This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
In part one of this two-part series, I made the case that being fake dependent on government subsidies is much more preferable to being real dependent on government subsidies. I also made the observation that far too many Americans find themselves on the wrong side of the dependency divide—without government subsidies, their quality of life would plummet.
So what should you do if you happen to be one of those poor souls who are real dependent on government subsidies?
Well, the short answer is to design your life so you’re no longer real dependent on government subsidies. And the surest way to become fake dependent on government subsidies is to swim against our cultural currents. For roughly three generations now, our culture has been in the hands of the woke, and our woke overlords haven’t been grooming us to be exquisite stewards of our lives. “Big is beautiful,” “any degree’s a good degree,” “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” “healthcare is a human right,” “black lives matter,” “gender is fluid,” “smash capitalism”—in ways big and small, we have been groomed to be dysfunctional losers who are totally dependent on the government.
To avoid the misery of real dependency, then, you have to embrace movements or concepts that flout the values and attitudes our woke overlords are using their cultural hegemony to ruthlessly promote. Here are some suggestions:
FIRE Movement: Financial independence is the supreme antidote to real dependency. Save 25 times your annual living expenses and the likelihood of you being real dependent on government subsidies is damn close to zero. Financial independence is also a great way to maintain your dignity. Our morally superior woke overlords have no qualms weaponizing government subsidies the way cartel overlords weaponize addiction. Financial independence = fake dependency = living your life on your terms—screw the woke.
Minimalism: You can’t be fake dependent on government subsidies if your living expenses are high and your income is modest or worse. For most Americans, because their incomes aren’t large enough to secure the trappings of wealth and still be indifferent to the value of the subsidies they receive, fake dependency requires a minimalist mindset: needs before wants (including the need to save at least 15 percent of your income for your future self), and functional before fancy (laminate countertops work just as well as granite countertops).
Tiny Homes: Nothing subdues one’s living expenses like a tiny home. It’s much easier to buy a 400-square-foot home without a mortgage than a 3,000-square-foot home, and the monthly operating expenses of a 400-square-foot-home are much smaller than a 3,000-square-foot-home (providing they’re in the same zip code, of course). I’m not saying living in a tiny home would be a blast. But it certainly wouldn’t be abject misery either. You have to decide what pain you prefer. The pain of having limited space? Or the pain of having high housing costs and being real dependent on government subsidies?
Homeschooling: I have no faith in public school administrators and very little faith in public school teachers. Far too many of them have been compromised by the cult of wokeism. Our public school system is thus more concerned with its students having the “right” thoughts than with its students having the skills and knowledge necessary to be self-reliant adults (i.e., to be exquisite stewards of their health, career, finances, relationships, and freedom). As long as our children emerge from 13 years of “education” believing that America and its Constitution suck, white people are morally inferior to “people of color,” and the gender they were “assigned at birth” was a grave injustice, our public schools have done their job.
Our woke overlords have worked too long and too hard to gain hegemony over public education to ever surrender that control. No amount of uppity parents haranguing school board members at school board meetings is going to weaken the woke grip on education. And no amount of voting is going to weaken the woke grip on education either. The Democrats are the party of the woke. And the Republicans are the party of the impotent—they’re “not worth a bucket of warm spit” when it comes to defending freedom.
The only way to save your children from woke indoctrination and give them a decent shot of avoiding real dependency in adulthood is to avoid public education with extreme prejudice. Hello, homeschooling. Teach your kids yourself. Sit down with your kids every day and do a half hour of Khan Academy math, a half hour of reading, and a half hour of journaling. Then for the rest of the day do something that either piques the curiosity of your kids or helps them develop a worthwhile skill (e.g., how to program an iPhone app, how to build a shed, how to set up a small DIY solar system, etc.). It isn’t hard to out-educate our public schools. And if your kids advance beyond your ability to teach them, outsource the teaching. If your daughter wants to learn ballet, you don’t tell her no because teaching ballet is beyond your ken. You sign her up for ballet lessons at the local dance school. Likewise, if your daughter wants to learn calculus, you don’t tell her no because teaching calculus is beyond your ken. You hire a non-woke calculus tutor.
The big rub against homeschooling, of course, is that it requires the full-time efforts of one parent. One parent must stay home and teach the kids, and the other parent must leave the home to secure the household’s income. Very few families can afford this luxury, however. In order to live in an HGTV home and drive new cars, they need two incomes. But a family can live comfortably on one income if it humbles itself by living in a tiny home or a trailer and driving nothing but beaters. Again, you have to pick your pain. The pain of looking poor? Or the pain of having your kids taught by the most anti-America, anti-white, and anti-parent zealots this country has ever seen?
Propaganda Avoidance: Little of our news today is meant to inform; it’s meant, like education, to indoctrinate…to manufacture consent. And the same goes for entertainment. If you want to be fake dependent on government subsidies, you must avoid woke news and woke entertainment like the plague. Under no circumstances should you be consuming mainstream or corporate news. Focus instead on citizen journalists like me and old-time wisdom (e.g., the Bible, the Stoics, our Founding Fathers, etc.). And be very, very leery of any entertainment produced this century, especially after 2010. Current Hollywood has much contempt for America, traditional families, and white people, and its product shows it.
Some day in the future, I’ll create a page on this blog dedicated to non-woke news and non-woke entertainment. Here’s a sampling of what that page will contain.
Groovy Approved Citizen Journalists
Jimmy Dore
Tim Pool
Russell Brand
Styxhexenhammer666
Matt Christiansen
Groovy Approved Movies
Mighty Joe Young
On the Waterfront
A Night to Remember
Cool Hand Luke
The Quiet Man
Groovy Approved Television Shows
The Honeymooners
Burns and Allen
Peyton Place
Dark Shadows
Columbo
Traditionalism (i.e., biological realism): Men have distinct physical and cognitive traits, and women have distinct physical and cognitive traits. That’s why ancient civilizations made men the warrior class and women the nurturing class. That’s why Mrs. Groovy has done 99 percent of the shopping, cooking, and laundry during our marriage, and I have done 99 percent of the hammering, ladder-climbing, and toilet-unclogging during our marriage. It wasn’t some millennia-long plot by evil men that persists to this day. Traditional gender roles evolved because they make sense—they play to the peculiar strengths of men and the peculiar strengths of women. Yes, some women want to install roofs in the hot summer sun. But the vast majority don’t.* And, yes, some men want to “chest feed” their newborn children. But the vast majority don’t.
* Granted, the vast majority of men don’t want to install roofs in the hot summer sun either. But every time a see a roofing crew, it’s only comprised of men. I guess a better way of proving that roofing is naturally a man’s job is to pose some questions: What hourly wage would be needed to produce an all-male roofing crew? Fifteen dollars an hour? Twenty dollars an hour? And what hourly wage would be needed to produce an all-female roofing crew? A hundred dollars an hour? Two hundred dollars an hour? Without men, roofing wouldn’t be economically feasible.
Don’t believe the woke hogwash that gender is a “social construct.” Long-term happiness and success—and, therefore, fake dependency—are best achieved by submitting to the dictates of nature. So if you’re a man, be masculine—lift weights, strive professionally, and if you ever start a family, heroically stand between your family and the forces of depravity. And if you’re a woman, be feminine—be small and cute, spark the “better angels of mankind’s nature” in those around you, and if you ever start a family, make your family’s home an oasis of tranquility.
Extreme Ownership: This concept invented by Navy SEAL Jocko Willink can be distilled down to one pithy sentence: the only one responsible for your well-being is you and you alone. No one is coming to save you—not the village, not the rich, and certainly not the government. You have to be the “first responder” to every critical aspect of your life. When it comes to health, for instance, you’re not waiting for “Medicare for all.” You’re exercising every day and not poisoning your body with refined sugar, refined carbs, tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drugs. When it comes to income, you’re not waiting for UBI. You’re excelling at your job, mastering new skills, and making sure your future self is provided for by maxing out a Roth IRA. When it comes to the fickle finger of fate, you’re not depending on the government’s safety net to protect you. You’re creating your own DIY safety net—by being an honest, hardworking person, by building up a solid emergency fund, and by establishing a family and dedicating yourself to the success of your spouse and your children. “Seek, and you shall find.” “Give, and it will be given to you.” In other words, adopt an extreme ownership mindset—where excuse-making and responsibility-shirking are never tolerated—and there’s a very good chance you’ll never be real dependent on government subsidies.
Final Thoughts
Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. What say you? Are you fake dependent on government subsidies, or real dependent? And if you are real dependent on government subsidies, are you doing everything possible to extricate yourself from that sorry predicament? Let me know when you get a chance. Peace.
Not long ago a consumer of media could avoid the Hollywood Stupid Tax by watching foreign entertainment. If you watch a Ukrainian detective series it’ll be chock full of propaganda about stuff you don’t care about. If you ain’t got a dog in the fight, you can better ignore the dog-baiting.
Similarly you can watch classic Hollywood. Ferinstance, The Quiet Man would be impossible to make nowadays. Or Blazing Saddles
Nailed it, my friend. Foreign entertainment is a great way to escape or disregard what The Critical Drinker describes as “The Message.” I’ll definitely have to include some foreign options on my Propaganda Avoidance page. And you are so right about what movies Hollywood can produce today. You’ll never see anything like Blazing Saddles, Animal House, Slap Shot, Porky’s Airplane, and Tropic Thunder again. Heck, can Hollywood even make movies like The Right Stuff, The Titanic, and Saving Private Ryan today? After all, what self-respecting Hollywood producer today would deign to make a movie about an event or time that only showcased white people? Thanks for stopping by, Steve. Always a pleasure hearing from you. Cheers.
Oops! I forgot about Downton Abbey. Gotta give credit where credit is due. Hollywood isn’t a total perdition–yet.
To be dependent means to be beholden to someone or some institution. They make the rules and can change them at anytime.
We’re trying to become more self-sufficient and re-adopting some of the things that were common in the old days…gardening, etc. It requires more work, but seeing the fruits of achievement is a nice reward.
Josh recently posted…5 Money-Making Side Hustles Worth Pursuing in 2022
Amen, brother. I couldn’t agree more with your comment. Thanks for stopping by, Josh. It’s always great hearing from you.
Usually I agree with your posts but today one section struck me as incredibly sexist. While traditionalism has its place, women should never be relegated to a role where they cook and clean and bring the Mr. his slippers at the end of a long day. Women are very capable of earning a living that can support their families, including their Mr if they choose to have one. Yes, men are usually more physically able to handle certain tasks and jobs but that doesn’t mean that women can’t. I became the breadwinner of my family when my husband was put on disability retirement. He took over many of the domestic chores and childcare while I worked. Other than his small pension, my income paid all of the bills, was used for retirement savings and enabled me to retire early, even in a high COL area. Just as with education, if I can’t do something physically I can contract that task out to someone who can. Please be a little more respectful of women. We’re not the women of a hundred years ago.
Agreed. No one should be relegated to anything. What roles spouses play in a marriage should evolve naturally. You became the breadwinner because of a tragedy that befell your husband. And I salute you, as your husband surely does, for embracing that role. But absent your husband’s tragedy, would you have pushed hard to be the breadwinner of your family? All I’m saying is don’t fight nature. Men and women need each other to be better people and do great things. Fighting traditionalism has done us no favors. Too many men are winding up alone with nothing to focus their heartfelt energies on but video games. And too many women are winding up alone with nothing to focus their heartfelt energies on but their careers (i.e., helping a boss succeed rather than helping a husband and some children succeed). And I doubt most 30- and 40-something singles are tuly happy with their situations. Thanks for the push-back, Pat. You make a lot of excellent points as usual. Have a great weekend.
Actually, yes. Before we had our daughter I made sure I had the ability to support us “just in case”. Three years later that proved to be a great decision. All done through hard work since I didn’t go to college and was in an industry that was generally all college educated. Many today don’t plan like that and some spend too much time playing games rather than planning for their future.
Damn it, Pat. You’re way too smart for me to do intellectual battle with. But let me throw this at you. You and your husband actually have a traditional or biologically-realist marriage. One spouse is dedicated to managing the homefront, and one spouse is dedicated to securing the household income. But in your situation, because of a tragedy, it made sense for you to secure the household income and for your husband to manage the homefront. You’re both playing to your respective strengths. And that’s exactly how it should be. Two people coming together and doing everything they need to do to make sure the team wins.
I wholeheartedly agree with Pat.
My eyebrows were raised almost to my hairline when I was reading some of your remarks about gender roles.
If, twenty-five years ago I’d sat around looking “small and cute” waiting for the “better angels of mankind’s nature” to swoop in and look after us, we’d have been f*cked. I would have lost the house, the boys and I would have had no financial security whatsoever and we would have been at the mercy of every cold wind that blew. Or, if I followed the line of reasoning that said that children are better with both parents, I would have had to stay in an abusive relationship with my ex-husband, which would have perpetuated those abusive patterns onto the next generation – our 4 boys.
Personally, I preferred to attempt to break that cycle, which, I think you’d agree, is much better for society in the long run. Going forward, we now have 4 young men who are responsible, hard-working and respectful people who are making a positive impact on the people around them, as well as being nurturing, equal partners in their romantic relationships.
Your hypothesis doesn’t take into account single mothers like myself, who have taken on the dual roles of both bringing home the bacon AND providing a home that’s “an oasis of tranquillity.” Frankly, I’m astounded that I’m reading this kind of stuff from your keyboard.
Don’t sell women short – we’re a lot tougher than we look. You already know this – look at the woman you’re married to! I have no doubt that if she hadn’t met you, she could have easily navigated life on her own terms and been very successful. She’s definitely got a backbone.
Also, while I’m on a roll… (LOL)…
I don’t have your faith in home-schooling. Granted, I’m a public school teacher in Australia, so I have a bias. Homeschooling, when it’s done well, is a terrific thing. But it needs time, money and the dedication of the parents to ensure that the kids receive a wide-ranging and thorough grounding in many different areas of study. If I was a betting woman, I’d bet that many homeschooling/charter school families in America aren’t of that ilk. They’re religiously and/or politically motivated to keep their children away from mainstream thoughts and ideas and to mold* their kids’ beliefs into a narrow and limited understanding of the world. This is never a good thing for society as a whole.
I’d argue that America’s embrace of homeschooling and charter schools over the last 30-odd years is one of the most important reasons why we’re now seeing such a huge lack of critical thinking, (and with regard to the abortion laws – an appalling lack of knowledge of basic biological facts), in the political discourse of your country.
If the US wasn’t such a huge player on the world stage, I’d shrug my shoulders and say, “OK America. You do you!” But to be honest, many of us in other countries are worried that you’re going to drag the rest of us down with you.
Anyway, I’ve written more than I intended and the dogs are waiting for breakfast. I’d better go and start the day. Love to you both.
Have a good one!
* I hope you appreciated that I used American spelling for this. It nearly killed me not to type ‘mould.’
Frogdancer Jones recently posted…Wednesday W’s #31.
Et tu, FDJ? First Pat, one of my favorite commenters, rips me a new one. And now you, one of my favorite commenters as well, and certainly my favorite Aussie, rip me a new one too.
But all’s fair in love, war, and blogging, and I’m certainly not above reproach. So I really do appreciate the push-back from you and Pat. It’s not fun having your ideas challenged, but it’s the only way I’m going to grow as a person.
A proper response to your and Pat’s excellent critique of my take on traditionalism can’t be done in the comment section, at least not to my satisfaction. So I’m going to dedicate a whole post to my response next week.
For now, all I want to say is this: Remember the premises of this post. Premise one is that mainstream cultural currents, which have been forged and promoted by the left, aren’t producing a lot of Americans who can thrive without government subsidies and handouts. Real dependency on the government is the norm and fake dependency on the government is the exception. Premise two is that in order to free yourself from government dependency, you have to swim against mainstream cultural currents. And this is where traditionalism comes in. It’s one of the ways I say you can swim against the mainstream cultural current of radical feminism.
Is traditionalism perfect? Of course not. Is traditionalism right for everyone? Of course not. But I think it’s worth considering. Check out this YouTube clip:
Mom Angry at Baby Dad For Bringing Food For His Kid Only Instead Of All 4
It shows a woman blasting a guy because he only brought Macca’s for the child he produced with her. And I understand her point. How can she take that Happy Meal, give it to one child, and then let her other three children watch their half-sibling eat while they go hungry? And I understand the guy’s point. Why is he obligated to feed the three children he didn’t father?
This one YouTube clip neatly underscores the problems wrought by radical feminism. Courtship, mating, and childrearing are a mess in this country. There are a lot of unwed mothers who are struggling and aren’t happy. There are a lot of childless women in their 30s and 40s who wish they had kids. There are a lot of incel men taking refuge in vice. And there are a lot of men who irresponsibly father children and abandon them. And I think traditionalism can help rectify this mess and reduce the scourge of real dependency on government subsidies. But more about that in my upcoming post.
Finally, you’re wrong about homeschooling. There are roughly 57 million school-aged kids in this country. The number of kids being homeschooled is 3.7 million–6.5 percent. If any schooling option is responsible for the decided lack of critical thinking skills in this country, it’s our illustrious public schools.
Again, thanks for the push-back, FDJ. I really appreciate it when someone as learned as you takes the time to offer constructive criticism. You’re a true credit to The Land Down Under.
P.S. Did you appreciate the Aussie slang I used in this reply?
Interesting about the home-schooling in the US.
And that woman in the clip is a real peach! 🙂
LOL! A peach, indeed. And because of the backlash she received from the internet mob, she took to Tik-Tok to defend herself. That didn’t go well either. And it’s a shame. She’s an attractive woman. The march of folly is of epic proportions on this side of the pond.
Getto Baby Mama Responds