XKCD Flubs One, Big Time

XKCD put up acomic yesterday  that caused widespread disappointment in my little corner of the interwebs.  Seems Randall has decided to post up a comic touting the most unconservative, radical predictions of the IPCC reports as being inevitable if we don’t do something drastic, and NOW. 

I immediately thought about Borepatch’s comparisons between the models used by the IPCC and the actual data of the years passed since the models were created, which shows pretty clearly that the models are way overstating something, somewhere.  The reality of the measurements show a slight warming that is orders of magnitude less than the models predict.  Which, as it were, is exactly what I would expect reality to show in this situation.  

Wait, what? 

Yes, dear reader, I actually do believe that the globe is, or at least, WAS, warming.  The data is incontrovertible, even if it is somewhat suspect, due to it being contaminated by massive siting errors.  There hasn’t been any statistically significant warming in 17 years now.  Amazingly enough, no one seems to be talking about that, except us “deniers.” 

Here are some charts.  See if you can spot the catastrophic warming. 

 

Can you see the catastrophic warming?

My problem with the environmentalists is not that they believe that the world is warming up, or even that humans are having an effect on it.  My problem with them is that they seem to draw some pretty strange conclusions from that fact, such as: 

The Government is the Solution (toevery problem)  

The Climate change debate is widely touted as a “failure” of democracy to step up and “fix” a massive, worldwide problem.  In essence, in a time when drastic action is needed to save the world, we need dictatorial powers, not democracy. 

But National Journal's Lucia Graves takes a different approach. Instead of denying that Obama's actions are dictatorial, she disputes Limbaugh's implicit premise that there's anything wrong with that. Lest you think we exaggerate, her piece is titled "Obama's Thankfully 'Dictatorial' Approach to Climate Change."According to Graves, Limbaugh "has it precisely backward: The decision to use executive authority is the means, not the ends." And you'll never guess what justifies the means: "It also makes a lot of sense when it comes to global warming given Congress's failure to pass the Waxman-Markey energy bill in 2009, and, for decades before that, to pass any sort of comprehensive climate legislation whatsoever."Yes, it has come to this. Americans are being urged to submit to "dictatorial" government because democracy is incapable of controlling the weather. "In college classes, climate change is taught as a textbook example of where democracy fails," Graves asserts in the very first sentence of her column.

Yes, gentle reader, democracy has failed in the eyes of the CAGW advocates, because it has failed to control the weather.  Their preferred fix to all of this is technocracy – the centralized command and control of energy policy, by an enlightened few who will turn the knobs of power in the best interest of the human race.

Sound familiar? 

Stalin: Mass Murderer (~25 million)

Che Guevara: Mass Murderer (~2 million)

Franscisco Franco: Mass Murderer (~500k)

Mao Zedong: Mass Murderer (~40 million)

Adolf Hitler: Mass Murderer (~20 million)

Benito Mussolini: Mass Murderer (Body Count Unknown)

I shan't go on, but I could. There are many more, and most of them are absolute dreamboats to these types. Hopefully I've made my point?

What is it with these types that causes them to think that a method of control that has proven itself time and time again to be wholly incapable of handling anything at all, other than to hand down misery and slavery, to be the best way to deal with everything?  Why do these people rush so quickly to clamor for a master in every little aspect of their lives?  Centralized command and control has never worked well, and has been routinely embarrassed by the invisible hand of the free market innumerable times in its miserable lifetime, and yet leftists, progressives, environmentalists, and their ilk seem to think that it is the solution to everything.  As if altruistic, enlightened people exist who will be able to wield such power ethically, ever. 

Look at how happy!  If only the "right people" had been in charge!  Right comrade?  

As has happened so many times before, I’m certain that the green technology that actually does take over will not even remotely resemble the “preferred” technology that the government spends massive amounts of money promoting and supporting now.  All of that time, labor, effort, wealth and resources will go to waste, because no matter how many times the government attempts to pick winners and losers, history and reality end up proving them misguided in the end. Te government is absolutely awful at picking winnners.

"Not you..."

The models trump reality.  

I see it quite a bit, where people use the model predictions in place of actual data.  For instance, they’ll say “we’ve warmed a total of 2.2 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years!” when in actuality, the number if closer to 1.1.  So where, you wonder, did they get the 2.2?  Upon review, you discover that it is the number that the models said we’d be at today, when reality says we’re not there yet.  However, they tout the model numbers as if they’re real.

Pictured: an actual P-51 Mustang

I don’t know if this is out of ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but given the whole “hide the decline” and the actions of Michael Mann and his ilk to obfuscate, hide, and obliterate their study data that created these dire predictions, I’m guessing the latter.  The rampant dishonesty on the CAGW side of this debate should be enough to turn people off to them, but I don’t think that the dishonesty has gotten wide enough reportage for most people to even know that it is happening, which is unfortunate. 

The warming will definitely be catastrophic.

My opponents on many matters are spectacularly adept at creating straw men out of my arguments, and then tearing them down with relish.  As a libertarian, I’m constantly accused of being an anarchist, as if the desire for the least amount of government possible is the same thing for “no government at all.”  As a skeptic of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) scare, I’m considered an anti-science idiot who won’t accept that  the science of CO2 warming the atmosphere is “settled.”  As an advocate of equality between the genders, I’m routinely accused of being a misogynist that wants all women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

I do all of my own cooking, ladies!

But let us look into that claim of “settled science” a bit, and see what, exactly, is meant by “settled” when we’re talking about client science.  First, as most of you have heard, no science is ever “settled.”  Reality has a way of rearing its head and tearing down your silly little “settled” sciences.  That being said, there are parts of the science that make up the whole of CAGW theory that are as close to “settled” as science is capable of being.

The “settled” part of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) discussion is this:  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect, which will result in a warming of the atmosphere.  Full stop.

This is not being debated by any reasonable-minded people.  That science is settled.  When the CAGW advocates tout the “97% of scientists agree that global warming exists” statistic, that is all they are saying – that 97% of polled scientists believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in a warming influence. 

That is all that the poll question asked though.  It did not ask for opinions about the results of this warming influence: whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing, what magnitude of warming to expect, and so forth.  Again, going down dishonest pathways, they surreptitiously bend these results to mean that 97% of scientists agree with the theory of CAGW, which is not even close to true.  In fact, it appears from a recent poll that a minority of scientists agree with CAGW theory at all, and that even more of them, while saying that CAGW is possible, are cautious about agreeing that it is inevitable, or even likely. 

In one of the most epic straw-men in history, the CAGW crowd has taken widespread agreement of a recognized scientific fact, and twisted it into “proof” that CAGW theory is correct.  There is a huge gap in their thinking, though, and it comes in the huge gap between the slight warming caused by Co2, and the catastrophic warming that their theory relies on.  I’ve spoken to this before, that CO2, alone, cannot create the catastrophic warming that they fear.  Even the most rigid adherent to CAGW theory does not dispute this.  That science is also more or less “settled.”  Thedisputed part will be the much-feared multiplier “feedback” effects createdfrom various sources.  I won’t belabor the point here.  Click the link to read more about those effects.  The fact, though, that CAGW advocates won’t tell you is that there is nothing even remotely close to “settled” about the science behind these feedback effects.  That is the essence of the difference between my stance on this subject, and theirs.  Mine is that CO2 will warm us a bit, that the overall effect of that will be positive, as warmer eras of human history have generally been more prosperous, and that we likely have nothing to worry about (not that we could do a damn thing about it, even if we did!)  Theirs is that the slight warming will send us past a “tipping point” of no return, in which feedback effects, triggered by the small warming influence of CO2, will spiral us into thermal death. 

Pictured: Earth 2064

The preponderance of the evidence that we have does not support these feedback effects being nearly as strong as the CAGW people think, and in fact, more and more evidence is coming out daily showing the feedbacks may very well be negative instead of positive, in essence contravening the warming effects of CO2. 

Attempting to cut emissions will accomplish a fucking thing. 

All previous efforts to curb or cut CO2 emissions have failed laughably.  They’ve failed so badly, so often, and so early in their attempts that most of the governments who attempt to enforce these limits give up soon after.  The idea that humanity is using a whole bunch of energy that they don’t need, and that we could cut back if we really tried hard, falls flat on its face with one realization:

Energy is fucking expensive. 

No one is in the habit of consciously using more energy than they need.  Very few people are in the habit of ignorantly using energy that they could do without.  I am not in the habit of using a bunch more energy than I really need in order to maintain a western-world standard of living.  It’s hotter than hell in Spokane in the summer, but my house doesn’t have air conditioning, because I’m too cheap to pay for it.  We just suffer through it.  Could I cut back?  Yes.  So could every other human on Earth, but in order to do so, you will have to cut back on long-established standards of living that have become the norm for those people.  To make a person who has become used to a 72 degree house not use air conditioning in the summer, or not heat their home in the winter, you can’t ask nicely.  You have to FORCE that on them.  To cut back the hours of a factory worker in Bangladesh to reduce the emissions of his factory, you have to FORCE that on him.  When the core of your policy becomes “do as I say, whether you want to or not, or else there will be consequences!” you’ve essentially failed.  It won’t work.  People will get what they want, regardless of your policies and your dictatorial threats.

Beyond that, though, one must ask what the use of the US cutting their emissions, say, 25%, at great economic cost and at greatly reduced standard of living to its people, if India and China will make up for that difference next year with their increased emissions? 

The entire idea of it is laughable.  Not that cutting emissions wouldn’t be a decent goal, but just that actually making that happen is simply impossible.  It cannot be done.  I’m not a pessimist, generally speaking, but I’m realistic enough to understand that you simply can not cut back on a people’s energy usage without negatively impacting their standard of living in huge ways, and people aren’t going to do that willingly.  Hence, the desire for dictatorial government powers to force that on them against their will. 

All of this causes one to wonder if the end game here isn’t environmental policy at all, but instead, is those dictatorial powers that Ms. Graves was soliloquizing about above.

But in the end, I’m not worried about anything BUT that power grab.  That power grab has been the thing that has proven itself time and again to be the largest source of misery to humanity of all things.  We survived ice ages and hot ages many times, all while having far less technology than we do now to deal with it.  Hundreds of millions of people died in just the 20^th century alone because of the good intentions of people seeking dictatorial powers. 

I’m confident that the predictions are much more dire than reality will prove to be.  I’m confident that the free markets will fill the demand for clean energy as those technologies come online, without government urging and payola, and without cronyist deals and under-the-table handshakes.  I’m confident that the change that we actually see will be far less than that feared, and that the change will be more good than bad. 

I’m also confident that handing the government “dictatorial” powers, as suggested in the earlier linked article, to “fix” this problem will result in far greater problems and misery for humanity, as a whole, than any of the problems that that choice would seek to fix. 

Pictured: Nutritional standards in the centralized command and control state of North Korea

But more than anything else, I’m absolutely confident that there is literally nothing we can do about it in the near term.  No matter how much governments wish for it, or how many failed and expensive laws they pass mandating emissions cuts that no one has any intention of meeting, or how much money they throw at their preferred “green” technology, the end result will almost inevitably be entirely different than they anticipated in the first place. 

"Stupid Tides!"

Something I wish I’d written, part eleventy-majillion

I’ll just let this little quote from this awesome article sum up my thoughts on the situation completely:

There is a booming industry of authors and pundits — mostly successful women — assessing other women’s abilities to balance work and everything else: “Lean In.” “The Confidence Gap.” “Knowing Your Value.” “The Tiger Mom.” “Thrive.” Sometimes the theme is subtle, sometimes it’s explicit: American women, you’re doing it wrong! Read my book to learn how to do it right!I am speaking broadly, and generalizing when I make this next statement: Men do worry about this sort of thing, but they don’t talk about it. They’re generally less likely to obsess about it, and/or publicly beat themselves up about it. There are not nearly as many bestsellers about the struggles of working fathers, magazine covers asking “Can Men Have It All?”, daddy blogs with passionate arguments and comments sections aflame, etc. For the most part, for better or worse, men get up and go to work and just deal with it. Any choice they make is going to have trade-offs. They will probably never be the workers they want to be and the spouse they want to be and the father they want to be, and the friend they want to be and all of the other roles simultaneously. That last word is important.Working moms, trust me. Most of you are doing just fine. You’re doing better than you think. Stop letting immensely wealthy women make you feel like you’re not living your life correctly!

  

That’ll about do it. 

You see this a lot in the early feminist movement – women looking at what men were doing and envying it.  They saw a man leaving the home and earning a living as having something that they could never achieve as a stay at home mother and wife.  Maybe that’s true, but the fact is, that feeling they were getting that had them asking “is this all there is?”….

…Yeah, we men felt that, too.  We feel it all the time.  I feel it a couple times a month when I get out of bed and stare down both barrels of another goddamned day in the office fighting with subcontractors and the typical problems that a day in commercial construction management can offer.  I consider the fact that I’m going to spend another ten hours away from my daughter, who I would much rather spend the day with playing in the yard than arguing with an obstinate supplier.  I wish that I had more time.  I wish I could be a better father.  I wish all these things, but I recognize that it is literally impossible to “have it all” as these books try to convince women. You have to make choices, and tradeoffs, and the world is NOT unfair as a result.  That’s just the way it is.  You have to set priorities, and let some things suffer in order to get other things done.  I see women complaining about this all the time – how to balance work, home, play, etc. as if this is something special to the female condition, but it isn’t.  I make tradeoffs every day, just like all men do, and all human beings do, it’s just the men complain about it less.  We prioritize, and recognize that some things will suffer in exchange for other things blossoming.   My job isn’t “wage slavery” and I enjoy it, but I don’t search for happiness through it.  If I got fired tomorrow, it wouldn’t change my happiness one bit.

True “wage slavery” can be just as unfulfilling as home making.  Even less so in a lot of ways, because at least at home you’re laboring for those you love.  But women saw it as liberating and empowering, without understanding that being forced to work at a job you hate to make money for your family isn’t either of those things. They traded working for THEIR man, for working for THE man, and many realized early on that they weren’t happy, and though “Well, fuck, I must be doing it wrong, because these men doing this seem happy!”  They forget that most people can’t, or won’t, find happiness through their job.  If you’re trying to find happiness THROUGH anything at all, you’ll most likely be disappointed.  Those men they saw?  Those men were having the same doubts as they were; the same concerns that they had that they weren’t doing it right; weren’t spending enough time with their families, weren’t working hard enough to get that raise, weren’t promoting fast enough… 

…We men worry about those same things, but we just aren’t as vocal about it as many women are, and so women voicing those concerns drown out the discussion. 

Mostly, what I’ve found is that people who seek happiness through their career, both men and women alike, are fucking miserable people.  I had a friend that fell into this habit, and he became a complete miserable cocksucker to be around.  I stopped hanging out with him, and lost all contact with him as a result, because the only thing he cared about was that next promotion, that next big score, that next raise. 

His family dissolved around him, and he finally realized that he was miserable.  His career wasn’t giving him happiness.  His family was, but he was ignoring them – the only true source of happiness he had. 

He quit his job, cut back on expenses, and is living a much happier life now. 

As for wage inequality, it’s been shown time and again that women are choosing to have lower paying jobs than men on purpose, for various reasons related to their personal preferences.  This isn’t an unfairness issue, it’s just a matter of personal preference.  Women are choosing to get paid less in exchange for other things, such as lower stress levels, less physical labor demands, decreased levels of critical responsibility, and more time off.  That may offend you, but it is the god’s honest, proven truth.  The “wage gap” doesn’t exist in real terms, when you compare like jobs.  The “wage gap” exists because women are choosing, for their own reasons, to get paid less. 

And that is okay!  There is nothing wrong with that! 

The final point in the article is the point I really want to focus on, and it’s this:  you’re doing just fine!  Relax a little and enjoy yourself! 

SHARKS! IN! SPAAAAAAAACCCCE!

XKCD is a bit disturbing today. 

It is disturbing on a multiple levels, because it makes you ask some questions that you may not want to know the answer to. 

First and foremost, you might ask, what IS the Fermi paradox?  Good question! That’s why I love you so, dear reader!  You ask the best questions! 

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.^[1] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi andMichael H. Hart, are:·         The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in thegalaxy that are billions of years older;
·         some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets^[2]which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
·         presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
·         at any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

Got it?  The Fermi paradox is simply an expression of confusion with the fact that most scientists believe that it is absolutely inevitable that Earth is not the only life-bearing planet in the universe, and that given the sheer number of planets, that Earth is almost certainly not the only one to support intelligent life, and that given that our sun is not that old in the grand scheme of things, it is almost just as certain that there are civilizations out there that are much more advanced than ours. 

So why haven’t we made contact with them yet, or them with us?  If nothing else, why have we been unable to find any evidence of them at all? 

There are many different, competing and complimentary hypotheses about why, but the XKCD comic today presents what is possibly the most disturbing:

All other advanced civilizations, who would otherwise incidentally emit evidence of their existence, are deliberately concealing those emissions, and therefore the evidence of their existence, for reasons of survival, in the same way that a flounder is colored like the ocean bottom to avoid being eaten by sharks. 

So what, one might ask, are they hiding from?  

How the left would LIKE for the first amendment to read:

The right to freedom of speech is really important.  It is so super important that everyone should, like, totally have freedom of speech.  Unless groups of people get together to use their free speech; those groups should not have freedom of speech, because only a PERSON should have freedom of speech, and PEOPLE are not a PERSON.  Except for unions, who don’t fall under the category of groups of people that shouldn’t have free speech, because they support causes that I like, so they are exempt.  Also, if a group of people has a lot of money, they should not have freedom of speech.  Again, except for unions, for the reasons listed above.  Finally, the right to freedom of speech is so important that we want to make sure it is protected to the fullest extent of the law, and that people who abuse their freedom of speech are likewise prosecuted or punished to the fullest extent of the law.  

The VA Scandal as an Example of Why Single Payer Doesn't Work

It was not all that long ago that leftists were holding out the VA as a shining example of how successful a government operated, single-payer healthcare system can be in America.

Now, as those with half a brain suspected all along, the VA has been exposed to be nothing more than a rotten bureaucracy, with more people working to protect and expand that bureaucracy than to actually provide the service that the bureaucracy was intended to provide. 

They attempt to scoff and dismiss this as a faux-scandal, and claim that the people drumming on this are just playing politics and trying to gain political ground by pointing it out.  I have no doubt that many of the people bringing this to light have exactly that intent in doing so, and would be participating in the cover up, themselves, had they been in power when the scandal broke, but that is entirely irrelevant.

People died because VA executives were more interested in lying about long wait times so that they could make bonus money, than they were in actually, you know, FIXING THE PROBLEM WITH THE WAIT TIMES. 

The problem with single payer, government run systems is that the left sees them as a paragon of virtue, not corrupted by the drive for profit like private healthcare systems.  They are completely blind to the fact that:

1. 1.       Government cannot be a paragon of virtue any more than private industry, and in fact, does not have any driver to be such, other than the altruism of the people running the show.  If you’re relying on the altruism of people who have risen to the top of a government bureaucracy to ensure the virtue of your organization, then you will find, invariably, that that organization will not be virtuous. 
2.  
3. 2.       The same drivers that exist to drive a private corporation to profit, exist in a government bureaucracy in the form of cost cutting and budget management.  When you reward your top executives with bonus pay to make key performance indicator goals, you drive them to make those goals in any way they can in the same way that profit supposedly drives the same in private industry.  In private industry, however, the method to make those goals cannot be cutting services to clients, because they will simply go elsewhere, and the goals will not be met.  In Single payer, the method to make those goals is almost invariably cutting services to clients, because the driver of competition does not exist, and the primary objective of any bureaucrat is to protect and expand the bureaucracy at all costs, not to provide services.  The only way to avoid this is to rely on whistleblowers and the virtue of top executives.  Neither of those are good options, as proven by this VA scandal, where whistleblowers were ignored, and top executives were not virtuous.  40 people died waiting for services at just one VA hospital, while the bureaucrats lied on paperwork in order to hide the long wait times and still get their bonuses. 
4.  
5. 3.       A single payer system denies the user any recourse.  Similar to any other dealing with the government, including, for instance, the Department of Motor Vehicles, you have no other option.  You encounter surly, inefficient, slow service at the DMV, and when you complain about it, I’ve always found the response a refreshing bit of honesty.  Where else are you going to go?  What are you going  to do about it?  You HAVE to deal with us.  You have no other choice.  Now sit down in that chair right there and wait for your number, plebe.  The VA scandal has shown us that this is how it will be with government run medical services, also.  Where else are you going to go?  We don’t honestly give two hot shits about your “health problems.”  Shut up and we’ll get to you when we feel like it.  I’ve got paperwork to fill out to make sure I get my bonus.  Saving you gains me nothing.  This form gains me an additional 20% of my salary.  So sit down, and shut up, and if I’m lucky, you’ll die before I have to deal with you. 

This VA scandal is a perfect example of why single payer systems are cruelty defined.  The VA was held up as a paragon of the single-payer model only a paltry few months ago.  I agree.  It IS the model of single payer, by which we should all judge such a system.  It is exactly the paragon of the system that they tout.  Wait times and death by uncaring bureaucracy.  Cutting wait times by faking paperwork instead of actually cutting wait times.  Allowing people to die – to literally die – without care in order to protect and expand your bureaucracy, and your bonus check. 

To those of us with free-thinking minds, this is the logical result of putting the government in charge of health care.  To those among us who have consumed the “government uber alles” koolaid, this is a massive blow to their worldview, and I would expect them to attempt in any way possible to minimize the true impact of this scandal.  

OMG, You Guys, I'm Like, So Totes Racist and Stuff!

So NPR says that maybe, just MAYBE, racism might not be the ONLY reason that people dislike President Obama.  Holy fucking shit….

Let’s see…

He’s participated in turning an economic downturn into a decade-long recession.

He’s extra-judicially murdered American citizens.

He’s spoken down to me at every opportunity that he could find, telling me that I’m stupid, bitter, idiotic, angry, and flawed, all while explaining to me that my decision to work hard and become successful was not my doing, but the doing of his benevolent government that allowed me to be such, and that other people are owed their “fair share” of what I’ve earned for my family.

He’s given untold billions of dollars of your and my money to bankers that were little more than crooks, and failed business models in order to prop up his political allies, against our will and all the while telling us to shut up and take our medicine. 

He’s smuggled guns to Mexican gangsters, resulting in his becoming an accessory to the murder of an American LEO by his own laws, and told us that we were being childish for being upset about that.

He’s ignored attacks on American soil, and allowed American citizens and Marines to die on American soil, defending American soil, because actually doing something to help them would have hurt his re-election campaign. 

He has become insanely wealthy during his tenure as President, and at the same time, lectured me ad nauseum about how cruel and inhumane I am for not wanting to give away my hard earned wealth to take care of the indolent and stupid, all while his own family members starve in Africa and his aunt lives in poverty, on welfare, as illegal immigrant in the US. 

He has taken every opportunity that he can to whittle away at our Constitutional Rights, including those of security in our own possessions, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to trial and representation at trial, the 10^th amendment in its entirety….  I will not go on, but I don’t have the urge or the energy to write it all out.  Maybe commenters can help with a few more…

But yeah, really, the only reason I dislike him is totes because he’s black, you guys.  I’m racerist as fuck.  And stuff.    

I know, I know…  BUT BUSH DID SOME OF THOSE THINGS, TOO!!!! 

Yeah, I didn’t really like him, either…  So what does that make me?  A white, anglo-saxon, protestant male hater? 

Or just a person who disagrees with his President’s actions while in office?  

More on Elliot, the Coward.

Elliot was a coward.  He was a pathetic excuse for a man.  He had reasonably good looks, money, and came from a somewhat well-known family, and was still a virgin at 20 something, despite his best efforts.  His failure was that of a man too solipsistic to recognize that other people are more than just actors in his own personal drama.  He couldn’t understand why people didn’t like him, because he had no concept of what it meant to be likeable. 

Like so many other things in life, getting people to do things for you, and act in the way that you want them to act is more often an exercise in changing YOURSELF than it is manipulating those around you.  If you want to be valued, be valuable.  If you want to be liked, be likeable.  If you want to get fucked, be fuckable. 

Feminists claim that PUAs drove him insane.  PUAs claim that his lack of “game” drove him insane.

My guess is that his insanity is what drove him insane.  There was something wrong in his head, that kept him from recognizing that very simple truth.  But I also blame the lies told to us by feminism to a large extent.   If his insanity was pre-existing, his inability to reconcile between the lies he was told as to how things are, and the actual reality of things was certainly a trigger.   

It was the cognitive dissonance created in his head when he lived exactly the life that feminists wanted him to live – that of an emasculated, wussified, compliant white knight “nice guy” – and was rejected by women right and left because what feminism says women want, and what they actually WANT, are two different things. 

He could not wrap his diseased little brain around the fact that feminism is a lie, and always will be a lie, and that women who buy into the feminist line are lying to themselves as much as they are lying to anyone. 

A woman who is not a lesbian will want to have a relationship with a man.  The things that describe Elliot:

Solipsistic, selfish, weak, emasculated, whiney, compliant, groveling, bitter… the list goes on and on, but the point is that these things, which describe Elliot as a person? 

None of those things fall within the definition of a man. 

I don’t subscribe to the red pill/blue pill comparison that many men’s rights advocates use, mainly because by their definition I’ve always been red pill, and never understood how a person could so fully believe the lies that they are told daily that it defines their entire reality, but people like Elliot make me think that maybe they are on to something. Elliot lived the very definition of the blue pill life.  He allowed people to lie to him, and he believed those lies.  He was unwilling to see the truth through those lies, and as soon as the truth of reality had deviated so far from the lies that he thought defined reality that he could no longer explain it away, his entire view of the world fell down around him.

Feminism told him what women want, and it was a lie.  When following that direction failed demonstrably, and the people acting in exactly the opposite manner were achieving the result that he sought, instead of looking inward and discovering that he’d been lied to, he lashed out because “people weren’t acting the way they were supposed to.”  As if such a thing could ever exist.  People are people.  They act how they want to, not how they’re “supposed to.”  Always have. Welcome to Earth, motherfucker. 

Red pill/blue pill, indeed.