but my wife didn’t want me to.” Or worse: “I’d kept my rifles in the closet for years and it was no big deal but when I mentioned that Dan was putting together a hunting trip she remembered that I had them and made me sell them.” (Unlike the above, those statements are not taken straight from something I saw recently.)

Here’s a hint: “Happy Wife, Happy Life” is a lie. It was always a lie. I don’t know where it started but it was not with an honest person who knew anything about family dynamics.

There are pragmatic reasons why a husband would avoid giving offense. Almost the entirety of the US (and almost the entirety of the Anglosphere) is subject to no fault divorce. Almost all of the US population is subject to the Duluth model for handling domestic complaints: if the police are called, they almost automatically arrest the man and leave the woman and the children in the house, no matter whose house it is, who called the police, who was committing the offense, or who has been injured. The entirety of the US (and I believe the entirety of the Anglosphere) gives de facto child custody to the mother, regardless of fitness as a parent. “Equitable” distribution of marital assets almost always favors the woman, especially if the woman can cry on command or can lie convincingly. There’s reputational damage, with family and friends often taking her side — “What did you do to make her upset?” — without hearing your side and employers sometimes firing him because of the “scandal” or because she’s called the front desk six times in the past week.

In short, husbands stand to lose half or even all of everything they have as soon as their wives are “not happy”.

Once a man is in a marriage for more than a few months and the assets have been commingled, it’s probably too late for him to cleanly get away from a temperamental wife. Once children are born, it’s definitely too late. Oh, he can leave a harridan or he can retain his autonomy with the expectation that she’ll kick him out, but only at the risk of losing everything.

I’m not going to complain about unfairness or double standards or even violation of Constitutional rights. Such an approach has any useful effect approximately never.

Instead, I’ll point out that the double standards are bad for society. It should not have escaped anyone’s notice that marriage rates are at an all-time low. (Acknowledging that some dispute this by playing with definitions and time scales.) The birth rate among American citizens, specifically among citizen women, is below replacement level. Significantly below, which translates to self-genocide if nothing changes. If not for immigration (both legal and invasion) the population within US borders would be decreasing.

The poor economy could explain some of the declining birth rate but not the declining marriage rate. If marriage were as good a deal as is claimed for men, the benefits would be worth putting up with temper tantrums and maybe even the likelihood of a surprise divorce.

That’s not what we’re seeing, though. Men are avoiding marriage because they see what happens to the men who take the leap. It’s a bad risk economically, even if he isn’t bankrupted by divorce and child support. Simply being married almost inevitably means that expenses are going to go way up: bigger house or apartment, new furniture, she needs a new car and not a beater, expensive gifts for her endless list of friends who are getting married or are having a baby, et cetera ad paupertātem.

“Two can live as cheaply as one” may have been true in my grandparents’ day. It was no longer true by the late 1960s, when lifestyle expectations were rocketing.

A single man in the United States can live on about $27,000 per year, before taxes. He’ll need more in an expensive area but less if he’s away from the cities, and if he’s single there’s less keeping him in an expensive locale. A married man in the US needs — “needs” — to make almost twice as much if his wife works or more than twice as much if she doesn’t. That’s a lot more hours that he needs to spend on the job, or a more dirty-difficult-dangerous job, or less money to spend on things that he wants, or less money to save for his own retirement.

If Western women were pleasant to be around, if wives made their husbands’ lives better, the expense would be worth it. Men have been making that trade since forever.

But that’s not what we’re seeing. That’s where this essay started.

Instead, we have a large fraction, probably a majority, of husbands needing to tread carefully at home. A home which is not really comfortable because the wife always wants to change something, whether rearranging the furniture or completely remodeling the kitchen. A home which he doesn’t see as much as he’d like because he needs to pick up extra shifts in order to bring in enough money. There may be children, whom he doesn’t see as much as he’d like, children who are being conditioned by society to see him as the source of all of the world’s problems. Children who may be taken from him any time his wife decides that he’s not happy.

And that’s what we’re seeing. Men see all this and decide that marriage isn’t worth it.

If anything, it’s surprising that as many as six out of a thousand are getting married every year in the US and somewhat fewer getting into all-but-the-name long-term relationships. I mark it down to the triumph of hope over reason. I expect the trend to continue downward unless there’s a major change to the legal and social structure, changing the cost-benefit balance. I don’t see a change to women’s attitudes to marriage and husbands, absent a major shock to the economy which makes women need men in order to survive, rather than sorta kinda want one around as long as it’s convenient for her.

Today’s situation in the US and much of the West is actually worse than if there were almost no marriages and almost no children. Women are having children and then raising them with no father figure or with a father who’s present very seldom, by his choice or hers. Or, worst of all, with a series of replaceable male presences who do very little fathering but either are sources of cash for the mothers or are drones.

This is a recipe for raising feral children. And this is what we see. When we look at the demographics of career criminals, young, unmarried mothers, the persistently unemployed, and other socially deleterious groups, the absence of a strong father figure stands out.

The Great Society and the follow-on programs have done a splendid job of destroying American society. I’ll assume that LBJ and the rest were well-intentioned fools, but I have to wonder. It’s hard to imagine a deliberate attack which could have done the job any better.

That’s the rant and the analysis, each of which have gone well afield of the starting point. Here’s the prescription.

Western society needs to get its act together and straighten out the imbalance, if they want to reverse the birth crash. Society needs men to be an active part of the family, as single-mother households are proving to be a disaster so far as raising a successful, productive next generation goes. Society needs men to work more than the minimum to support themselves, in order to have the economic excess needed to support women as they age and don’t want to work.

In order to get men to burden themselves for that, society needs to make it worthwhile for the men. What form that could take, I have no idea. We aren’t going to be returning to the 1930s family and legal structure. Without some form of authority within the family and respect for being a family man, I don’t see a way to get enough men to accept the burden and the risk for the meager benefits currently on offer.

That’s for the movers and shakers and string pullers to deal with. On an individual basis, make it clear when you start dating that you’re not going to tiptoe around things that she doesn’t want to hear. You can be gentle with unwanted truths but never censor yourself because you don’t want her to break down crying or break into a rage. Don’t let her tell you how you have to change in order to make her happy. Don’t tolerate her throwing away your possessions or demanding you get rid of them because she doesn’t like them.

If she starts crying or starts screaming or starts giving you the silent treatment, I suggest walking away. At most, give her a single warning that you won’t put up with it. If she tries to hit you or throw something at you or starts smashing your possessions, walk away immediately. Calling the police or punching her in the face are optional.

You can do better than a bully or a baby. Your life will be better without a bully or a baby.

3

CF Archives

Categories

Comments policy

NOTE: In order to comment, you must be registered and approved as a CF user. Since so many user-registrations are attempted by spam-bots for their own nefarious purposes, YOUR REGISTRATION MAY BE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.

If you are in fact a legit hooman bean desirous of registering yourself a CF user name so as to be able to comment only to find yourself caught up as collateral damage in one of my irregularly (un)scheduled sweeps for hinky registration attempts, please shoot me a kite at the email addy over in the right sidebar and let me know so’s I can get ya fixed up manually.

ALSO NOTE: You MUST use a valid, legit email address in order to successfully register, the new anti-spam software I installed last night requires it. My thanks to Barry for all his help sorting this mess out last night.

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit.

Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar.

Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

CF Glossary

ProPol: Professional Politician

Vichy GOPe: Putative "Republicans" who talk a great game but never can seem to find a hill they consider worth dying on; Quislings, Petains, Benedicts, backstabbers, fake phony frauds

Fake Phony Fraud(s), S'faccim: two excellent descriptors coined by the late great WABC host Bob Grant which are interchangeable, both meaning as they do pretty much the same thing

Mordor On The Potomac: Washington, DC

The Enemy: shitlibs, Progtards, Leftards, Swamp critters, et al ad nauseum

Burn, Loot, Murder: what the misleading acronym BLM really stands for

pAntiFa: an alternative spelling of "fascist scum"

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Correspondence

Email addy: mike-at-this-url dot etc

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless specified as private by the sender

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media: A few people worth following on Gab:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster

“When I was young I was depressed all the time. But suicide no longer seemed a possibility in my life. At my age there was very little left to kill.”
Charles Bukowski

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
Donald Sensing

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved."
Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil."
Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork."
David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine."
Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it."
NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in."
Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Finest hosting service

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2026