13 Daily Virtues: Resolution, Frugality, and Moderation

This is part two of a multi-part series which discusses a method Ben Franklin used to develop his character as a man.  Last week, I covered the first two.  Today we’ll go over the next three: Resolution, Frugality, Moderation.   Franklin provided a quick explanation that I’ll provide as well as my own interpretation, as well as how to employ these virtues in your life, and how it relates to red pill theory as a whole.

Virtue 3: Resolution

Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve

I take this as doing the things you may not necessarily want to do, but the shit you have to get done in life.  It means to figure out the shit that is important and devote time to it.  Don’t take on more than you can handle, but don’t sit around being lazy as well.  Think about things that are on your plate, and remove anything that shouldn’t be there.

The latter part means to commit to your duties 100%.   Don’t be the guy going around making promises that he cannot keep.  Half-assing it in life will get you nowhere and make you look like an incompetent fool. There are times you must say no to someone, so when that time comes, stand your ground.  You don’t have to be a dick about it either, tell them you’re engaged in something else, and offer a time to talk/work on it later.

Virtue 4: Frugality

Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; ie waste nothing. 

I interpret Franklin’s message here as making sure you’re not pissing your money away on shit that doesn’t matter.   Obviously if you make good money you’re not going to just live off of ramen and lentils but to quote Fight Club:

“The things you own end up owning you.”-Tyler Durden

Honestly you do not need to get a new smartphone every single year, nor do you need to go out and buy a brand new car.  Shopping wisely is important.  For example: I purchased a used, refurbished smart phone that isnt even a year old for $200 that is still retailing in stores new for $500.  The thing works perfectly fine, no cosmetic issues, and I saved $300.

Franklin even accepts the fact that you need to spend money on yourself and others, within reason.  Don’t limit yourself to a life of shit if you have the means to make it better. As for others, buying your kid a new toy is fine here and there, but dropping hundreds of dollars on jewelry for the wife, or some expensive gadget for the kids too often is bad. We need to teach them how to handle money, and a disregard of this teaching will set them up to be mindless consumers.

I think the biggest message is to be sensible with your cash.  You may go through $300 dollars at the casino, but that money would have been better spent on something you actually need.  Live and reward yourself, but be smart about it.

Virtue 5: Moderation

Moderation: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve

This in a way plays off the last virtue, but has a broader reach.  Knowing how to moderate yourself is crucial.  Positive and negative things can get out of control if you let them.

If you’ve been lifting weights for a month and load up 600lbs on the bar and try to bench press it, its going to end badly.  Even though weightlifting is something good for you, if you try to go crazy, it becomes a danger.

Same with alcohol or junk food.  Having 1 beer or a burger here and there wont do you much harm if you eat right and exercise, but chugging a case in a night or eating fast food everyday will harm your body.

The last part seems to speak to dealing with people who may have screwed up and how you react to them.  If it is a minor screw up and this person is typically on point, then letting them know about it in a calm way is typically best.  Tearing into someone who is typically doing things well fucks up the morale and can turn a good worker into disgruntled one.

Same goes for your family.  Lashing out like a lunatic when your kid does something wrong is sending all the wrong messages (depending on age and the offense obviously.)


That wraps up part 2 of the series.  Today we went over:

  • Resolution: Doing what you say you will.  Doing it to the best of your ability
  • Frugality: Not spending excess money if you don’t have to and being smart on the things you do buy
  • Moderation: Keeping things balanced and in check.  Not going giving up on other areas of your life to focus on just one

Drop a comment below with any questions and insights on today’s virtues and get ready for the next article which will cover the next two virtues: Industry and Cleanliness.


-J. Nyx


Author: Jnyx

Fitness addict, DIY guru, tech nerd, member of Memesters Local 419.

255 thoughts on “13 Daily Virtues: Resolution, Frugality, and Moderation”

  1. “Wisdom does not consist in moderating oneself out of horror of excess, but out of love for the limit (La sabiduria no consiste en moderarse por horror al exceso, sino por amor al limite)”

    Nicolás Gómez Dávila

      1. Vegans have an unnatural self imposed limit which they arbitrarily apply. To be as humanly simple and even crass as possible….man can shit anywhere but he confines himself to a toilet…welcome to one of the differences between us and the beasts.

      2. To be honest, veganism is a form of hysteria. You can live a sane, moral and fulfilling life while eating meat and using leather jackets and shoes.

        Vegans don’t limit themselves because of moral and health reasons but simply because they are mental (and in the case of men, with low T).

        1. Indeed. Somebody trying it for health reasons, flawed or not, I can see as reasonable. But every “real” vegan I’ve met who has committed to the “lifestyle” usually comes across to me as bent in the head pretty quickly.

        2. If you’ve never read The Vegetarian Myth, you really should. It’s an analysis of the vegan mind from one almost killed by that lifestyle (as she says, from her spine x-rays you’d think she was in a skydiving accident).

          Every possible premise of veganism is based on half-truths and outright misinformation. You basically can’t get all the required proteins and vitamins from a vegan diet unless you keep to a terribly strict, almost absurd diet relying on processed supplements (so it’s not “healthier”). Every vegetable product is produced in a way that harms living things, either by industrial machines powderizing rabbits and their kits or by killing/starving insects (so it’s not “humane”). And all animals, to one degree or another, subsist on other living creatures (so it’s hard to argue it’s inherently moral).

          From my observation, vegans don’t become hysterical when they become vegans. They start out hysterical; some go rabid feminist, some experience mind-breaking trauma (one I know became vegan shortly after being raped by a family elder – police records confirm the timeline), and some are just wackjobs of one stripe or another (usually borderline or bipolar).

    1. This is one of my favorite quotes and I have used it several times when speaking of Kantian freedom and Morality which has to do with extreme law following….but a law that is created within. A free man is not an animal who cannot control himself. A free man is one who creates a law and abides by it. (Kant, of course, believed (and I suggest successfully argued) that all men regardless of time period, nationality etc OUGHT to create the same laws and to the extent they didn’t were violating the conditions on which their own humanity was based — god I love that man.

      1. Prior to my finding religion, I thought this is how religion was formed. Natural laws put on paper with some explanation behind it. Don’t steal, or you will get your stuff stolen.

        1. Many do. Kant, who was quite religious, did something different and a little more shrewd I think. Basically he wanted to show that morality was the same for all people and that, for the most part, aligned with basic Christian morality. It doesn’t matter if you lived before Christ or were a medieval Zulu or a chinamen from the future, morality was consistent. However, he wanted to get to this with no appeal to god or state so that he could hold accountable people with different gods or different states or even no god to the same laws. Cartoon version here for expedience, but to use your example…stealing…let me show you his basic argument for not doing it. He bases the argument in logic. Logic he argues is subjectively universal (as he will show are morals, aesthetic judgments, etc). So we create the laws ourselves but we do so in a way uniquely human and as such create them in exactly the same way that all humans do. It is, in a nut shell, what it means to be human.

          So take the law of non contradiction. A thing cannot be both P and Not P in the same manner at the same time. Simply can’t be. Doesn’t matter where or when you are, it doesn’t matter which god, if any you believe in, the law of non contradiction (as the fact that sensory experience must happen in the confines of space and time) holds for all people universally while at the same time. However, since for Kant consciousness itself is predicated on certain logical principles you can assume the law of non-contradiction for all conscious entities because it is a condition on which their consciousness is even possible.

          So if the law of non-contradiction is a condition for the possibility of consciousness and consciousness is the defining characteristic of the human being we look at stealing.
          I will Steal.
          Now, for kant he wants us to try to universalize this as an imperative (categorical imperative)
          Everyone MUST steal.
          Ok, now imagine a world where it was categorically imperative that everyone must always steal. What is the logical outcome here? Well if stealing is like breathing where everyone must do it our fundamental concept of personal property would be different. There would simply be no purpose to it. If you changed the fundamental concept of personal property to where it was purposeless than stealing would be impossible. So on a universal level the act of stealing is self negating and violates the law of non contradiction. Thus, for one man to steal he must will himself as an exception to mankind and thus contradicts his own humanity. Thus stealing is immoral.

          There is a bit more to it but that is enough of a nutshell that you can see a very cool way that one of the smartest men who ever lived got around the problem of making morals contingent on Karma or God or Government and still came out with a Christian ethic.

          1. “Imagine a world where it was categorically imperative that everyone must steal”….sounds like a John Lennon song.

            Seriously though, what you said makes sense. Truth is truth, no matter how it is viewed.

            1. The odd thing is that kant subtlety changes this to truth is truth for humans. He makes no claim as to the morality of animals, aliens, angels or gods. So truth isn’t universal for him it is subjectively universal: Universal Subject To The Condition of Being a Human. He says that anyone who thinks they can claim something bigger than that without reliance on faith is simply wrong. So Stealing is wrong because it violates the conditions of consciousness and someone who steals obliterates their own humanity. Consciousness comes about for human beings in the same way. So stealing is wrong no matter which human being you are talking to though all human beings OUGHT TO will into creation for themselves that stealing is immoral. It is internally, rather than externally legislated which gives man freedom and moral law at the same time. It’s just so freaking cool.

              1. Which is borne out by proof with all human societies that lasted beyond one generation. All of them basically came up with a handful of the same laws (no stealing, no murder, etc), despite tacking on other silly laws. It’s likely the origin of the Golden Rule as well I’d wager, which reflects across basically all societies in history in one form or another (that lasted more than one generation I mean).

                1. true. The part that is interesting with Kant is he explains why this isn’t some external law that man needs to follow but rather an internal law that being conscious in the way that humans are conscious requires man to create.

                  1. Oh right, I get that, it makes perfect sense in its own way. It really does explain the universal nature of the laws man has created at the basic level (although not at the advanced level where I’d bet an argument can be made that some societies violate their own humanity with self contradicting laws aka. mass murdering commies, etc).

                    1. societies violating the law is allowed for in kant because his definition of being immoral isn’t to not create the law but to break it. He would simply say that people (we talk about individuals and not society en masse) who break the laws which are constitutionally required for humanity aren’t “not human” but acting inhuman or simply being immoral. It is really dense stuff that takes a while to read but the critical project is so mind fuckingly brilliant that you can get lost in it for a few years. The problem is that there is a lot of background stuff to get to first so it makes sense in context. Kant is participating in a dialogue going back centuries so jumping into his master work without boning up on the discussion is like reading one comment in a 20,000 comment thread and assuming you have just finished up the argument.

                    2. This is some of the best content I’ve read in a long time. I haven’t delved into Kant, but from what little I’ve read I believed him to be quite clever and wise.

                      Thanks for motivating me to look deeper into his work.

                    3. “This is some of the best content I’ve read in a long time.”
                      y’d think this peckerwood would churn out a proper article!

                    4. That would be interesting, indeed. Hippo, you keep popping out these keen philosophical and religious insights – join Jim in the writing pool!

                  2. I suppose that is what separates man from the beasts, a cognoscente understanding of natural law. A dog has very little that would consider immoral, perhaps eating her young would be considered immoral to a dog. But we understand that things which would benefit us on a personal level (stealing) are hurtful to a society as a whole.

                    1. Eh, I’d go with something other than dogs, but yeah, that’s how I grok it. Dogs co-evolved with humans for so long that we’ve picked up a whole lot of traits from each other that create a unique symbiotic understanding between the two species. I suspect a dog actually has a certain sense of morality if raised correctly, just like a human being, although clearly it can’t express it, it simply follows it “just because” (like a lot of people do).

                    2. Right, but again….for Kant it isn’t natural law it is human law…and only human law. It is so cool, really. We are free because we create law. We are bound morally because there is only one law to create. It doesn’t make us any less of a creator and it doesn’t make the law any less mandatory.

      2. You know Gomez Davila’s writings?? That’s a surprise…

        I don’t know a lot about Kant (remember our past discussion about the Categorical Imperative?), but self regulation is a theme present in a lot of my favorite thinkers. Take Nietzsche for example:

        “Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?” (Thus Spoke Z.)

        1. In grad school you have to use a lot of various source material and the common move is more esoteric the better so a bunch of nerds are running around looking for the most off the wall outside shit. Oh look, I found a Bulgarian phenomenologist that only 3 people have ever heard of and one is his mother…..that kind of stuff.

          Nietzsche was more of a Kantian than most people, including Nietzsche, ever realized. lol. Kant had legitimate beefs with Kant and was, as always, hyperbolic in his criticism but there is a lot of respect there and I think N’s critiques of Kant are all pretty much valid only that Kant in his later works (specifically the Critique of Judgment) saw the very errors that Nietzsche saw and tried to rectify. Being a product of his time he couldn’t rectify them as well as he could of. Nietzsche cracked the heavy door open and I would argue Derrida, in his Truth in Painting, busts the door open and completes the Kantian project.

          1. lol. Gomez Davila’s writings are totally unknown here in Colombia, but he’s somehow known in Europe, especially in Germany, Poland and Italy. I like a lot of his writing, even when he was a devout Catholic and I’m certainly not. Thankfully, because Spanish is my first language, I can read the real expression of his thoughts without the filter of a translator (and the translations into English I know are awful, they literally have no sense).

            It is interesting what you said about Nietzsche being a kantian, but first I have to study Kant….

            1. You would love a full scale first tier American grad school library, you really would. Translator filter is annoying, yes.

              I might even go as far as saying that Kant was a Nietzschean but I am like Iamblicus and Plotinus and like to play with time. My Dissertation was a sustained argument for a Heraclitus-Kant-Nietzsche relationship on an interpretive level opening up a type of transcendental hedonism of sorts and that unlocking the dynamic between these three was key to a) Understanding any of them individually b) the a new version of hermeneutics which surpassed the work that Heidegger was doing. An ambitious project which started with the basic premise that Kant was a hedonist and that his use to the words lust-vergnugen-gefallen (which all get translated to pleasure by lame American translators) were very specific. It was a very good bit of philosophy and writing it, I think, was the time in my life I might have felt most alive.

              1. This may come across different than how I mean and not look initially philosophical but I am compelled to make comment on the very last “felt most alive.” (and varying permutations of the same).
                The best I have ever been able to understand this is intellectually, I get the intent, but do not know it through personal experience. Every day I feel alive with a goal/plan, and I work to that end energetically. I enjoy things that I’ve since come to learn others do not, finding a laugh or some beauty in the mundane or even the tragic.
                This isn’t to say there aren’t days when I would prefer to do something other than what I “am supposed to” or days when I don’t have an abundance of energy, just that there are very few days with any notable regrets.
                Would this pair with any particular philosopher in your mind?
                Does it even make sense?

                1. A particular philosophy no but there is a concept in Kantian aesthetics about the beautiful and the sublime referred to as what jane called Lebrnsgefühle ( about spelling if off). This literally translates to “the feeling of life” and for can’t has to do with man being disengaged from the pedestrians thoughts that plague his mind and even of the sensory perceptions of spaciotemporality and consciously being focused to that which is at the very core of man’s ability to be conscious — transcendental freedom. Without freedom we are not able to transcend the world of ends and become a means in ourselves and when confronted with this we are given an incredible feeling of aliveness and energy. When we make a positive judgment of beauty (looking at a beautiful painting, looking at a beautiful sculpure listening to a beautiful aria whatever) Kant believes here is a growth in the feeling of life which we call an experience of the beautiful.

                  With regard to the sublime there is a momentary holding back in the feeling of life leading to an all the stronger outpourinh which may come from seeing something like the mageety of the sea or anything really that gets our adrenaline up.

                  This can be affixed to the pleasure we receive from moral action and even, st least while we are still babies excited by the world, the pleasure in basic cognition — look something shiny.

                  It can be applied truly to anything where you might take something in that is beautiful and you have a moment, even briefly, as Kierkegaard might says “the blink of an eye” where the world of cause and effect and means to ends dies and we feel truly alive which means, simply, we fall in love with the beauty that is the freedom which makes consciousness possible

                  I hope this made a little sense. I typed it to you on my phone on a crowded uptown 6 train

                  1. It does and I appreciate the thoughtful reply, especially in a crowd. The reason for my interest is that though I’ve studied Kant and philosophy broadly (more focus into Confucius, Shintoism, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Zeno, William James and John Locke, what a group right?), I’d be a fool not to recognize in you a deeper knowledge than I possess and if you don’t mind indulging me a bit more.

                    I’ve had it said to me before that my outlook is similar to the wolf or animal in that it is almost a living in/for the moment, only that doesn’t quite work as I am constantly aware of the past and trying to see the path(s) to the future which is the most likely to lead to the outcome I desire.
                    I’ve also had it said that it is something highly egocentric due to my focus being mostly on what I want over those around me. This is only superficially correct as I see stability around me as essential and know that it is only achievable when the best interests of those around me are addressed.
                    I once tried to describe the root of it all as “echo theory” wherein whatever time/space currently occupied all actions past, present, and future reverberate to culminate in the current situation, that all moments wherein choice is available are interwoven to past choices made not only by myself but even by a seemingly innocuous choice made by someone thousands of years ago. Obviously there is variance in their potency and range, but that is the basis. If I were to draw it out, it would be something like layer after layer along a sphere like an onion done in pointillism, or a ‘Koosh’ ball with no space between the strands, each individual life a strand with beginning an end but the interplay of jiggling one effecting all the rest.
                    Taking that into consideration it is very difficult to equate any one single moment to anything more than a brief emotional surge or a memory of having had fun/enjoyment that has passed and that will assuredly come again. Perhaps rose-tinted glasses on all the time?
                    This too may seem odd, I have been in several moments where “time seemed to stop,” and this is an interesting phenomenon, yet I can’t say that these stick out anymore in my mind afterward due to the activity connected to them than they do due to their unique nature.
                    Would this account for the gradual loss I have noted (and that I believe everyone goes through) of that childlike awe and wonder at the world and newness you mention above? It isn’t as though once an experience has been had that it is entirely unique subsequently nor is it so familiar that I have lost all ability to feel that same initial response (if even to a lesser degree). I suppose like smelling a rose, true you have smelled a rose once but that doesn’t mean there aren’t differences in subsequent partaking of other roses and before considering that though I have in mind the smell of “rose” that it wouldn’t be entirely different when we compared notes (er, noses as it were). It seems I have heard something of this in Kant.
                    And as it might alter the analysis I have been requesting, I believe the sublime, by definition, to be God as opposed to the now maligned “bearded man in the sky” concept, though I believe there is much more there than human comprehension allows as the closest and unfortunately most limited thing I can say to describe any further is both awareness and intelligence are there though far surpassing the concepts (including those words prefixed with omni-).

                    1. I think you’re onto something, though I’m hard pressed to describe exactly what.

                      I’m thinking, first, about the “sublime” conception of God. This is one of the fascinating aspects of theosophy, because it is one way we can describe God that doesn’t entirely capture Him but does reflect one of our perceptions of Him. It brings to mind the Psalm:

                      When I survey the heavens, the works of your fingers, the sun moon and stars that you have established
                      What is man that thou art mindful of him? The son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the angels…

                      I think this and similar Psalms reflect that sublime majesty of God, particularly from the Christian perspective. And yet there is so much more – God has emotions not unlike humans, but he is beyond our comprehension and unchanging. He cares for us, yet he does not change his mind. He is just and fair, yet compassionate and merciful. He is the font of all existence (a la Aristotle’s God), and in him we find the “Ideal” (from Plato’s perspective) of all things (for all existence and all laws of nature follow from Him, and there is nothing truly new under the sun). Frankly, it’s too big to get your head around, and so we must speak of certain aspects of our perception instead of attempting to contemplate His full glory.

                      Following after, I’m thinking about your “echo theory” and its associated lifestyle. Frankly, I think I’ll have to think more about it over time in order to explore the idea more fully, but it seems to be a holistic philosophy of causality instead of purely atomistic. I can agree heartily that we are what we are at the present time because of who we were in the past (and what happened in that past). That extends forward, as well. To change an element of the past is to change everything about our lives from then forward, and that is well worth considering and being grateful for (that is, that we have such a past as makes us who we are and allows us to perceive possibilities for the future).

                      I am not, as yet, prepared to grapple with the fullness of the echo theory as you describe it, but I see in it much potential. What you have is contentment – satisfaction with the present, but not complacency for the future. You act in the now, because you cannot act in the past or the future, and you are content to address the future ramifications of those actions when that future becomes the present. I like this, especially if you have internalized mental patterns by which you can rather quickly discern which actions are most likely to lead to future happiness and which toward future distress. Of course, we cannot know in many cases which actions will lead one way or another, but the contentment and stoicism present here allows us to still make decisions and be content to address concerns along the way.

                      It’s almost…zen? I struggle to find a better word for it, but that sounds close enough.

                    2. Thank you for considering my…rambling? One way I try to get echo theory across is this: Someone made the decision to eat a sandwich for breakfast, that sandwich was the result of a combination of people making choices to perform various actions to produce/acquire the ingredients, each of those situations was the result of choices that placed those people in that space/time where that option was available (likely along with other options), and so on as the net casts wider and further into the past. Summed up in Calvin & Hobbes as: All that evolution, millions of years of development and refinement all to produce me (paraphrased). But then also carry that out from the now and on into the future. Our back and forth right now, the very mechanical act of typing it even will create ripples that will be felt outside of us and our immediate comprehension. What if we could see all those connections (of course our minds would fuse) but we could plan outcomes on the other side of the world that would come to fruition millennia from now. This I see as possible only to God, this would be the essence and command I would see God having. So far above and beyond that we cannot even express the idea fully and believe me I have tried to sort this out in pixel and pen without ever feeling I’ve done it justice. I do know that as I’ve followed it the only way I have been able to come to grips with it is the way I live.
                      I am honored that you would compare it to zen, for I would see God as that state perfected, pure enlightenment and though I could never attain it, to walk the path will suffice.

                  2. “Lebensgefühle”, I believe. Oddly, I don’t speak more than a lick of German but I can understand a lot of words.

                    And Lebensgefühle, I think, is very much the right word for what you describe.

                    1. Clumsily understood in English as “doing what you love, loving what you do”. A state very few of us are fortunate enough to attain.

                    2. Yah I know it’s the right word and it is tech jargon in Kant just unsure of spelling. Thanks!

        2. BTW: One thing that Nietzsche suffered viz a vie Kant is something many very smart people fell victim too….See Kant is the dividing point. Analytic and Continental Philosophy is birthed by different jackasses arguing about Kant. Nietzsche’s fatal flaw was that he had too much respect for Schopenhauer with regard to Kantian theory early on … as is the flaw of many young men who learn from large figures. It is my honest belief that if Kant would sit down and just read the Critique of Judgment he would have seen things a little differently. That said, I think a full understanding of Kant’s system is impossible without Nietzsche’s critique. The interplay is really wonderful.

          1. Serious question, did any of these guys have day jobs? I know some philosophers were independently wealthy or were nobility of some sort (Voltaire), but most of them I’ve wondered what, precisely, they did to get bread on the table. A pedestrian question of course, maybe they were all professors or something, I dunno.

            1. Most of them were professors. In fact, nearly all of them from around the 1500’s going forward were. With a good paycheck, unlimited supply of graduate student slave labor, a lack of distractions and a serious mind some of the most brilliant thinkers in the world set forth writing a bunch of stuff that people would read 2 sentences on Wikipedia and pretend to understand several hundred years later. Groan. Fucking hate people.

              Kant was famous in his own day, lived modestly, didn’t have the interwebs or televisions, made much more than his means and was recognized worldwide as a genius.

  2. Was Franklin into moderation? He loved his Zima. Brought it back with him from France

      1. Ahhhh don’t be unfair….they may have been huge faggots but Brian May was one of the most talented guitarists of his generation and you would be very, very hard pressed to find a vocal range on par with Mercury outside of professional opera.

        1. meh….They are decent, but unduly propped up by the fag media. Had they been straight, they would have been forgotten a long time ago.

          1. Yep. You can take other highly talented bands from their time with great vocals and guitar and nobody today knows them except us old timers. Styx, Triumph, America, etc.

            1. Sort of noticed this with the music industry’s classification of “legendary.” too, most times it’s just a singer/band who has managed to keep it together for a long time, which may be an accomplishment but hardly denotes greatness.

              1. When media labels something as “legendary” I generally take it as them trying to push opinion towards whatever it is that the dweeby fags in the back rooms believe. Most truly legendary people/groups don’t need others to apply the labels to them.

            1. They were well regarded, just like a lot of other highly talented bands. His point isn’t that they are bad (they aren’t) but that their influence continues today due to Faeg Media, where other bands with straights who had as much or more talent are basically invisible now.

                1. You bet he has. He “bravely” lived a degenerate life and got his anal sphinchter stretched by dicks and then “bravely” suffered the consequences of his lifestyle choices and then “bravely” died. What a brave man, getting ass fucked and then catching the disease you get from ass fucking. How noble and inspiring.

          2. Mayhap and I don’t particularly like their sound but those were two very, very, very talented faggots.

        2. Mercurys vocal range was like that from getting his throat stretched, and could hit the high notes from having his butt stretched.

          1. I actually believe it! I don’t make any account for how he got there. Funny thing, back when Rock Hudson died in 80-something I was a young and mischievous kid. There was a kid in school that we all called gay. I mean, we called everyone gay but this one really got branded with it. Don’t remember why and kind of wonder if he turned out to be a pole smoker, but I digress. Well, a gallon of red paint and a roller and one night of sneaking out the garage on his house had a huge red heart that read Tom Loves Rock. Man oh man did we catch hell for that.

            1. One of my faves from those days:
              Q: “How’d AIDS spread to NY?”
              A: “Up the HUDSON!”

              (roar with Stadler and Waldorf-caliber laughter)

                  1. Conversely, I’d say developing his stand-up chops in front of S&W made him the comedy legend we know today!

          1. Word of advice, don’t. 1) because it tastes like shit and 2) people will assume that you’ve switched teams.

            1. I’ll keep that in mind. Been so long since I drank, but I used to be a Jack Daniels and Coke or MGD guy. About the most faggy stuff I would drink are those Boones bottles of wine. We would raid the grocery store and get one of each flavor for a house party.

                  1. ah, I get it. mind went to queens of the stone age for some reason…18 demerits

                    1. Dont mind our geriatric friend here. QOTSA especially that album in particular was fucking awesome. The guitar is so crunchy but highly rhythmic. You Think I Ain’t Worth a Dollar is my shit.

                    2. here- The Queens, NIN and lindsey buckingham…this was cut from some award show…too good

                    3. Funny how it is as most get older they come to a consensus that 1965-1975 was about the peak in music quality and will gravitate there. I wasn’t even born yet.

                    4. Hmmmm….I’d peg it to 1980. Pink Floyd’s The Wall came out in 1979 and was one of the most epic albums ever released.

                    5. I suppose there are exceptions like the one you mentioned and ACDC Back in Black, but the whole disco and soul scene came on and the downhill slide was apparent though.

                    6. Definitely one of them. Problem is that the audio production on that album sucks; it sounds weak now. Other Floyd albums have aged much better.

                    7. I find Pink Floyd unspeakably depressing. So much so that I can’t even discern the quality of the music….

                    8. It is, I had a phase where I listened to pretty much nothing but Pink Floyd and it does get to you. Like Niel Young, it just beings you down after some time. Maybe try Dire Straits, it has a similar sound, but less depressing.

                    9. Take a look at their Alchemy Live album. Mark Knoppler is awesome when he is not doing the regimented studio albums.

                    10. A simple change in music can indeed change your whole persona. In college I got depressed and mopey for about two weeks straight. Finally I realized it was this whiny singer I was listening to that some of my friends really liked. Dropped the CDs and my mood cleared up almost instantly.

                    11. The single best way to improve one’s mood is to listen to banjo music. Three minutes and you go from suicidal emo, to happy skippy and joyful. The magic of banjo music is unquestionable.

                    12. I got a banjo for my birthday (l love that fiancee of mine). When I need cheering up, I just struggle my fingers over a few picking patterns (it’s harder than Steve Martin makes it look).

                      Then I get frustrated, hang it up, and watch some of Steve’s old standup sets.

                    13. funny, Neil Young has a song on After The Gold Rush called… “dont let it bring you down”

                    14. I’m going with Hipponax on this one- musicians and actors are people we pay to entertain us, what they think is irrelevant.
                      If I had to listen to music produced by people who have the political views I do I would have to do it myself, and I have zero musical ability, I couldn’t carry a tune in a five gallon bucket.

                    15. The kind that likes Pink Floyd! You know how those southern boys are about classic rock.

                    16. You have my full support, as a yankee who both likes grits and makes a BANGIN’ sausage gravy…..

                      And SURELY we can agree on some SKYNARD!

                    17. Uh-oh…. while Skynyrd IS good, it’s one of those things I’ve heard enough that I’m ok.

                    18. It bet it has fruit in it.
                      If you like fruit in your beer you take it in the rear.

                    19. next time I hear “sweet home alabama” Im gonna hear that line even tho it aint there lololol

                    20. BemBanning protocols are disabled unfortunately. Roosh found a way around it, but that has been patched in the new upgrade.

                    21. Yeah, I’d agree with that. I think that the movie actually sounds better than the album, all other considerations aside. But it was still a fucking great album conceptually.

                    22. disagree, if compared to the other 2 (all 4 members) PF commercial albums (TDSOTM & WYWH) The Wall stands along side them well and is strong & well produced, one thing Roger, well actually all of them didn’t tolerate was poor production.

                    23. good music thru the 90s IMO, although I think black music died in the ’70s….doowop was pretty damn good

                    24. Black music was pretty good until rap ruined it, I used to like the funk.Gap Band, Kool and the Gang, etc.

                    25. like I said: the 1970s…hell, compare stevie wonder then to his garbage in the ’80s…

                    26. I recently watched a video on YouTube that was a heavy metal remake of Superstitious it was outstanding ( I like the original too)

                    27. compare that song to “I Just Called To Say I Love You”- a commie bankrolled song designed to incite WW3

                    28. Listening to that makes me want to hurt myself.

                      While my general favorite is 80s music there’s stuff from the 50s to now that I like although right off the top off my head there’s nothing new new that I really like that I can think of.

                    29. I’m combining your earlier comment .. “Black music was pretty good until rap ruined it” and this one, “there’s nothing new new that I really like” and would like to offer an example of what might be considered both new & in a classic black style, R&B/soul/funk. Give me your impression.

                    30. ya know, I liked her(RIP) I respect how hard she hard to work to get into the biz, but her style is nothing new…still better than rap, seen her live, good show…

                    31. Not exactly my thing but it’s a vast improvement on rap and if that’s new they did an excellent job of recreating 70s sound.

                    32. this one might make you want to kill yourself- sounds a bit like a ripoff of Maneater

                    33. Black music was pretty good in the day, 20’s jazz, 30’s blues, 40’s jump blues, 50’s rock n roll. Most I dare say surpassed white music. Then, welfare happened and it went to crap along with their culture.

                    34. It’s dad rock. Bores me half to death. My “rock” ears are cooked. Can’t listen to any more.

              1. I’m proof positive that you don’t, however, if you’re seen drinking it, you’re basically telling the world a lot of things about yourself that you probably don’t want to communicate. My grandfather bought a bar about 5 years before he died. When he first assumed possession and started clearing out the old bar’s setup/stuff he found that he had two cases of Zima, which he pawned off on my wife and I. I tried two drinks of it after chilling one of the bottles, the first drink was nasty as fuck but I thought “Well, sometimes stuff tastes bad on the first drink, give it another try” and I did but it only got worse and confirmed my initial reaction. My wife and her girlfriends ended up finishing it off over the next couple of months, but I believe even they had to use lime/lemon wedges to make it palatable.

                1. I remember ice-cold it was almost tolerable, and after a half dozen you’d get good and lit, but it always seemed like sprite.
                  EDIT – as Hippo says, it was indeed a “wine-cooler” level of girl-loosener at best.

                  1. So you’re saying that you drank more than one……….

                2. I think trying one in the 80’s was mandatory. Like everyone had to try at least one. Can’t hold that against you. However, if you finished your mandatory one and ordered another you are a homo. There are exactly 2 exceptions to this rule (which also go for drinking of Malibu rum). 1) You were under legal drinking age and could get your hands on nothing else 2) You and your girl were under drinking age and you got it to drink with her in order to loosen her belt and morals.

                  1. I cannot find a single thing there I disagree with. In fact, I applied those drinking rules when I was underage a couple of times.

                    1. Exception #2 never got me far. You start drinking what she is drinking, and you still look gay, not homosexual gay, but gay nonetheless. You are doing what she wants in order to get some attention, an obvious mistake.

                    2. I was specifically thinking of being 16 and being able to afford one thing….a bottle of Malibu goes a long way.

                    3. thankfully it isn’t one of your proudest moments. If it was you would have some serious issues

                    4. That’s what got me started smoking in high school. There was this cute half-oriental girl that lived not far from me. We would hang out and I would bum a cigarette or vice versa. Last time I heard, she is has three kids by different fathers and is married to some druggie.

                    5. That’s what I thought, so I did my best to show her that I was the nice guy and gave her all this attention. We became good friends even. Then she up and screws this guy with tattoos that neither of us knew. I was dumbfounded. Lessons learned……..

                3. “My wife and her girlfriends ended up finishing it off ” I look forward to using this phrase about my cock soon.

          2. I knew a functional alcoholic who would pound down 2 Smirnoff Ice’s every morning when he woke up in two big full bottle gulps to keep the shakes at bay but not let him get too tipsy.

          3. It’s a citrus-flavored malt liquor. Basically the same stuff that ghetto people used to drink, with a twist of orange. You’re not missing anything.

  3. Be frugal with your time as well as your money. The older you get, the more vaulabe your time, a finite asset, becomes. Don’t waste either on irredeemable people.

    1. ie: throw away the TV and game console. Instead, find a hobby you can enjoy and be proud of on your down time.

      1. We have a TV for local news and to watch a movie once in awhile. Playing board games tonight with the youngest when I get home.

    2. I would say more than as well that time is the number one most important thing to be frugal with. If you have the choice between parting with money or time part with the money. Making money is easy. Making time involves a lot of crazy gadgets, a lair and, ya know, being a cartoon supervillain

      1. Looks like somebody hasn’t hit his head on a toilet seat and had the Flux Capacitor revelation.

      2. If you take less shits, that’s at least an hour of time you can put to use. A poopy saved is a poopy earned.

            1. True. I used to play in a band with a vegan. We practiced in a tiny little rehearsal space and every time the guy farted (which was a lot), it stank of grass clippings rotting in the summer sun.

              Hand to God, it was the exact same smell.

          1. I’m just as efficient in diapers. It saves time. However, my daygame with the ladies drops a notch or 2.

      1. as told by an Israeli-Jew Vince Offer…..Mind control device invented by the Freemasons and funded by the Rothschilds.

        1. You’ve just found the Shamwow Connection that solidifies all conspiracy theories. Color me impressed, bro.

    1. We’ve had well over a decade of no real hurricane activity so I guess it’s come due to pay the piper.

      1. Until this year it’s been a long time since we had one come directly over us, Monday will be three weeks ago when we had our last one and unless it turns we’re going to get another Sunday, I hope that’s it for this year. I haven’t gotten my roof fixed from the last one yet. Every roofer for miles around is booked up for a while. At least somebody is making some dough 🙂

        1. And thank God somebody is making dough, and the government isn’t involved, or you’d never see your roof fixed. The Profit Motive is a sign of the sheer genius of God and an indication that He loves us and wants us to have nice things.

          1. Those boys being booked up for weeks is a good thing and I can live with because I understand they’re busy.
            If the government was doing it they would have a hearing early next year, then a study group to determine how to fix a roof in late 2019 with project completion set for mid 2029 providing the environmental impact study determines that no endangered species are harmed.

            1. I’ve got an uncle who runs a small electric company. Their job involves rehanging power lines and inspecting/repairing damages to power systems. Hurricanes keep the business afloat, frankly.

              Sometimes I look at him and my distant cousins in home repair and think, “Maybe I should have skipped high school and gone into that!”

        2. I hate tornado season in TN. Every time a moderately strong storm comes around I can expect them knocking on my door offering estimate to replace my roof, even though it’s only a couple years old and I’m great shape. I finally put a “No soliciting. No exceptions.” sign on my door. It’s deterred the worst of them.

          1. We had two tornados earlier this year near here they missed us but, one came through in January and about 6-8 weeks later another one almost exactly followed the previous ones path. If i lived there , I would move.

    2. I have it on the authority of random people on YouTube that it’s God being angry at (insert city here). They warned us that hurricane season would bring hurricanes, so their prophecies have been right so far!

      Not saying God doesn’t use natural disasters, wars, and other such things to punish. But I think his punishment for the US so far has been sending us the leaders we deserve (and blessing us with the occasional good guy to keep us from total destruction).

      1. Great post.
        Reminds me of a few things:
        a) the old joke, “you’re just trying to make me look foolish.” “you don’t need my help.”
        b) I don’t think God visits punishment on the individual/country/group in this fashion (or to begin with unless its extreme circumstances), but this would be the equivalent of telling the little kid to “stop that” for seven hours (in this case years/decades/centuries) or they’re “going to get it.” Divine punishment tends to carry devastatingly swift finality.

        1. God brings several forms of punishment, if the Old Testament record is to be believed. Some of his justice is swift and brutal (a la Sodom and Gomorrah). Some of it is painful but tolerable, designed to push you to your brink so you lean on him again (as with the various droughts, captivities, and other punishments for Israel over the centuries). All of it is forewarned, though, in one form or another – he either sends a prophet to promise punishment if things continue as they are, or he establishes laws that promise punishment for violation.

          Most interestingly to me, he seems more ready to punish leaders than peoples. This is reflected in Paul’s warnings to Timothy regarding being a teacher. When David committed adultery and murder, God caused his son to die in punishment. He has not necessarily done this for everyone, but David was king and an example to his people. When the leaders repent and turn their people to Him, though, he is all the more merciful (as with Nineveh).

      2. They show the track going west of us now, so maybe god ain’t mad at us after all. Now he’s mad with the neighbors.

            1. I’ll try to honor your request sir. I’ll sit for a bit and see if something comes up. Otherwise I’ll have to pull something out of thin air. Meanwhile I’m lamenting how 30 years of HFCS and 15 years of sitting down at computers has taken its toll on the fatassedness of both western men and women. LOOK at those perfect asses circa 1976!


              1. I remember that song lol.
                It IS kind of odd looking at old pictures and videos at how “skinny” everyone looked back then. Even people who aren’t really considered fat nowadays still have a belly roll.
                I remember my mother fretting about being “fat” back then and she never had a fat day in her life.
                Comparing our family pictures to today we looked like white Ethiopians, I never remember seeing morbidly obese people very often until the 90s and now it’s so commonplace I hardly notice.

  4. – 12 year old Camry
    – Flip phone from 2008
    – Studio apts in a crappy ‘burbs for over 27 years
    – Hagar slacks, Van Heusen shirts & Walmart ties
    – Old Crow, Evan Williams, Smirnoff, Seagrams 7, Carlo Rossi, Pabst’s Blue Ribbon, etc…

    Yeah, I’d say I have the frugality down.

    For most things, anyway…

    1. Slim, alot of people slag the Toyota Camry, but if your not a car person/buff they are a pretty damn good car for doing what a car does… being a car.

      1. Yup!
        I’ve had two since 1995.
        No problems from either.
        They get me where I’m going and that’s what matters.

Comments are closed.