You Have To Learn To Cope With Choice And Freedom

Recently, Roosh wrote this :

“People Should Not Be Allowed Unlimited Personal Freedom

Most Americans, if you give them freedom and a life without restrictions, will almost certainly dive head-first into a life of absolute degeneracy and vice. They will pursue fleeting pleasures of the body, including alcohol use, drug abuse, and casual sex. They will make colossal mistakes with their education that put them into debt for life. They will seek out fame, attention, and validation instead of developing genuine skill or competency. They will permanently disfigure their bodies with tattoos and ear gauges. They will experiment with homosexuality or an artificially invented gender identity. They will overindulge in food and mindless entertainment. They will not educate themselves unless there is a bag of money at the end of their efforts. They will lie, cheat, and rationalize the hurting of others. The more freedom you give to the average person, the more they will harm not only themselves but others whom they come across.

I don’t have to look farther than myself to see how damaging freedom can be. Left to my own devices without expert guidance, I picked the incorrect major in college, leading to ten years of wasted time in the field of microbiology. I pursued sexual vice for over a decade that was fun and exciting only for the moment, and which has left me with no more than a handful of meaningful human connections and memories that produce just as much lamentation as happiness. And I strained existing relations with my family and friends to nearly lose myself in third-world countries when I thought that I would “find myself” instead.”

I agree with some things, but not others:

Disagree

First of all, I don’t think unlimited freedom is the problem. USA, which he uses as an example of a free country, contains some of the most cruel prisons in the world. Also, it’s ironic that the land of the free has such a huge percentage of its population incarcerated. While Americans are free in lots of ways, they have to be careful, lest they run into major trouble created by their own government. If you ever start feeling like your life is too free of hardship, you can always find it again, easily.

Agree

He’s saying there is too much superficial kind of freedom, and too little belonging and meaning in life:

“Most humans are not capable of wisely using their freedom, and so they must be restrained and managed by rules or by those who know what’s best for that individual more than the individual himself. In the past this restraint took place with those who had a sincere investment in the person’s well-belling, such as the family, the tribe, the village, and the local church, but these restraints are long gone, released in the cultural chaos of the post-Enlightenment world. With a general trend of increasing personal freedom around the planet, the only logical result is a steadfast mental and behavioral decline of humanity. Unless people are limited in the personal decisions they’re able to make, they will continue to hurt themselves and others.”

Yes, things such as family, the village and the local church could well work. I have read that people in third world countries have a better prognosis for schizophrenia, than people in first world countries. One explanation is that third world inhabitants have closer families. I’ve also read that too many choices make us less happy. Not only does it take more brain exertion to find the best choice, it also makes people second-guess whether the choice was the right one. I can see how human psychology is better suited for much smaller-scale living than what we are faced with today. To reduce living to a smaller scale, we’d have to get rid of modern technology. That’s not going away, unless the peak oil hits.

One Can Learn to Deal with Freedom

There is one thing I like about guys on TheRedPill subreddit. If you’re introverted or shy, they tell you that you can learn to approach women. They tell you not to use introversion as an excuse not to approach, and not to give up. Many men there say they learned it. They must still be introverts, but their tolerance for social contact went way up, and their social skills improved.

I think same can be said about living life with too many choices, too little belonging and no externally imposed life-meaning. It might feel uncomfortable, but you can do it. You can learn to have self-discipline, and find your own meaning. Like in the above example, you’ll still retain your nature, but you’ll find a way to go around your human limitations and enjoy the limitless world around you. If I find any good methods for that, I will share them. So far, I got this:

1.Have principles.
That’s the only thing that can never be taken from you. That’s why religious nuts are so full of bravery and conviction. People who live only for hedonism are weakening themselves from the inside. They stand for nothing, and that’s why life starts to feel empty after a while.

2.Remember what happens when you don’t have freedom.
Remember that time when you were in some sort of trouble, or faced a very difficult challenge. Remember how you wished things were easy, as they are now. Remember how good you felt after it was over.

3.Don’t have too many goals at a time.
Multitasking strains your mental energy, as it makes you switch from one task to another, way too often. It also makes you feel like you failed, because you didn’t do all those goals in an unrealistically short time.

It’s better to do one goal in January, then another goal in February, third goal in March, etc. But if you can’t avoid too many goals, then at least restate your goals and group them together, to make them look like they are fewer (weird, but kind of works).

I welcome readers to offer more suggestions.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Personal emo stuff, Politics, Red Pill and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to You Have To Learn To Cope With Choice And Freedom

  1. nate says:

    One of the major problems in America, within the scope of “unlimited freedom”, is the pursuit of happiness and constant pleasure. America is now a society where people needs constant stimulation or they lose interest. Pick any movie and notice that no particular scene stays from one angle more than 15 seconds. The audience loses interest quickly when the scenery doesn’t change quickly and spontaneously. This is also noticed similarly in traffic jams; people become restless and even violent when nothing is moving. What ever happened to ancient the traditions of meditation, patience and humbleness-something once valued.

    Most of America’s problems reside in its culture where face to face human interaction is becoming obselete. Children no longer sit down to enjoy and learn from the stories of the elderly. School intelligence is great, but wisdom is taught by those who have lived life. The kitchen table, where family meet on a regular basis to learn, share, respect, and communicate is practically dead in America. What seems to do the most damage is the constant mind manipulation and programming done by television every day. I believe that in spite of a country freedoms, it is how we develope our culture that dictates how we make good use of those freedoms.

    • Matthew Chiglinsky says:

      I hate the new movies where they talk so quickly and change the scene a lot. I like the old-fashioned movies with a slower pace.

      I agree that the Internet and electronic communication in general is undermining society. Let’s destroy it. Maybe God will destroy it and save us. The beast will be thrown into the abyss.

  2. Liz says:

    I don’t think the problem for Roosh was so much an overabundance of choice (would he have preferred a government-mandated college major and government-mandated life mate to protect him from his own poor life choices?) so much as a dearth of direction and meaning.

    I agree with your three suggestions, Emma, but I’m not so much a goals advocate as a habits advocate. Little productive/beneficial daily habits are the best way to obtain a goal (in my experience). Sometimes the goal itself can be too far or overwhelming an objective.

    I’ve always thought it was a bad thing to be defined by what you have (your personal belongings, your occupation, ect) rather than character (aka who you are), as defined by what you do (not as an occupation, as a human). People lose their jobs and possessions all the time. If that sort of stuff defines them, they are lost without it.

    • I think people nowadays wouldn’t be glad to receive a state-mandated major, but they are not served well by receiving loans for any major they want, no matter how economically stupid it is. I think lots of people right now wish they never had the chance to get an economically stupid major.

      I agree with forming habits instead of chasing only goals. I guess to me, they are kind of the same. I treat habits as goals. For example, for this month one goal is to clean half an hour a day and clean teeth for 3 minutes twice a day. I think without stating it as a goal, I never manage to do it and form the habit. But if I call it a goal and write it down, there is a bigger chance it will stick 🙂

  3. David Foster says:

    There was a post on an academic blog, in which the (female) blogger critiqued what she saw as the over-regulation of student (and professor!) sexuality, via complex policies. In comments, someone else (also female) said, “well, at least we don’t have to make our own rules anymore.” My thought: isn’t making one’s own rules….not in everything, there obviously need to be certain society-wide rules, but in a broad spectrum of life…what freedom is all about?

    And I remembered a comment made by a young Nazi sometime in the late 1930s: “We Germans are so happy. We are free of freedom.”

  4. Seven Dials says:

    I’ll start with the suggestion. Embrace the new, enough to find out what it can or can’t add to your life, and if it has nothing to offer, drop it and move on. (aka “Grumpy old man is a bad look”.)

    I like Roosh’s stuff, but he’s a better prophet than policy-maker. What he misses is that, even if he decided to follow the local mullah / priest / rabbi / whoever, that’s still his decision. And every time he did what they suggested, that’s his decision as well. Human beings can’t hand over the moral responsibility for their actions (though the State can give us a legal pass in some circumstances.) Our lives mean what we make them mean, and that’s tiring sometimes, no matter who we are. Your suggestions for handling this are spot-on.

    Roosh is really complaining about other people’s bad taste, and regretting his own. (What’s wrong with microbiology? What does he think would have been a better choice? And he must be the first and only man to regret having a notch count in triple figures.) Would it be better if someone else made those choices, or that there were fewer to make? Well, once upon most of human history that was all true, and life still sucked for most people. (Look at how the Old Testament has almost the exact same complaints about women that a lot of the Sphere guys have now.) What he doesn’t get is that it doesn’t matter how we structure our society and economy, there will always be people who screw up, others who can’t make their way, others who get rich, and others who find it empty and pointless. Who does which will change, but the proportions won’t. I can just remember the post WW-2 “Golden Age”, and I prefer what we have now, but then I’m a life-long bachelor, a born techie, and sober today for a lot of days. Roosh should be thankful for a world in which it is so easy to spot People Who Aren’t His Type. I do get, however, that he may feel that there’s almost no-one who Is His Type.

    And that’s really what he’s complaining about.

    • “Human beings can’t hand over the moral responsibility for their actions”

      A really good point, and something to remember when you find yourself wishing there was someone to make the hard decisions for you. It can’t be done. The only time, I think, this was possible, was when we were kids. Then we were considered too dumb to be responsible for everything we do, and someone could always save us.

  5. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    Is this prodigal son of debauchery Roosh promoting some sort of fascist dictatorship? Some of us are responsible enough to engage in self-discipline, and we take it as an insult when other people try to control us. We choose not to drink and engage in casual sex. We choose to eat healthy food.

    Of course, it might help if there wasn’t pornography and half-naked girls everywhere we looked. It might also help if fast-food restaurants didn’t all serve crap. Limit the freedom of the producers a bit, but leave the individual consumers to make their own decisions.

  6. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    I wonder if Roosh is the Antichrist. He has a lot of followers who see him as their savior, their champion against the “evil” feminists.

  7. Andrew says:

    Ema I wanted to share this link – I thought of your blog when I saw it:

    • That was interesting. While he exposed lots of problems with her theories, she responded well. I don’t know too much about blacks in USA. It seems they do have a problem with family formation, and problems with cops. To me it seems that both of those problems are made worse by the welfare state. Also, I think this feminist wish to regulate everything leads to a bigger state, and a bigger police state, leading (ironically) to cops getting away with murder left and right.

  8. Andrew says:

    By the way – if you go to Heather Scholl’s site you can check out her “feminist art”.
    What do you think of it? http://www.heathermariescholl.com/

    I would be interested in your perspective.

    • The art is certainly nice and creative. Not a fan of the “whitework” though.

      • Andrew says:

        She seems really lost to me – but that is a subjective opinion I know…
        I was amazed at how nice Gavin McInnes was as he interviewed her.

      • It was a calm interview 🙂 Different from the one where he argued with a feminist and told her she’d be happier as a housewife, lol. I noticed he mentioned this argument in this new interview, without mentioning that it was him.

        As for art, I like art that looks strange, emotional or even “lost”. As long as it makes me feel something other that annoyance 🙂 Embroidery with feminist slogans is not my cup of tea, though. What art do you like? Is political art ever good?

      • Andrew says:

        I used to like confrontational political/radical propaganda art – also surrealist art. But at the same time I appreciated old-school realism – especially the Symbolists and the Pre-Raphelites of the late 1800’s.

        After becoming Christian my esthetics changed and I became less interested in propagandizing “radical” art.
        I find it interesting and it serves a purpose; I just don’t believe in that purpose any longer.

  9. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    I’m not even white and I think that #whitework stuff is hella corny. GTFOH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s