Culturalism · Relations and Dating

Something Wicked Is Afoot

Those of you who have followed me for a time know I am skeptical of religion. Such a position should not translate into the understanding of outright disbelief, but rather difficulty in accepting the mainline examples of spirituality as adequate explanations for our existence. Consequently, I do not jump at agreement when presented with suggestions that we are “living in the endtimes,” or “about to face the Rapture.” While in some ways steeling, said claims often seem more about the speaker wanting reality to align with their own worldview, and not an indisputable Armageddon.

All that aside, I will occasionally come across something that turns back my own unconvinced soul, or even hints at another possibility. In point, we have the following article from our friends at Hufflepuff. Though the short written offering is not tantamount to glorious deification of the dark lord Satan, one cannot help but feel dismay over the pettiness of it. Here we have a privileged white female marching in the direction of utter depravity simply because politics didn’t turn out the way she liked. Take this quote, for example:

 “When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.”

Think about that in context for a moment. A self-described “40-something attorney and mother,” who presumably passed through the seven years of required college education, wants to be a Satanist because the Supreme Court’s ideological balance might shift. Notwithstanding her hypocritical appeals to democracy, which apparently is “threatened” only if she loses, why go so low? Are there no other shores for the sophisticated professional to breach apart from those oriented around the foremost enemy of the Father? Even in the narrow context of the Satanic church’s battling organized religion for legal primacy, the entire affair smarts of overzealous hatred and spiritual compromise.

She continues:

“Everyone who cares about women having autonomy over their bodies should care about efforts to use religion to chip away at this right. We need to think outside the box to challenge what is coming and what is already here. The Satanic Temple is already doing that, and by becoming one of its members, I believe I have joined a community of people who will stop at nothing to safeguard my family’s rights ― and all of our rights ― when they are at their most vulnerable.”

Ah yes, the classic appeal to female autonomy over the body. This is the same logic which considers harlotry a symbol of pride, corporate wage slavery the highest calling for women, and abortion a flippant decision to be celebrated. Anything that strips away the purposeful ends of the male-female relationship and the family unit holds paramount status, because somehow being “liberated” is a fervent virtue, much like men must obsess over “being an individual” for the sake of individualism itself. Forget about any depth or spirituality, for life must be lived in the moment and sworn to a lack of kind.

When I observe the machinations of such lost peoples, desperately making attempts at justifying their shoddy state and vengeful hearts towards God by joining the column of his sworn enemy, I cannot help but wonder if sinister forces are truly at work. It would seem that the secularist coalition might be content with freedom alone to live their lives, but increasingly they desire to spite the heavens along Sorrow Road. Not content to depart the Father, they insist on cursing Him.

 Is something else behind these masks of rage?

Culturalism · Relations and Dating

Love Is Not Unconditional

Scrolling down an assorted Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter feed will invariably result in the depiction of a message along the lines of “True Love must be unconditional,” or “There is no ‘but’ in ‘I love you.’” Those statements may well warm the anxious heart, especially in folks who have struggled with the attainment of genuine affection on a romantic or spiritual basis. It flourishes within a hope that someday the same will be true for them, despite continuous disappointment. Beautiful as the sentiments may unfurl, they mask a delusional and unrealistic assessment of the beating world, one coupled to dangerous results for the fiercest believers.

Our salvo might begin by examining marriages. Often these unions are predicated on the lofty notion of the unconditional, but of course more relevant factors are involved. Consider the tragic case of Tyler Ziegel, a Marine Corps sergeant who was horribly disfigured by a roadside bomb during the Iraq War. After returning home, Ziegel married Renee Kline, his high school sweetheart and fiancée from a pre-deployment engagement. According to the Hallmark internet image, the couple were a paragon of successful love:

A day later he is in San Antonio, Texas, at the Brooke Army Medical Center. She leaves her home town for the first time to fly there with his mother so they can be by his side. She is there for him. His injuries are severe. He will have numerous operations and she will stand by him throughout. It will be a year and a half before they all go home. In the meantime, she will move in with his mother. The homecoming is a triumph. He is a hero and she is his heroine. Their commitment to each other is inspiring and rock-solid. They get married. She is now 21 and he is 24. The wedding takes place on October 7, 2006, and that date is declared a state holiday. Renee and Tyler Ziegel Day. Their romance is covered by The Sunday Times Magazine. They plan to have a family. Love conquers all.

It sounds wonderful. Here is their wedding picture:

As you can see, Renee looks terribly unhappy, despite all the praise and social accoutrements being foisted on their union. In barely a year, they were divorced, both because she could not accept his appearance, and due to the influence of a “flame” she hooked up with while he was deployed. Some years later in 2012, Ziegel died of an alcohol and morphine overdose.

So what happened? Did love not conquer all in this case? Was it built on lies? Perhaps the simplest answer would be to understand that conditions are attached to the passionate concept. Renee probably loved him to some degree, but it was based on his looks, and when he came back disfigured through no fault of his own, that changed. He was no longer the same person, and that was the disqualifying condition.

Similarly, though less extreme, a woman who gains 100 pounds after marriage may find her husband doesn’t look upon her the same way. She could claim he’s superficial and appeal to unconditional love, but let’s remember WHO he fell in love with. Hint: not the heavy-set chica. Had he possessed a photograph of what she would look like in six years, the ring may have gotten lost in a sewer drain.

Children are not exempt from this dynamic either. It is certainly true that a good parent cannot afford to hate or spite their offspring for bad behavior at a young age, because the new soul may not know better. Over time however stark restrictions must be installed, or else you have the kid public berating his parents for not making food correctly or failing to get the perfect gift. Unconditional love in this frame is just another term for spoiled, and the risk grows with age.

If a daughter insults both her parents, or defames them socially due to their dislike of a romantic partner, should the reply be unhindered love and tenderness? Now suppose she becomes pregnant, and her coupling lives up to the normal DoorDash stereotype…are they expected to support her financially because love is unconditional? The sensible response would be no, and yet I can already hear the shrill castigations of the morally outraged, for whom sleep is never honest.

 But past all those cries strikes the glorious heart, where past all recriminations and bloviating, they know I’m right.

Culturalism · Personal Finance · Relations and Dating

The Worst Shall Yet Come

As many of you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away sometime Friday evening at the age of 87, after a long battle with multiple forms of cancer. Though this post has other motivations than pure commemoration, I will pause to take note for a moment. During my days as a young and empowered conservative, I often had a distant (and negative) view of RBG, largely because of her politics. It was only after watching her eulogy for Antonin Scalia that I developed a different appreciation, one surrounding her humanity. A critical issue with modern politics is the conspiracy to invalidate people on the basis of opinions, often whilst claiming to speak for the entire human race. This is a sickening trend with poor tidings for the time ahead.

What RBG’s death will do is tear down the curtains of fragile respectability, or at least the parts still remaining. I would not put her timely passing beyond the wildest machinations of the Democratic Machine, which above all else desires the supremacy of power. Such an event steels the most dejected into action, and increases the chances of any outcome being viewed as illegitimate. The perfect gale has arrived.

Consequently, we can expect to see the level of rioting and pillaging increased to dramatic levels, both before and after this election. The desperation of leftists towards triumph may even cause them to target elected senators in states where the Democratic governor has power to appoint a replacement. Nothing will be off the table for these souls, who now cry out to the internet in anguish, as if they are cut off from the divine culture. Vile dismissals of violence directed against their opponents will become the canon norm, and the timid dweebs arguing about “the intolerance of the liberal left” shall face an epic usurpation of their credibility, while Christians wonder if the end times are nigh.

The remaining lot – us who see past the empty diversions of the political game – are bound to be caught in the crossing fire, despite our attempts at avoiding Armageddon. We are to be the voices that were never listened to, at last set alight at a time when being “right” matters not, for everyone has become wrong. Hence there is no treasure for the rewarding, only a brittle grudge, the child of hearts cast to infinite scorn.

Little as we can do to prevent this calamity, there are measures to take for personal safety:

  • Review your investments, and determine if some should be trimmed or divested (but do not panic sell).
  • Be careful about open displays of political affiliation. Free speech is a virtue, but not respected by all.
  • Take care of your elders, and the young. Weaker targets are perfect prey for the radicalized and unshakeable.
  • Go about with confidence and caution. Being lost in a phone while in public is a great target made.
  • If the mob comes for you, fight as if the world is collapsing. You may be right, and no police or allies are guaranteed to come.
  • Should you follow God or gods, find peace with them now, and pray.

Perhaps these assessments are too harsh, or overblown by the limited scope of one man’s existence. Still, few people ever understand the gravity of their times, or the flimsy nature of the order around them. Be true to heart by knowing what is to come, so your life is not wasted in speculation of when that spiritual chapter may emerge.

Culturalism · Self-Improvement

Your Opinions Are Not Your Own

The clear and present normal to see on the Twitter pages of the young and upcoming is a statement reading something like “My opinions are my own.” Try as I rack the brain, it is difficult to comprehend the logic behind such a statement. Sure, the world is fond of disclaimers, a dynamic which probably helps account for the lawyer-loving culture we live in, and the lawsuits that go in unison. But does it really matter?

Suppose the empowered tweeter does feature said tagline, and puts out a joke that sounded good in his head, along with everyone else’s not sworn to petty drama. Will this really protect him from consequences? Perhaps the company he works for is off the hook, but should something come to the level of defamation, good luck with that. The banhammer is coming for job, reputation, and dating patterns, determined to drive that poor soul into the grounds of repentance—although don’t expect mea culpas to change anything.

Saying your opinions are your own is like cushioning unpleasant crime statistics by noting “I’m not a racist.” Even issuing such words is enough to indict, “facts and logic” aside. The very lifeblood of modern drama culture is oriented around picking out some semantic weak point or bad take and attempting to ruin the person’s life over it. Accuracy and disclaimers be cursed, so let them pay reparations and shut up.

The result is that such folks end up muzzling themselves to degrees not previously believable. It is hardly enough to tow moderate individual opinions; now you are expected to ferociously endorse the party line, regardless of how hypocritical and corrupt it happens to be. The religion of the stato-multinational establishment demands nothing less, and traitors pay the hearty price. One cannot merely be a passive associate; they must embrace the cause of passionate cultist and acolyte.

It would seem as though a simpler solution can be had: speak your mind, but under a different name. Few things enrage the village idiot cancelist more than not being able to perform a quick Google search which brings up name, rank, and serial number. No open Facebook page or LinkedIn profile offering information on where, who, and what salary materializes gets their bones cooking, while also staving off the less zealous investigators. You might just keep that paycheck and apartment a little bit longer, providing of course there’s no camera in the details.

Or you can be a politely disclaimed free speech “hero,” and hope for blueberry pancakes with a chance of employment.

Book Reviews · Culturalism · Self-Improvement · Uncategorized

Why Publishing Failed

Before her death in 2016, the legendary Ursula Le Guin gave a short acceptance speech at the National Book Awards in which she outlined the problems with modern publishing. At that stage of her career, she could safely issue the criticisms without fear of financial repercussion, but the observations were nevertheless poignant. They rest firmly on the role which capitalism can play in diminishing the value of literary art by commoditizing various genres for mass market efficiency. Some particularly biting lines are as follows:

“Hard times are coming, when we’ll be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now, can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine real grounds for hope. We’ll need writers who can remember freedom – poets, visionaries – realists of a larger reality.

Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship.”

One cannot deny the truth in those words. The more that technology advances, the less substance matters, and this can be witnessed across various mediums. A person with great content on YouTube will swiftly get buried by the excess of “corporate friendly” channels letting our dopamine-hungry brains feast on countless jump edits and sound effects. Movies with independent or unique origins are disregarded, while studio money pours into toxic remakes, and the coarse boredom of social justice slinks into genres where it was always present, albeit with class and subtlety.

Books are no exception to this rule. As others have observed, the idealized vehicle for publishing success has become a pantomime of the same writing style and setting, regardless if it lacks originality. Even the famous fantasy series popularized by an unknown homeschooler relied on heavy borrowing from the Star Wars movies, to a degree that is almost comical. But it still sold, because publishers are more interested in what fits the market than anything resembling genuine art. It’s not a stretch to say that Paolini would have been laughed out of the room had his book done something truly beyond the bounds of “comfortable” prose.

Le Guin went on:

Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial. I see my own publishers, in a silly panic of ignorance and greed, charging public libraries for an e-book six or seven times more than they charge customers. We just saw a profiteer try to punish a publisher for disobedience, and writers threatened by corporate fatwa. And I see a lot of us, the producers, who write the books and make the books, accepting this – letting commodity profiteers sell us like deodorant, and tell us what to publish, what to write.

Books aren’t just commodities; the profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.

I believe in this case Le Guin was referring to Amazon, and rightly so. The compounding growth of Bezos’ bright-eyed promotion of publishing hides a more sinister reality: Amazon’s attempt to form an effective sales monopoly and reduce current royalty rates. Part of the approach involves encouraging authors to publish with Kindle Create, a clunky and unhelpful software designed to coral authors into the Bezos marketplace indefinitely:

Ultimately, it is hard to say what the future will hold. Perhaps Le Guin is right, and change will arise. For myself, I know that my hesitation in publishing fiction as opposed to non-fiction (and especially self-help), stems from a recognition that the themes depicted in my stories would be swiftly dismissed, if not entirely deleted, from the Amazon platform. But that is the tragedy of being a writer: you can’t help but write, even if the outcome is a pittance. It is an extension of the soul, and not doing so feels tantamount to betrayal of the spirit.   

Culturalism

They Have Always Been This Way

Conservative circles have been hooting and hollering for months now about leftist attempts to exaggerate coronavirus deaths and prolong the visibility of the scamdemic for political purposes. Some go so far as to believe the virus would magically vanish in seriousness if Joe Biden happens to win the election in November. That is, assuming he gets a chance to be inaugurated before Kamala takes the reins.

Neither suggestion is beyond the realm of possibility, but these tactics are by no means new. Since the beginning, actors on the Left have made concerted efforts to manipulate and twist information towards political ends, with little regard for what damage could be done to the lives of individuals affected. This is because at heart they lack all belief in the metaphysical, and thus perceive the world using a purely materialistic stride allied to the attainment of resources and power.

A perfect example lies in the case of the Marzabotto Massacre in September 1944. Popular opinion holds that the commanding German major, Walter Reder, allowed for wanton civilian targeting and destruction in the village while his units closed in on the Red Star Brigade, a notorious partisan group led by Mario Musolei, better known as “Major Lupo.” These perceptions are based upon the testimony of a certain Alsatian collaborator from Reder’s ranks, Julien Legoli, who deserted to the Allies after the event and used the claims to bolster his own position, this despite the fact that no fighting took place in the town when the Red Star Brigade was destroyed.

Thanks to Legoli’s treachery, Reder was arrested in September of 1945 by American forces, who could not substantiate the claims, and thus released him to the British, who were also unsuccessful in determining grounds for war crimes prosecution. Reder was next passed on to Italian authorities, who placed him on trial in the fall of 1951. He would later be convicted and sentenced to life in prison, largely due to fear of communist reprisals if dismissal was reached.

In the words of the British lawyer F.J.P. Veale, who investigated the event, the Marzabotto Massacre amounted to “[…] noting but a Communist fairy tale.” But the Left would not be deterred, and they proceeded to have a mausoleum constructed in the town depicting the names of Reder’s supposed victims, even though this list included everyone who had perished from that region during the war, regardless of location and circumstance.

Reder would sit in an Italian prison until 1985, when he was finally paroled, only to die six years later. His saga serves as a prime example of how the Plural Left has no qualms about manipulating people and data to attain some elusive moral or financial victory. It should be a lesson to all those alive today: those actors on the street and in the media offices are not concerned with truth, or at least not the variety championed by their opponents. What they follow is raw ideology and the grinding need to assume political power, for everything else is death.

Do you still believe they desire tolerance and civil debate?

Culturalism · Federal Government

Of Mods and Generals

Some months back I noted that the generals who conservatives exalt are usually the biggest defenders of the political status quo. This explains why most nationalist coups in recent history have been led by colonels and below; those who have served long enough (and secured fat pensions) are less incentivized to pursue significant changes which might risk their own plot. Conversely, anti-reform coups such as in Thailand are pushed by generals who wish to protect personal interests against movements threatening the establishment. Rarely do we witness divergence from this general (haha) routine.

The events of this past week are no exception. When James Mattis was chosen by Trump as his Defense secretary in 2017, I had strong personal reservations, despite conservative gushing over the “Mad Dog.” Of special concern was his affiliation with Theranos, the scam-worthy company promoted to inflate the net worth of a certain pseudo-Steve Jobs, who now awaits trial on fraud charges. More information on that subject can be had in this book.

I also held reservations about someone with so many years in the military establishment now leading the Department of Defense, because fixtures are rarely reformers, and the DoD badly needs some changes. It was also painfully evident that few generals in recent memory have been particularly upright characters, with the possible exception of Peter Pace, who was quickly silenced for his opinions. Other characters include Stanley “He CARES” McChrystal, David “Double D Declassified” Petraeus, John “La Resistance” Hyten, and of course James “The OG” Crapper. None of these characters inspire confidence or leadership like Patton or Ike, but we’re supposed to honor them because muh uniform.

Thus it came as no surprise to hear of Mattis’ recently-reported folly. According to Bob Woodward, the retired Marine Corps general advised former DNI director Dan Coats that “there may come a time when we have to take collective action” against the president, who he described as “dangerous” and “unfit,” with “no moral compass.” In a surprise to no one, certain people are very thrilled by this story:

While it is true that previous suggestions were made for a coup against Barack Obama, these came from random opinion pieces, and not the mouth of a four-star general and secretary of defense. The concurrence of Dan Coats in part with Mattis’ comments makes it all the more disconcerting. Let us not forget too what Rod Squirrelstein had suggested about the 25th Amendment, along with prominent celebrities. The facts are on the wall, and somehow the tolerant liberal press is not cranking out foreboding warnings of a military junta taking over.

If this seems crazy, bear in mind what Trump just said at a recent press conference:

In our system of government, so brazenly calling out the powers that be can lead to disastrous consequences. Should something drastic occur before the election (or after), the media can be expected to cover it up by blaming some extremist, yet the average American will know what has occurred. We can only pray they do not become so emboldened as to lash out in that manner, for it would mean the charade of the Republic falls, and the mystique of democracy is lain aside.

Culturalism

Did Georges Sorel Predict 2020?

Georges Sorel was a French civil servant who produced political content in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While not renowned today, he expressed a remarkable prescience about what the Western world has devolved into, particularly during the last several years. The following are some truly savage quotes from Reflections On Violence, his most famous work:

Commentary Applicable to Social Media Influencers:

“These are opinions which scarcely touch me, since I have never paid attention to the views of people who think vulgar stupidity the height of wisdom and who admire, above all, men who speak and write without thinking.”

On the Weakness of Government and Police:

“[…]most decisive factor in social politics is the cowardice of government.”

“One of the things which appears to me to have most astonished the workers during the last five years has been the timidity of the forces of law and order in the presence of a riot: the magistrates who have the right to demand services of soldiers dare not use their power to the utmost, whilst officers allow themselves to be abused and struck with a patience hitherto unknown in them.”

On Cowardice Preceding Destruction:

“Capitalist society is so rich, and the future appears to it in such optimistic colours, that it endures the most frightful burdens without complaining overmuch: in America politicians waste large amounts of taxation shamelessly; in Europe military preparation consumes sums that increase every year, social peace might very well be bought by a few additional sacrifices. Experience shows that the bourgeoisie allows itself to be plundered quite easily, provided that a little pressure is brought to bear and that they are intimidated by the fear of revolution.”

“A social policy based on bourgeois cowardice, which consists in always surrendering before the threat of violence, cannot fail to engender the idea that the bourgeoisie is condemned to death and that its disappearance is only a matter of time.”

Culturalism · Personal Finance · Self-Improvement

You’re Already An Individual

The internet seems profoundly obsessed with individualism. People harp on it to no endless degree, promising the wonderful gifts of “financial independence,” self-determination, and purposeful existence. Others present rather basic ideas as miraculous truths, developing followers who aggressively preach the merits of self, while suspiciously eyeing “collectivism” and its assorted malevolence. If cooperation is so much as suggested, these creatures leap to the defensive plane, accusing their opponents of endorsing socialism, or subverting the dignity of liberty. They rush to protect the individualism tribe, and gain immense satisfaction from such fulfilled duty.

A most apt question here would be: why? Once we peel back the outraged drama and look at actual human behavior, the stark individualism of people is manifested in an exaggerated manner which rises to frustrate the suggestion of our aforementioned friends. If anything, society is far more dedicated to the illustrious self than the promoter wishes to imagine.

Suppose for example one is going to purchase a car. Perhaps they will buy something to impress people in close communion with them, or even take friendly advice on the matter. More often than not however, the decision is driven by personal (read: individual) qualities. It could be a beater model, chosen because that chap can’t afford something on the pricier side, or possibly a vehicle which “matches my personality.” Never mind how those folks typically say they are focused and reliable whilst buying a Chrysler; the point remains as an individualistic contention.

Colleges and living spaces are similarly outlined. If it is financially viable, or happily debt-fueled, highschoolers will typically choose an institution with the appropriate program to match their personal interests, preferably in a state or country with enjoyable backdrops. Sure, the skeptic could argue that most college institutions have a Marxist hive mind, but at least in theory the students are exercising a degree of independence and personal choice. Once they graduate, certain cities might hold appeal for the diversity and nightlife, while others retreat to the country roads. Are these normal patterns of human behavior all reflections of some collectivist conspiracy?

Even the push for FIRE lifestyles on the internet dot com invariably leads to more self-centeredness and LESS focus on the community. The act of budgeting away little things like the morning coffee or diner breakfast to save money diminishes the chances of interacting with others and supporting a local (or chain) business. Another clear and present theme in the financial-digital realm is the emphasis on not having kids in order to retire early. As far as the checkbook side of things is concerned, this makes perfect sense; why would anyone reproduce if the cost of raising one child can be as much as $233,000, not counting college? Yet somehow we are not individualistic enough.

Perhaps the real issue is more complicated. We already are highly individualistic, and well-adapted for a consumer capitalist society, but this is not adequate. Instead of people finding meaning in family and community, which have been stained by the collectivist shackles, they turn to some higher level of individualism for salvation. Just a little more self-improvement, positive mindset-building, and financial freedom. Then I’ll be a REAL individual. So Able Earnest proclaims, as his life becomes emptier by the waking second.

This concept collides with Emile Durkheim’s idea of the anomie, or disconnection of individuals from social standards and economic systems commonplace in advanced societies. It develops as a “malady of the infinite,” where the person in question constantly desires more, but cannot be satisfied in the confines of his social system, leading to derangement or possibly suicide. Likewise, modern neoliberal cultures fixate on meritocracy and individualism, while suppressing the value inherent to Bilbo’s “home above gold” or group solidarity versus individualism.

But I’m just a jealous collectivist, so pay no mind.  

investing · Personal Finance

What Holding Long Can Do

The financial world is replete with articles attempting to preach the virtues of strategies such as value investing, contrarianism, options trading, and growth concentration. Each community maintains a certain level of ideological sway, despite the fact that outcomes are not always grand. In this post I want to consider the notion of holding long using the context of Apple stock, which reveals how sometimes the strategy is not just holding, but holding long enough.

Back in August of 2014, I shelled out the money for some shares of the technological behemoth. This was after its legendary stock split, and opinions diverged as to Apple’s ability to deliver continuously in the future. Over the next nine months, the stock climbed slowly to around $130 per share, and I recall the forecasts suggesting it was time to dump the stock and take profits. My commitment to holding long kept true however, and I did not sell.

A year later, Apple had actually receded to a price of around $90 per share, making my unrealized gain bright and red. Although irritated, I still did not submit the sell order. By the end of 2017, the stock was sitting at $175 per share, and seemed destined to continue rising, so I kept my piece. Apple shot up to over $200 per share the following year, only to get hosed in the December 2018 sell-off, and by January 2019 it hovered in the $157 range. In December of 2019, the stock went above its previous high and rested as neighbors of $270.  

From the tail of July 2020 to this day, Apple has jumped from $380 per share to a whopping $500, bringing my six-year return to over 400 percent. What’s more, the company just announced a stock split which stands to quadruple the number of shares I own. And if that’s not enough, I have been paid a dividend (reinvested of course) for the past half-decade.

Not all holding long stories are like this, and indeed many turn out differently, but it gives one an idea of how the process works. At any time during that long period, I might have decided to take profits, worrying of a later decline or collapse. My failure to be brash resulted in a fat return, albeit over time. This is a theme I will be discussing in a future book on investing. Investments rarely pay off quickly, and oftentimes the jewels take months or years to reveal their shine.

So fire up the brokerage account, be at peace with your choices, and forget about them. It seems to have good outcomes.