A Question for "Alpha Males": Where is Your Pack

Greetings,

I am going to speak on a particular social issue and I am going to get hammered from certain parts of our community for writing it. However, this is one of those things that needs to be written, needs to be sent out there, needs to be said. This is something that needs to be corrected in people's thinking of the way the world works.

Why does an "Alpha Male" need a pack?

Simply because without a pack you are a "lone wolf" and contrary to all the cinema and stereo-types which have been created, the surviving "lone wolf" is the exception to the rule. Mostly "lone wolves" die, because they don't have a pack, "lone wolves had a significantly higher mortality than members of packs and pairs." They become lone for a reason, rejected by a pack. This is proven through more studies than just this one.  Oh, and "lone wolves," are exactly that lone, a pack of "lone wolves" is an oxymoron.

What Makes an "Alpha Male" in a pack?

The "alpha male" in the pack is the biggest, it is also the strongest, and so forth. However, even the concept of the "alpha male" has been proven to be false. For the purposes of the discussion and because the concept seems to pervade our society, or at least parts of it we will use it.

The "alpha male" is a leader. Yes, they are strong and they make decisions. They also care for the rest of the pack, they also defend the weaker members of their pack from attack. They do not go out and seek to harm members of their pack as this is counter-productive, as the pack must work together to survive. The "alpha male" will go out of its way to ensure that more of its members survive because this is to its advantage.

Watch this video for wolves in the wild, yes a pack of them. Watch how they follow one another, sticking together for the benefit of the pack. Working for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual.

What does all this mean?

There needs to be a correction in our idea of the so-called "alpha male" if we are going to continue to use this concept in a social sense (even thought the original concept is false). It needs to be recognised for what it originally was the leader of the pack. A one who worked for the group, who worked to the benefit of the group rather than themselves.

If you're big, strong and dominant, but you're not a leader, and you are not working toward the improvement of a group, seeking to improve the lives of others, you are no "alpha male." You're a "lone wolf" and your destiny is to be shut out, because "lone wolves" are removed from the pack for a reason. They have no use to the pack, the pack always comes first.

Real strong people are those who put other's needs before their own, because they can. They have the strength and resources to do so, so they do so. Not because they are told to, or because they are required but because that is the way things are done. This modern "alpha male" concept needs to be either reconstructed or removed, corrected to what a pack leader does or simply eliminated, because it does no good for society as a whole as it is currently.

Next time you are told someone is an "alpha male," ask the where their pack is, and if they don't have one, it's just an ego-trip to fill in some hole in their personality...

Cheers,

Henry.

Rich and Poor: It's a Matter of Perspective

 Greetings,

There is a divide in our societies between "the rich" and "the poor" and this divide is only getting wider. The access to services from either side of this divide is also only getting more and more divided as well as those who end up in government are those from "the rich" rather than the poor as the system is bent in their direction. This will be an examination of the concept of "the rich" and "the poor" and how it is most often a matter of perspective.

When most people think of "the rich" they think of people like the now notorious Elon Musk, possibly Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other such wealth individuals who influence life in society, or at least attempt to in various ways. These people can more easily be classified as the "ultra-rich". They could stop working and simply wait for their income to roll on in with little effort on their part, still making multi-million dollars from their assets. This is a perspective of those who are reasonably well-off.

Consider politicians. According to public government records, a retiring Australian politician is paid a minimum of $185,000 per annum, with an additional percentage of their annual pay indexed by their years of service, paid for life. This payment is made by legislation, i.e., can be increased by a vote of the same politicians. Their basic salary is $211,250, again adjusted by different service, and adjusted by different methods, and voted by the same politicians who are getting paid the salary. This does not include the various perks they claim, including travel, food and accommodation.

If we then compare this to the average salary in Australia, which is $1,250 per week, or $65,000 per annum (calculated at 52 weeks), it shows a stark contrast between the "average Australian" that these politicians are supposed to represent and the amount they earn. Is it any surprise that politicians in Australia are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent? 

If we then make a further comparison between the most "vulnerable" in Australian society there is an even starker contrast between the politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. The Age Pension, maximum basic rate, $936.80 per fortnight, or $24,356.80 per annum. The Disability Support Pension, i.e., those who have been declared unable to work, is the same at its maximum rate, in both cases if you are partnered, the rate drops for both of you, resulting in about the same amount. For a single person looking for work, i.e., unemployed, the basic rate is $668.40 per fortnight, or $17,378.4 per annum. With these numbers is it any wonder that politicians have no clue about the situation of people looking for work, or maybe the reason they have little motivation to do so? Most of the people on these payments are too busy worrying about how they are going to survive.

Now, all of these numbers can be found on government websites, as you will find if you click on any of the links. I have not pulled them from social media, or other forms of media, they are not hype or anything, they are the cold, hard facts. 

If we examine the numbers that are presented, a person on the maximum rate, consider that the maximum rate for either the Age or Disability Support pension is getting less than half the average salary of the average Australian. In one case the individual has already worked their entire life, in the other case they have been deemed unable to hold a standard occupation, unable to hold full-time employment. 

Moving entirely away from figures and comparisons between them...

A person may be sitting on a pension of some kind, and be quite happy. Having completed a their work for their career, they may have paid their house off, planned their retirement and be sitting happy with their pension. They could be entirely unconcerned about such things as the gap between how much they are getting as compared to someone else.

In contrast...

A person working at a job may be sitting at some relatively comfortable salary above the average and still not be happy. They could be concerned about how to get their next promotion; once they do that then they can afford the house that they think that they are entitled to; move out of the apartment which is draining a part of their income. They are concerned about all of these things yet could be earning well above the pensioner described above.

Happiness, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how much money you earn. The young working person may be more fiscally-wealthy but I would say that the pensioner has a richer life.

We make comparisons between ourselves on the basis of our fiscal worth, which in many cases are arbitrary, and based on elements of fortune and social statuses. Are there not values which we hold more dear more important? Can we not value each other more on the basis of our worth to society, what we give or gave to society?

The comparison between "rich" and "poor" is a matter of perspective. A person who is of a much lower socio-economic position may find a person who is of a middle-level of socio-economic standing quite wealthy in comparison to themselves, even though the person who is at this middle-level may not consider themselves to be wealthy, especially in comparison to those who are above them. When questions about who is "rich" and who is "poor" eventuate, it is a matter of comparison, a simple matter of perspective. 

Our society is run by those who are at the top, who we call "the rich" I would say that these individuals are more qualified as the "ultra-rich" in reality, well beyond the "average" individual's capacity, if there is such a thing as an "average" individual. If we examine our politicians and where they stand, while they are not quite in this "ultra-rich" position, they surely aspire to join them, and thus approve measures which assist those in such positions, along with themselves to improve their fiscal position. These are the individuals who we need to take a hard, long, look at and decide whether or not they, or the systems which they promote, are truly in the interest of the people they purport to serve.

Cheers,

Henry

"Privilege": Its Meaning and Application

 Greetings,

The subject of "privilege" is one that I am loathe to talk about because everyone has a certain amount of privilege depending on how you look at the terms and the definition which is applied to it. However in the context of the socio-cultural and socio-political context which has been placed upon the term, the definition is more specific, indeed it will have a definition which appears something like below:

"If you talk about privilege, you are talking about the power and advantage that only a small group of people have, usually because of their wealth or their high social class."

This definition is one which was taken from the Collins English Dictionary. This is one of those words which people have added special meaning, indeed it is not actually the word "privilege" they are talking about they are talking about "social privilege". It is likely that for convenience the first word "social" was dropped because it was understood in context, and then the new one was picked up and used so the definition of privilege was changed to have this new definition.

A privilege is simply something that another person or group does not possess, and this can vary over many different things. It was previously stated that everyone is privileged and this is true. Here are some simple statements: 

Everyone is privileged to have been born and survived that event, there are those who do not. So, People are privileged to be alive. 

People are privileged if they do not have a disability. 

People are privileged if they do not have some sort of illness, chronic or acute. 

People are privileged to have regular meals each day, or even to eat once a day. 

People are privileged to have clothes to wear, more so if those clothes are clean. 

There are those who have homes and those who do not, those who do are privileged. The more privileged people own the homes that they live in.

Social Privilege is something else which goes on top of these privileges. These privileges focus on the  social differences between individuals and also highlight some of the differences between individuals which may differ in the privileges which have already been highlighted. The purpose of this concept is to show which group of people stands above or below, and more often than not below, another group of people. Most often this is so the people who are above can be denigrated for their lack of empathy for those below, however often there are circumstances that are unknown and this is used as a simple tool for some social advantage, for the purposes of virtue signalling more than showing some actual social injustice being present. Simply put, everyone has their story, and it is not completely known to everyone.

The concept is supposed to highlight social injustice for the purposes of correcting the injustice, bringing things so there is more equality. Instead the concept is now used as a convenient stick to beat any person who has a disagreement, or who has a different point of view. Most often it is used as a convenient stick when a social issue seems to have been being ignored, even if the individual has no opinion or is unaffected by it, and most often by individuals who do not reflect upon their "privilege".

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

It's the Journey Not the Destination

 Greetings,

I am going to get a little philosophical during this one, and I ask the reader to bear with me. I hope to identify something which has been rattling around in my mind for a little while that I think needs to be said. It identifies a problem in our fast-food, instant-solution, must have it now, culture which has developed over the more recent decades. People simply do not appreciate the benefits of simple things such as good long walks or drives to no particular destination. Nor do they appreciate stories which could have been solved with quick fixes.

Let me present a meme which I found using Google Image search, there is a link attached to the image for those of you who are interested, and in part the page to which it is linked demonstrates a lot of what I am discussing here. I could argue the point with many of their 25, but I will pick one that will cover much of it:

There are many memes and videos on YouTube and other places showing how the Lord of the Rings trilogy could have been shortened through the use of the eagles. Gandalf the Grey could have simply called one, allowed Frodo to mount the eagle, they could have flown over Mount Doom, tossed the ring in and presto, doom of the world averted. The life of Boromir would have been saved as a result, along with a long cast of other characters.

Now the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and I am not including the Hobbit, for those who want to pick at that point is some 481,103 words long. It is a rather long read, and it does have its points where there is slow going and a little hard to read. The movies by Peter Jackson, 3 hours plus, depending on which version you watch, are an epic watch in themselves, and they miss parts of the story out. So maybe a shortened version would be nice, but who would be the person to pick which bits you would take out, and then stand against all the complaints that would inevitably follow.

But, would the crisis have truly totally been averted? Sauron may have given agency and instruction to Saurman to build his army of Uruk-hai, but the threat was still present, threatening Rohan. What about the attacks that were already occurring here? What about the threat of the hill tribes? What about the jealousy that already existed between Rohan and Gondor? We have seen in our world how jealousy leads to war, why should we think that the Men of the West would be any different?

What about the development of characters along the way? Gandalf would have remained "the Grey" never having slain the Balrog. Aragorn would not become King, the world of men would remain disunited, separate, squabbling among one another, prime victims for any other crisis that may come along to threaten Middle Earth, and there is always a next crisis. If history has told us anything, there is always another crisis just below the horizon.

I mean, there is also the development of other characters to consider. Frodo had the hardest journey of all, and the prime focus is always on him and his resistance to the One Ring. There is also the split personality of Gollum which is contended with, these often overshadow the development of other characters. The growing friendship between two individuals who formerly would not have considered each other friends at all in Legolas and Gimli. Then there is the growing courage, or the realisation of his true courage in Samwise Gamgee, who follows Frodo to the bitter end, who realises his love for the simple life, and courage in all things. There is also the development of Pippin Took, who starts as a fool and develops courage and responsibility by the end, and his friend Merriadoc Brandibuck who discovers courage in the end fighting for those he loves. All of these things would not have happened if the journey had not taken place, if each event in their lives had not taken place.

In the immortal words of the band Tism, "Its the horse not the horseshit." The horseshit in this case truly is the destination, the result. It may be good for fertiliser, again another journey, but I think more people are interested in the horse. We must look at stories, like Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit, and others as taking us on a journey. We follow the characters through their trials and tribulations, watching them develop and grow. If we were only interested in the destination, we would only read the last chapter of each novel that we pick up, but we don't we take the book in hand and read each chapter in turn.

It bothers me a little that there are so many of the memes and YouTube clips showing how the Lord of the Rings could have been ended more quickly. I think that the people who present these memes and videos have missed the point of the story, they do not understand the greater qualities of the story that has been presented before them. The greater depth of character that is shown in the characters within the story and how they develop along the way. I think that they are too addicted in seeing the result as soon as possible missing the point of the journey.

Appreciate the journey that the author or director takes you on, watch as the characters go through different circumstances and develop. Think about the journeys that you have been on and how they have changed you. Take time to enjoy the journey that you are on, every journey that you participate in, each one is a chance to develop your character and to learn something about yourself. Don't be too eager for the destination, you may miss something special in between.

Cheers,

Henry.