Artificial Selection Redux

June 18, 2019 by The Thoughtful Meanderer

Last week’s post was supposed to be about the mechanisms that we, Man, have created and how they are being utilised when it comes to picking the best members of our species to climb up the proverbial ladder.

The reason why I’m doing this unintended follow-on is that I don’t think last week’s instalment did a good job of getting my point across.

To be clear, these are my thoughts and opinions based on observations and identifying patterns from those observations. I’ll be using some examples throughout.

Referring to the last post, I do believe there are a number of mechanisms at play, whether by design or circumstance, which are there to only allow certain people through the echelons of society. I’m going to be discussing these in the context of a workplace environment. I’ll start with the big one:

Money.

Money is an artificial resource that we created to make trading easier. Rather than exchanging stone, metal, wood, etc for, say, fabrics, gunpowder and alcohol, we created a system that allowed for these things to be represented in a way that makes a trade far easier. Instead of hauling several tons of material only for a trade to fail, it’s a damned sight easier for two people to meet somewhere with their respective notes and coins to discuss terms. Once an agreement is made, the materials are exchanged at a later date.

Money also allowed for intangible qualities to be priced. Labour, skill, talent and knowledge could all be paid for without the need for a person to have to move large amounts of precious goods. Or, indeed, destroy They’d hand over their note from the benefactor and the proprietor would bill them accordingly.

The result of this ease of use has proven invaluable over the centuries. Nowadays, we carry all our money in a wallet or on an app. Financial transactions can be completed in seconds compared to weeks or months centuries ago.

So, what’s the reason for money being here?

It’s a resource and resources are judged as a means of power and influence. It’s one reason why there’s a rich list published every year and there are stock exchanges. They all measure the value, represented by money, of an individual or company. That value determines the influence they have over people, economies, governments and countries. How else could Apple or Facebook be able to snub the British and American governments? They have so much more money than they do. That fact alone is enough for them to absolve themselves of any accountability they may have.

It’s a scary and sobering thought that companies can be so big they can dismiss the very organisation that governs them. Apple makes consumer technology – phones, tablets, desktops, earphones, etc and yet…and yet, they are now more powerful than the U.S. government.

On the other end of the scale, not having a lot of money is also a measure. It’s a measure that you may not be a responsible person regardless of how much or how little you earn. How you use that money will help determine your value in society and with family, friendships and romantic relationships. Too frugal and you’ll be seen as paranoid or a cheapskate. Too generous and people will start to think all manner of things especially if your income stream/s don’t back up your lifestyle.

When I was working at the headquarters of a major UK bank, (which I’ll call ‘Retail Bank HQ’ herein) there was one person who joined our team that had people questioning (not always literally but their faces said everything) how this person was able to afford their lifestyle.

Picture this: late-twenties male wearing at least £500 worth of suit, shirt, tie and shoes to work. Every. Day. Drives an Audi S7 (on lease) with a spec that brought its market value to around £70k. Pays an expensive subscription for a gym which he, allegedly, went to every day yet still had a gut.

Last time I spoke to him, he was bragging about how he spends £800 a month on fuel and that he wants to buy a Bugatti Veyron. A previous conversation I had with him revealed that his ‘uncle’ gave him an old Triumph motorbike which, once he’d sorted it, would fetch him £10k.

Now, all that talk would be fine if he was a £300 plus per day contractor or earning upwards of £80k on a salary. Everything except the Veyron, that is.

But he wasn’t. This guy was on £35k. People knew roughly what he was on and I found out exactly. When I did, I had a lot of questions as, no doubt, did many others. Is there a family trust fund? Is he racking up heaps of debt? Does he have a legitimate/illegitimate business on the side? Senior managers weren’t behaving anywhere like that and they would have the means by which to do so, if they chose.

His reason was always that he got a ‘good deal’. If that was true then he was taking all the ‘good ‘deals’ he could could get. In a big, open-plan office, it won’t get you many friends.

It didn’t.

At a team Christmas lunch, we were presented with another ‘good deal’. Incidentally, my colleague got our manager as his Secret Santa. Now, the budget was £10 as it really just a bit of fun. But this guy got our manager a watch that was easily over £100!

“I used a lot of vouchers.” was his defence. What didn’t help was that, rather than hand it back, my manager accepted it. From that point on, in secret, my colleague was officially dubbed a ‘brown-noser’.

Something that may, just may, have allowed such brazen behaviour to slide would be if we was actually good at his job.

He wasn’t. He was pretty terrible.

In the end, he left the team because he ‘didn’t enjoy it’ but he made the wild assumption that he was well liked in the department.

His farewell?

He had booked a venue for the entire department, which was fifty-plus people. He didn’t send out an e-mail to everyone to see how many people would turn up then book the venue. He just booked it.

How many turned up?

None.

Did he learn a lesson? No. To give some perspective, the Christmas lunch was 2014, he left the team in 2015 and the last conversation I had with him took place in October 2018.

I heard he’s started a car leasing business. I wish him well.

Now, taking advantage of deals is a good way of improving wealth. The middle and upper classes have doing this for generations. How often does the Queen by a new car? Furniture? These classes invest in items that they, ideally, only need to buy once. Property, furniture, land, cars, clothes – if it’s bought, paid for and still works then it’s kept. If they don’t need to spend money, they won’t.

But for those who aren’t as financially savvy, they are prime targets for capitalism. Companies will be stumbling over themselves to get you to buy a new phone every year, lease a car every three years and rent a property instead of buy one.

The end result?

We have people constantly paying for things they don’t need and never able to save for anything important. Holidays are more frequently borrowed on credit card instead of saved for. Brides are not having one but two hen parties now – one at home and one abroad. Speaking of brides, in the UK, the average cost of their weddings is now £30k. On one day? ONE…DAY!

For that, you can buy a very decent second-hand car outright or have yourself a fairly substantial mortgage deposit. Thirty grand for a wedding is absolutely ludicrous!

And the people who will be having these weddings will be the ones who don’t have a clue how to use money. They’ll take a wedding loan (they exist), rack up huge credit card bills and either beg or borrow from parents.

All because they want a ‘perfect’ day?

Grow up. Please. Spending your first few years of married life in debt is not a healthy scenario. If a couple then chose to start a family, the financial burden increases even if both partners are working.

We are living in an ever increasingly materialistic world where people, for some reason, feel they must spend to obtain items because they believe these items equal a good life. Fancy cars, lavish holidays, lush weddings, eating out more often than not, buying new clothes every month. The list goes on.

People are becoming less and less concerned with what money actually means and the result is they are feeding themselves to the capitalist sharks.

As I said at the start, money is a resource and as such, it is also a tool. You don’t need lots to have a good life. You just need to know what to do with it which brings me neatly to my next attribute.

Resourcefulness

Having money as one resource to then buy other resources is one thing. Being able to create a resource from disregarded elements? That’s alchemy.

Take Sir James Dyson. He built his first bagless vacuum cleaner from spare parts from places you wouldn’t associate with domestic cleaning. An industrial sawmill was one such place. He started his quest in 1979. In 1995, his vacuum was the best selling brand in the UK. In 2019, he’s the fifth richest Brit and a long-established household name. But back in the eighties, he was deemed mad and was pushing very near the poverty line. No one else could see what he could see bar his wife but, as an engineer who went to art school, he had the vision and ability to cobble together something that has been the standard for over twenty years.

How he did that involves other qualities I’ll discuss later. Let’s stay on topic.

The ability to make something useful from very little is a reflection of deep knowledge, understanding and imagination. These are very powerful tools particularly in times of crises. If something’s broken and there are no tools to fix it, if you’re the person who can fix it with the equivalent of candlewax, blu-tac, gaffer tape and a shoestring, your value just went up. If you can continue doing it, your value keeps going up. If you can do it under immense pressure and keep your cool you’re practically a master sorcerer. People will be in awe of your abilities. Some will be jealous only because of their disappointment in themselves, mind you, but they’ll be jealous nonetheless.

Assertiveness

Never should be but often is confused with aggression. There are similarities between the two but you should never really have to be aggressive to be assertive. If you do, you’re not very good at it.

Being assertive is knowing what you want, forming a strategy on how you’re going to get what you want, executing that strategy and letting nothing and no one distract you from your target once you’ve locked it in.

That’s it. Many people, however, have a tough time trying to assert themselves at different points in their life. Some people overthink things, some overfeel and some don’t do enough of the previous two. Part of the problem, and it seems to be a growing one, is people struggle to focus.

Earlier this week, I was at a Rob Zombie gig and the man himself had to take a few moments and ask the audience to put their cellphones away!

That should never have to happen.

The ticket was £35 and he was good value but why, oh, why would you pay for a gig, turn up then not watch the act but record it or photograph it instead? That’s another blog but it’s related to my point. I don’t think people really know what to do at gigs anymore. It’s like expressing yourself is an alien concept so best take a video and a few pictures to internalise later.

YOU’RE THERE! The artist is in front of you and you can’t do them the courtesy of expressing your enjoyment? That’s just bizarre and a complete waste of their talent and time. The guy is on tour from the United States and the best you can do is hold a phone up to him? Sod off!

And this behaviour is linked to lack of assertion because if you can’t decide how to express yourself in a live music setting in your own spare time then you’re screwed in all other parts of life.

If you don’t know what to do, say, feel, think or act in a given situation, you’re useless. The statement/question ‘Are you a man or a mouse?’ is very apt for a lot of people and what I mean by that is, in the sense of utility, are you capable or are you not? By ‘Man’, I refer to a person who knows who they are and what they can bring to the table. By ‘mouse’, I refer to someone who hasn’t got a clue but is nice to have around. Like a pet. Harmless but good company. Guard dogs are not pets. They have a job and they know it. My girlfriend’s cat? As lovely as he is, he’s extremely placid and timid. Initially, as a test but now as play-time, whenever I chase him, he runs under the bed. I pretend wrestle with him – he allows it. He shouldn’t allow it. He should be telling me it’s not acceptable and giving me a warning. I’m concerned about how far I’d have to go before he stops tolerating it.

Attractiveness

Being attractive doesn’t just mean how good you look but it’s a major factor. From an evolutionary standpoint attractiveness is an indicator of the quality of genes you carry therefore the more attractive you’re deemed to be, the better your chances of mating.

Attractiveness can be looked like a pyramid. At the bottom, you have the foundation levels of status and health. Physical attraction is often linked to health and serves as a fairly good indicator on whether your genes are strong. Status serves as an indicator of your value within a community. This can be measured by your job, the possessions you have and visual markers.

Your visual markers can be interlinked with health. If you look good, smell good and move strongly then not only are you more likely to look like you take care yourself but you will also project an air of confidence.

Now, confidence is part of status namely your internal status and it’s a representation of two other key factors within that – Skills and your belief system whilst your external status is what others can see i.e, job, possessions, etc.

The thing with confidence is that it’s the result of the other two internal status factors. If you believe you can do something and you go and put the time and effort in, you’ll end up skilled in that activity. Knowing what you’re capable of is what confidence is all about and in so many scenarios, there are very capable people who do not have this confidence.

Why might that be?

Part of the reason comes down to insecure, paranoid and less capable people. These people will be aggressive when protecting their positions in the workplace. They will recognise almost straight away when someone is better than them and they will resort to all manner of nasty tactics to shut that person down.

I can personally attest to this. In my most recent job, we had a new Head of Product Operations join the company. I’ll call him…Dave.

Dave is about twenty years my senior and much more experienced than I am. However, Dave had no real confidence. For such a senior member of staff, he struggled to talk to a room full of junior staff and mid to senior level people. He was nervous. He stumbled over words and he was very quiet. He does not have a physically commanding presence as he’s short and rakish but doesn’t compensate for it in personality. His internal status was poor and so was his external status. He didn’t dress like the head of anything and came to work either by bike (which I don’t believe is a real indicator of status) or by van which wasn’t in the best of conditions.

For sure, given the office had a casual dress code, most people did wear more comfortable clothing. Even in that kind of setup, it’s clear who the senior people are. Their many more years experience shines through. They take the lead, ask the questions, guide the juniors, etc.

Not Dave.

Dave sat at his desk on calls and barely interacted with anyone. He was the complete opposite of the Vice President of Products (I’ll call him…Bob) who was loud, animated, sociable and interested in what people were doing. He was as you might expect a senior staff member to be. Within my first few weeks, I developed a good working relationship with Bob.

As this was a new job for me, I was wary of how I should present myself. I took the train and avoided taking my car (a 2012 crystal blue Jaguar XF) for two reasons: One – the car wasn’t bought for the purpose of commuting but for the enjoyment of driving. Two – I didn’t want to turn up in a car that would easily outshine everything else in the car park regardless of the fact it’s seven years and a diesel and I didn’t pay a lot for it.

I wore my Ted Baker suit (John Lewis clearance sale because I avoid full price at all costs but like to look professional and stylish) for two weeks then resorted to casual clothes. I had to buy a bundle of long sleeve t-shirts to hide my tattoos. In my previous role, there was no issue with my having tattoos but I had established myself there by the time I got them. I was also a contractor so not bound by the same rules as permanent members of staff.

I wanted my new colleagues to feel emotionally attracted to me which is the third level of the pyramid. If I dressed and travelled more like they did, then they would feel more comfortable around me and therefore trust me more. I could speak their language and engage in their conversations so, very quickly, I was made to feel at home. Doubly so when I allowed certain parts of my personality through because people don’t want to see a facade. They’ll know something’s up and stop trusting you which will lead to discomfort all round. But, at the same time, I didn’t reveal absolutely everything about myself in one go either. People need to be able to unravel the layers over time. They like the mystery of unwrapping the intriguing person.

My new role was a permanent contract and I was officially a mid-senior member of staff. Too advanced to be junior but not long enough in the tooth to be full senior. As such, I wanted to conduct myself differently. I’d moved from finance systems role in a bank of 90,000 people worldwide to a business analyst role in a software company of just 300. Part of why I took the job was because I thought I could help this small company grow by bringing some big company thinking.

That was my thought and it was my mistake.

When Dave had a one-to-one (I really do not enjoy corporate speak) with me, he went over his grand plan for the Products team. I showed interest and support in this vision. Even made some suggestions as a means of collaboration.

Initially, this went well.

Another discussion and I was asked for what I wanted to achieve in the company.

I explained that, over the next few years, I’d want to gain knowledge in each industry sector the company operated in. That would allow me to identify common traits in each so we could develop a platform that would speed up development of client products.

Again, this seemed to go well. It didn’t.

In a further meeting with Dave and my Line manger (I’ll call her…Sue), I was told that I’d ‘fail at my job’ for taking on such a task and that it was ‘impossible’. He hadn’t heard this was my plan for over the next few years. I had a job to do right now and that’s what I was doing.

But Dave positioned this like what I was doing was not my job. He wanted Sue to see this. I didn’t stand for it but I couldn’t retaliate how I wanted. It would have seen me out the door faster.

The company flew in a new Product Manager from Canada. His specialism was Oil and Gas and had over twenty years experience. Both my Line Manager and Dave brought me into a meeting with him so we could discuss Product Management since myself, my line manager and Dave were the only members of the Products team. We were a three-piece band needing a drummer since no one had a beat.

Before the meeting, I had brushed up on my product management knowledge since I had some experience at ‘Retail Bank HQ’. Being a quick study, I was able to devise a mental template and mix it with my previous experience in order to learn it better.

In the meeting itself, Dave referred to me as a ‘Product Owner’ which I found odd. Nothing in my CV or past experience suggested that. Even the current role didn’t match that title. I dismissed it as a slip of the tongue.

I should have known better.

As the meeting continued, I found myself talking on terms with the Product Manager. I’ll call him…Jim.

From the outset, you’d think Jim and I had worked together for a number of years. In my head, I thought I was displaying great adaptability, intelligence and confidence in front of Dave and Sue. All three stages of attraction discussed so far were very much on show.

What I thought was a good meeting seemed to be a turning point. From then on, things started to become more difficult.

I remember one Friday afternoon, Dave asked me what I was doing at the weekend. I explained I was going to write some more of my book. He asked what it was about and I gave him the brief. He didn’t look interested like most people would. He didn’t seem to think it was cool. He didn’t talk about his weekend plans.

He looked disgusted. And scared.

Can’t say I’ve had that reaction before. It was subtle but his eyes said everything. That seemed to push him over the edge. At that point, I started looking for a new job.

On the rare occasions I took my car in to work, I made no mention it was mine. I would get in early so no one could see me get out of it and I tried to leave before or after the main the rush in the evening so, hopefully, no one saw me leave in it. It happened a couple of times then I met a couple of fellow car enthusiasts in the office – One who drove a lovely black, mark one Mercedes CLS and another who drove a Honda Civic Type-S. Once we got chatting, I thought I was safe to talk about the Jag.

Nope.

When that got out, the mood from management changed even further. I don’t even think it was intentional on the part of colleagues. Probably said in passing. These guys are developers, after all. They code all day and that’s what they love doing. Social conventions and nuances aren’t considered.

Management, on the other hand, are all about the social aspects. It provides information and information is power.

Another meeting was had. This time with the brand new (note, this company has a lot of people in it who have served for less than a year) Quality Assurance manager. I was being moved from being a Business Analyst to being a Quality Assurance Engineer.

Why?

Namely, because the job I was hired for wasn’t there. Instead of working on what I was supposed to (a Joint Venture Accounting product), I was doing tax calculations on a Subcontractor Management product within the construction industry. It had absolutely nothing to do with Finance, Supply Chain Services or Procurement which were the skills and knowledge that were supposed to be getting utilised.

So, having some experience in this field, I went and worked with the new QA manager to devise the methodology since the QA function hadn’t existed in the company before. I then got to devising test cases and scenarios. Problem was, I had limited system access and wasn’t getting any.

One afternoon, I was working from home developing a swim lane diagram (which was really tedious and underutlising me) and the QA manager asked me to come in and bring my laptop.

I knew what was coming.

I got into the office and a final meeting was had. It was with Dave, Sue and the new QA manager. I’ll call him, Sanjeev. I was being let go ten weeks into a permanent role after five solid years as a contractor. The irony didn’t escape me.

There was mention that they felt they didn’t utilise me as well as they could have and that they were, perhaps, too small for someone like me. They didn’t mention that they speculatively hired. I got no apology.

But there was something else lurking that was never touched.

I don’t think Dave liked me.

In my efforts to show how capable I was and what a benefit I could be to the company, I think I ended up being too attractive. And that threatened Dave. It threatened him to the point where he tried to shut me down and when that didn’t work, he removed access to people I needed. First, the Vice President was impossible to get hold of. Sue would only say ‘good morning’ to me, Dave said nothing and Sanjeev seemed to expect me to do all the work in the new QA function.

But Dave went about correcting spelling errors in the word Subcontractor. Not really something I’d expect a senior figure to be doing.

From this experience, I surmised that the car, the suit, the attitude, being able to get something from practically nothing and also my ability to get on with people saw me looking for a new job. Sounds wrong, doesn’t it?

And that’s where the final part of the attraction pyramid comes in. Logic.

Logic is one of the big differences between us and the animals. It’s what allows us to find out if we are compatible with other human beings. Are our short-term and long-term goals aligned? Do we like the same things? Do we have similar personalities? Essentially, logic allows us to determine if we’re going to get on and it does it pretty quickly.

My logic told me I wasn’t in a good place from the start. This was reinforced by a new start who asked me in their first week – ‘Do you ever feel like you’ve a whoopsie?’

He asked me this because three quarters of the attraction pyramid were in agreement but logic, the head honcho, wasn’t buying it.

For me, I should have listened to my logic from the start. The job didn’t exist so I should have left straightaway or, at least, started looking for a new role straightway.

I didn’t. My stubbornness kicked in and willed me to give it a go and see if I could make it work. But other forces were against me because their logic was saying I didn’t fit despite any positive feelings they had, personally.

They did admit that they were too small for me so that was something.

What I also didn’t do was the play the game and that will be where the next post goes as I’m quite aware this one has gone on for some time.

Artificial Selection

June 9, 2019 by The Thoughtful Meanderer

Nature is a cruel mother. She spent millions of years creating millions of forms of life on Earth. And when she was done – she pitted them against each other. The sole purpose of this exercise was to see which of her creations were the best. Those that prevailed got to stay on the planet. Those that lost were forced off this world never to be seen or heard from again.

As the species’ were whittled down, a strange occurrence took place.

Man.

Descended from the primates, this species did something no other species had done before. It took a growth spurt. Man surged ahead, far beyond its animal brethren and developed consciousness, awareness, higher intelligence and imagination.

It used these greater evolutionary tools to its advantage. By casting stone unto stone, it could create fire. Using its imagination, it could use animal sinew to bend wood and combine it with a stick sharpened by stone to create a weapon that could be used from a distance.

What Mother Nature created was a species so above the rest of her creations, it could think outside its environment. In fact, it eventually got so good at manipulating the environment created for it that it went and made one of its own. As it did, its ability to dominate grew. The weapons and strategies used against its former predators outmatched them to the point of humiliation. Mother Nature had no answer for Man. She started losing control and could not maintain her grip much longer.

Once it was free of Nature’s reins, Man began to develop at an astonishing rate. Within a few millennia, it had used trees and rocks to build shelter and weapons. Animals, if possible, were consumed in their entirety not just for food but for bindings and clothing. Man used its inherent advantages to develop a clear focus and ruthless efficiency. This combination saw it continue its rise to dominance within the world built for it.

As its mind sharpened, its tools and structures followed suit. Once it could fortify itself and keep safe its women and children, Man sought to become its own creator. By building small settlements, the Alpha took his place at the top of his chosen settlement and declared himself leader and defender of all within his realm.

Threats came from all sides. Natural enemies still existed so the Alpha and his tribe of warriors would slay any animals that dare try to attack.

Rivals from the outside would attack to gain ownership over the settlement by directly attacking the Alpha. If that failed, they would try to take the women, children and any resources they could get hold of. If they failed, they may fail to become Alphas in their own and not be selected for mating.

The final enemy came from within. The Alpha had to be wary of those in his ranks that one or more may challenge him for the right to rule.

As Man progressed and his structures, tools and weapons grew more sophisticated, his natural enemies stopped being the animals. He had built such a divide that their existence posed very little threat. In fact, he hunted them for pleasure and for a challenge more than for survival.

So, what does Man do when there are no more natural predators? He creates new ones. Ones that are of the same species but have something he regards as a threat. Maybe they’re younger, faster, stronger or have more drive, determination and ideas. The Alpha’s position is compromised but he cannot show vulnerability even in the face of absolute defeat. He tells himself he is strong. He has his followers reassure him of his place at the top of the tree. But these followers would not question their leader and those that would would face consequences so they either repress their thoughts or show fealty to the challenger.

At such a point, an Alpha can quickly lose their position if they do not act. Until the twentieth century, they would have simply challenged their opponent to a duel of some sort. The terms and weapons used would have changed but the principle was the same – the current leader and the prospective one fight it out to see who is stronger. Whichever one is alive at the end either keeps their position or gains one.

This behaviour manifested into a more cynical, sinister and silent form after the Second World War. With so many centuries-long issues (war, famine, disease – you could put most of these issues under the broad scope of three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) mostly resolved in the Developed World, and with many tools no longer acceptable, the typical way for Alpha’s to oust their challengers was outlawed.

So, what does Man do? He creates new ones.

These new tools don’t kill instantly and they don’t offer challengers any dignity, honour or nobility in the face of victory or defeat. The new tools, like those used to separate man from the animals, are designed to keep one set of Man away from the other. But what they do is they ensure those in the higher position can extract the advantages from those in the lower position without sacrificing anything of themselves but everything from the lower ranked male.

Hierarchies, networks, money, technology, corporations and bullying, whilst not new are now the primary force for men in Alpha-style positions to keep that position or move up the ladder.

A true Alpha, however, at least in the animal kingdom, exercises strength when necessary. He ensures his followers are looked after. His concern goes beyond himself and he will fight to protect those loyal to him.

But what of these false Alphas? The ones in companies who work tirelessly to stop those more capable and intelligent from overthrowing them? We can’t describe them as Beta as that would imply they take on a supporting and advisory role to one above them. Omega would suggest they have the positive traits of both Alpha and Beta. A man who can lead and support just as well but real interest in either.

Gamma is the worst of the Alpha and the Beta. They will be overly aggressive, protect their position at any cost even the expense of people and resources. These are more likely to become paranoid and insecure as they tend to have little to offer.

A Sigma is cunning and dangerous. They do not conform to society and don’t play the social game but win due to their ability to bend people to their will.

The Delta is the pretender. It hangs out with the more sociable males, Alpha and Beta but cannot generate the confidence to be either one.

Since large scale killings in the Developed World of Man no longer take place, more of these men with negative, counter-productive and destructive traits have been allowed to enter society with little consequence for their actions.

While physical attack is at a minimum in these areas, the threat still exists. A male of any type can choose to strike fear into his chosen target. But it is no longer apparent how it is done the higher up the ladder you go.

The world Mother Nature made is cruel but fair. If you are strong enough, you can live, survive and reproduce. The weak are killed or rejected as unworthy of reproducing with.

The world of Man, however, is cruel and unfair. If you are strong, the weak can come together to take you down for you are a threat and possess qualities they do not and may never have.

Mother Nature created a world where the strong can obtain higher positions and keep it by showing loyalty, honour and respect to those that follow and support.

With Man, the weak can obtain such positions through deception, confusion, manipulation and collaboration with others of similar ability. Together, they create a network designed to trick, fool and humiliate those that enter the web willing to do the right thing.

The difference between the world’s Mother Nature and Man?

Progress.

Nature encourages it from the viewpoint of evolution. Only the best genes earn the right to be passed on.

Man, however, through conscious thought, can convince himself that he is the best and only he can progress. All rivals must be suppressed, oppressed, repressed and, ultimately, removed from any trajectory pointed towards him.

Men who want to achieve real progress face an ever increasingly difficult struggle to do so.

This is the world as it is now and will only become worse. For a time.

Whether knowingly or not, the world of finance and economics has been slowly raising the bar by which previously simple utilities are becoming less accessible. A modest wage no longer buys a modest lifestyle. The average house cannot be bought by the average anymore. Those that bought a property in the eighties or any prior decade but maintained the same salary could not afford their house today.

Transportation, holidays, entertainment, food are all slowly becoming increasingly unaffordable for those who were average but are now considered beneath it. Those above the average, if they do not recognise it, will become average and then beneath if they are unable to keep climbing.

The artificial barriers created by Man are worse than those ones set by Mother Nature.

Mother Nature says if you survive an attack, you are given an opportunity to get better.

In Man’s world of concrete, steel and glass, if you slip you can find yourself tumbling without knowing it until it’s too late. There is no help because those around you are too weak to do so but must also appear compliant in front of those who gave the push. For they too fear being pushed themselves. Combined weakness from above and below ensures anyone with skill, talent and knowledge that poses a threat disappears.

How do the strong survive in such a world?

The options are few:

One – They play their leader’s game and appear compliant.

Two – They don’t sit quiet and get on with things. They must highlight their presence as valuable and ensure everyone knows it. This will make it difficult for them to be removed.

Three – They don’t get involved.

Such strategies will allow them to survive but it creates a different divide. One where the strong and capable don’t apply themselves to the world infested with paranoia and insecurity. The risk is too great.

So, where does the world go when the weak are gaining power and the strong no longer pursue it?

For the moment, it goes through trouble. A lot of trouble. Progress will slow because those with real power to make good change aren’t involving themselves too heavily. They’ll sit on the sidelines and watch the bickering and backstabbing.

The weak will always fail. It’s a question of time. They’re lack of abilities will shine through eventually.

And when they do, the strong will be waiting to take over and reset the balance.

Just as Mother Nature intended.

Until then…every man is an island.

Spare A Dame A Billion?

May 29, 2019 by The Thoughtful Meanderer

Notre Dame. One of the most recognisable, beautiful and historic landmarks in all of manmade creation. For 850 years it stood relatively undisturbed and being kept in good health, even if cosmetically. Then, on April 15th it caught ablaze. Its roof collapsed and many precious artefacts within were destroyed. Fortunately, no one was killed and most of the artwork wasn’t present due to getting restoration treatment.

Hours were spent by firefighters who worked tirelessly to get the blaze under control. And once it was over…an outrage was sparked.

It wasn’t aimed at those working on the building to restore various elements within. It wasn’t aimed at the government. And it wasn’t aimed at the Church.

No. The outrage was pointed at the billionaires who offered financial donations to help rebuild the cathedral.

And why such a display of vitriol? Because the rich should be helping the poor, seemed to be the consensus.

It’s no one’s place to tell someone what they do with their money. Suggestions, yes. Recommendations, certainly. Advice. Of course. But people were almost demanding the billionaires to help the poor instead of rebuilding one of the greatest and most iconic buildings ever. Notre Dame is more than just a building. It’s part of France. It’s synonymous with many great points in French and world history.

Before anyone swells with anger that I might be taking the side of the rich, let me steer this ship towards calmer waters.

It’s all too easy to be cynical when we see the uber rich dig into their deep pockets and hand out money faster than an Instagram star takes selfies.

But should we? I don’t think so. When the rich don’t give, there’s no real public outcry. But when they do they are judged on the cause and the reason they give for. Are we living in a state of such social anxiety that we feel so negatively when a person does give? What if they didn’t?

This kind of backlash could serve to only discourage philanthropy regardless of the context around it. Wouldn’t you feel disheartened and victimised every time you bought your friend a pint when they were feeling down only to have it come back at you later? Or what about putting someone in a taxi because they were lost only to have a passer-by shout profanities at you for doing so? That’s effectively what’s going on here but on a much bigger scale. The rich are in a position to help and so they pledge (note, I say pledge and not donate. There’s a reason coming up later) an amount to bring Notre Dame back to its former glory.

Within two days, almost a billion was pledged from several wealthy individuals and companies, such as L ‘Oreal, LVMH, Apple and Francois-Henri Pinault. The latest Avengers film grossed more than that in around the same time only hundreds of thousands paid a small fee for that behemoth of a pop culture event.

And what of real culture? The tangible fabric that’s been woven by thousands upon thousands of people over hundreds of years? The very essence of a people carefully and meticulously crafted into the very foundations of the city in which it stands? That…is Notre Dame. It is not famous because of who it was designed or built by. How many know that Napoleon was crowned emperor inside its great hall? Few, I’d imagine.

It is famous because it is an intrinsic part of the landscape. Like a man-made Everest, Great Barrier Reef or Grand Canyon, Notre Dame is a structural wonder to behold much like its ancient Egyptian counterpart – the Pyramids.

And because of its age and sheer scale, it asks questions of you. If you’ve ever stood in front or inside of it, as I did in 2015, you realise what man can accomplish through sheer will, knack, knowledge and brute strength. Notre Dame is testament to humanity’s enduring efforts to overcome any and all obstacles regardless of limitations. It is a magnificent reminder of who we were, are and can be. Notre Dame is a part of the historical game of top trumps.

It dares the current generation to do better.

So, when the rich hastily made their pledges, it was with good reason. They knew the value of Notre Dame. It is beyond compare. Some may say a gift from God Himself. Perhaps that’s a bit far but you can see what I mean. It has no equal and the world would be poorer for it if it were to be left to become a ruin when there’s no reason for it to come to that.

When it comes to questioning them over choosing a building versus the poor, I can understand why they chose the former.

Let’s look at this objectively. Let’s say your parents had their home for sixty years. In that time, you were born, raised, fed, watered, cared for and entertained. Many parties took place. Many friends visited. Many great conversations and moments happened in that house. And then. A lightning storm hits and a tree crashes through the roof of the listed building. Some of it catches fire. The rain puts most of it out but the fire brigade comes to put out the rest. Your parents stand cold, wet and sad at the destruction of their home. The insurance will cover some of the repairs but the remainder of the work needs cash. And your parents don’t have enough.

You know you have some cash to spare but you can’t foot the entire bill. You go to friends and family members and they all chip in happily until the pot is big enough to pay for the repairs. Why would they do this? Because your parents house has an emotional and cultural meaning to them. It’s where they grew up or fell in love. Maybe several important pieces of advice were given. Regardless of the reason, that house shaped those people one way or another. It is part of their collective consciousness and memory. To see it ruined by an unfortunate incident which would lead to its owners lives damaged possibly beyond repair would be out of the question.

The same goes for Notre Dame. But, again… I talk of scale. How many generations grew up knowing about it? How many tales were told in and about it? Just knowing its there must give the Parisians and the French a great sense of pride, comfort and security. For myself as a Scotsman, when I fly into Edinburgh airport, I always feel better when I see the three bridges on the Firth of Forth. I know I’m home.

And Notre Dame is a sign of home too. Paris itself is a symbol of how protective the French are of keeping their capital in pristine condition. It’s an architectural and urban tree trunk – the further you go in, the older it gets.

Let’s take my example and apply it to the wealthy. The fire happened and President Macron came out and said no expense would be spared. But with no estimate on how much it would cost, the final total could be astronomical. How do you set up a funding campaign when you can’t agree on a total? Crowdfunding would be out of the question. It could be years before anything substantial is raised. What about the French Government? Given they own Notre Dame and it had been known for decades the cathedral needed some serious maintenance, you can’t count on them to cover the whole cost. And the Church? Some parts have given donations but the exact amounts aren’t known but they are smaller.

So, that leaves the rich as the logical option. They have access to a lot of spare cash, however, their donations come with caveats and conditions hence they pledged rather than just gave. The rich don’t just give money. There must be a good and structured reason why they should part with their cash. Is out of greed or selfishness? Maybe but I don’t think so. It mainly comes down to good financial management and only investing in causes where a return has a high degree of certainty.

When it comes to philanthropic causes, a lot of information has to be obtained and a number of questions answered before any money changes hands. The wealthy may have the money to give but they didn’t get there by flinging it away down a black hole where they don’t know what’s happening with it.

No, those who have pledged their money will want something for their help. Yes, they won’t likely make any money off this venture but something will be given in exchange. What that may be, we can only guess.

Now, coming on to why the rich, in this instance, don’t just help the poor. I’ll reiterate. The rich don’t just give money. There has to be a good reason for it. Solving poverty is a lot more complicated than just dumping money where poverty is rife. It has to be used constructively. That means any area where money is given, someone representing the benefactor will be monitoring the use of the funds. Heck, there’d be a whole team making sure that every penny is being used effectively.

Ultimately, it comes down to certainty. If you’re in a position of influence, wealth and power, it is only prudent that would use that position where the outcome has a higher guarantee of success. This would be one reason why the rich donate to privately funded schools and not government ones. They can keep a closer eye on what goes on with the money. The same can’t be said for government where there’s a higher chance that not all of the funds will be used for the intended purpose but to maybe fill a deficit elsewhere.

For Notre Dame, the rich will pledge their money because they know that those involved in the restoration will have the skills, talent and respect to carry the work out with the utmost care and attention to detail to ensure the building is brought back to its previous state.

But what of everyone else? Again, there’s just not the same guarantee. Would education be better if billionaires put there money in? Maybe but again, they’d want things on their own terms. Choice of teachers, changes to facilities, oversight of the curriculum, standard of food, etc. In short, they may just end up as private schools. If they wanted a return, they may also charge fees but that would remove the philanthropic element. A better thing would be to do what a number of charities do with their donations and invest in a fund where the returns are used to run organisation and pay staff.

In England alone, education spending was £42bn in 2017-2018. That’s more than the two richest Brits total combined wealth. One country and one sector would deplete the top two UK billionaires in one year. They would not be able to contribute the following year as their wealth would not have recovered. The top twenty UK billionaires could fund English schools for 5.3 years if spending stayed the same.

If we take all 151 UK billionaires then we’re looking at something a bit more interesting. Their combined wealth this year rose from £480.451bn to £524.843bn. A rise of 9.2% or £44.392bn. Their combined increase could fund English schools for a year. But what about the rest of the UK? Scotland’s 2017 education spending figure was £4.95bn. The 17-18 figure for Wales was £2.5bn and in Northern Ireland, it was £2.4bn.

So, the total spend on education per year in the UK would be circa £52bn. Some clever investing could make up that deficit which would mean that the interest increase alone could fund UK education every year if the fund was carefully managed.

But that is only one area of many where the UK’s rich could step in. There are hundreds of others and, if you were to start going through them, questions would arise as to whether private individuals should be funding such things. Education is a possibility if a philanthropic fund was created and managed by government where they’d be answerable to the benefactors. That’s a realistic setup.

But what about things like defence? The UK budget for 2019/20 is £38.4bn. The billionaires could cover that too but should they? Would you feel better knowing 151 people collectively fund and therefore own the military?

Transport – £29.14bn was spent in 2016/17. Do you think the UK’s richest would do better?

Those three areas alone would eat up huge amounts of time and brainspace. They won’t have time for that. They have companies to run, press to do, products to develop and deals to make.

And I am just talking about the UK but it’s the same across the world. The billionaires became billionaires by building (lovely alliteration) companies and steering them towards profit. Those companies pay tax to the government which goes towards funding the above economic concerns and all others. As individuals, they may pay tax. They may not. It depends on where their holdings are.

‘Ah, ha!’ I hear you cry. ‘Those rich people should be paying their taxes! The government lets them get away with it!’ Do they? How do you know? Their companies will contribute significantly to the economy. Personally, I don’t know. If they do, they’ll pay more in a year than you or I would pay in a lifetime. If they don’t pay directly to the treasury then I’m pretty sure they’ll pay indirectly through what they spend in the UK in a year. I run a company myself and I sure as hell want to spend less on tax and more on things like training. If I can reduce my tax bill, I have more to use elsewhere.

And why should we be surprised if they don’t? Would you like to be charged to spend money? Imagine if every pub you went into charged you before you entered? Or every supermarket charged you one fee for parking and a separate fee for entering the shop? How likely would you be to spend your money then?

In my hometown of Kilmarnock, such a ‘tax’, and it is a tax, was scrapped. To help the economy, parking charges were not enforced on a Saturday in a bid to encourage spending in the town centre. Unfortunately, my hometown isn’t really a place you’d want to spend much money and so, after about six years, the charges are coming back as the parking facilities have been losing money. Another issue is, there haven’t been any real signs of recovery since the recession. It hit the town hard and it’s limped on ever since with no major investment. Any new businesses that set up, most shut down within a year or two.

And that’s the difference between the ‘have’s’ and ‘have not’s’. Those that ‘have’ can create something from nothing and so taxation can end up bringing about the law of diminishing returns. If an entrepreneur moved into Kilmarnock and did something amazing whilst taking advantage of the cheap rates, that place alone would be a reason to visit. If they generate enough interest then the money would follow which would make others feel more reassured to start their own business or expand an existing one.

But, the town doesn’t have that person. Not just now.

I’ll use that example to segue back into the main topic of this article which was the main outcry against the rich after Notre Dame’s roof burned down. The rich have too much money and aren’t spreading it around. That’s the real reason for the protests of disgust – jealousy and greed. Those in the ‘have not’ camp want what the rich have, namely money. But also status but namely money. The real question is, what would you do if you got it? If you don’t know, you don’t deserve the money. That’s the stance I’d take and that’s the stance I’d expect the billionaires to take. Let’s put it another way. Who’d you trust more to take a penalty for England to win the world cup? A member of the crowd or the captain, Harry Kane? Drive a F1 car to a world championship? You or five time and reigning world champion, Lewis Hamilton? Win Wimbledon? You’d back an armchair athlete over Andy Murray or Roger Federer? Of course you wouldn’t so why should a government trust you with running a company that directly benefits the economy and therefore we as consumers over those who demand a lump sum payment? We’re all happy for aforementioned athletes to be paid millions a year because they can do something we can’t and we see it, acknowledge it and are in awe of them for it. Generally speaking, there’s a lot of respect for those in sport and the arts despite them making so much more than we do. So, why can’t we be the same for those in business? Just because we can’t always see what’s done doesn’t mean anyone can do it.

So, to my mind, there’s enough of a percentage of the population that feel entitled to demand the rich pay for them. If that’s true then, I’m sorry but you get nothing. As I said earlier, the rich don’t just give. You must show why they must give.

And the reason they won’t give is perfectly objective. The 99% have too many uncertainties. There’s practically no guarantee of a good return on their investment. And when I say that, I don’t mean they want their money back. What I mean is there’s a much smaller chance of a person taking that money and building an empire with it however big or small. Someone with that same spirit will find a way to get in front of them to ask for sponsorship or a grant. They’ve been proactive enough to seek out their preferred benefactor and show them what they can do and why they’re worth investing in. If they can convince that person, they get what they want. Most people have no clue what to do in a traffic jam let alone plan a strategy built on an aspiration to become more than they currently are.

Those who have achieved get favours, admiration and respect. They also get a lot of stress, hate and bad press.

The rest of us pay taxes and complain instead of becoming worthy of something more.

The Black Widow Conundrum

May 8, 2019 by The Thoughtful Meanderer

My second blog post is another Avengers-themed one. This time, I’ll be discussing the fate of Black Widow. Like Thor, there has been an outcry against her treatment in Endgame.

Some have accused her suicide/sacrifice as ‘fridging’. For those who aren’t aware of the term, ‘fridging’ is where a female character dies to give a male character a reason to feel and drive the plot forward.

When I watched Endgame in the cinema and that scene came up on Vormir, I felt she was resolved. She was comfortable in letting go and giving her life to not only save Earth, the Universe, defeat Thanos and let Clint see his family again but she did it to save her family. That’s important. She mentioned earlier in the film that the Avengers were the only family she had and I think she’d go full mama bear if it boosted their chances of survival.

Another important point to note was that her death was her choice. Leading up to that fateful moment, Clint initially volunteered for the task then Natasha stopped him and went for the edge herself thus leading into the friend vs. friend fight over who stopped the other from killing themselves. Both wanted to save the other and both wanted to serve their purpose for the good of the mission. That is what they’re trained to do, after all. They are assassins working for the most secret government intelligence agency. Death is part of the job whether it’s a targets or their own. They need to be comfortable with that and, as Nick Fury said to Cap in Winter Soldier, Agent Romanoff is ‘comfortable with everything’. She certainly looked it whilst Clint struggled desperately to save her.

From a narrative standpoint, Black Widow was perhaps the only option. Both she and Hawkeye (I’ll be swapping between their real names and hero monikers throughout) are the least powerful, the most trained in dangerous missions and they’re used to laying their lives on the line. To go back to Tony Stark in Avengers, ‘We are not soldiers’ he told Steve Rogers. And its true. The core Avengers team aren’t soldiers and that includes Captain America. He was an experiment that worked but, ultimately, wasn’t meant to be used in battle. He was a guinea pig that had been refused military service therefore not officially a solider.

So, the core team is made up of a God, a successful military experiment, a scientist and an engineer. Black Widow and Hawkeye are effectively the SHIELD reps to make sure Nick Fury’s ballsy Avengers Initiative doesn’t go off the rails.

Back to the narrative reasons – For the Vormir mission, you could have had Cap and Black Widow but the moment wouldn’t resonate as well because they don’t have the history. Cap could have sacrificed himself but we would have missed on the ‘holy trinity’ moment and seeing Cap wield Mjolnir.

If Cap let Natasha die, he’d have understood her reasons but it would grate him. Allowing a person to fall to their death goes against everything he stands for. And it would have brought back memories of Bucky in The First Avenger. A lot of pain which would have surely multiplied with the fact that it’s Red Skull who dictates the terms of the transaction. Vormir would be a bad place for Steve.

If Banner was used, again I don’t think the moment would have had the same gravitas because they’re relationship hadn’t formed fully. If it was Natasha and Banner on Vormir with Nat dying, that would have been fridging as Banner would be mourning the loss of his only real love interest in several years. He’d also be mourning the loss of the potential relationship he could have had. Allowing Natasha to die could have seen a full conversion back to Hulk where he’d be less useful. A raging, uncontrollable Banner would be the last thing the Avengers need with the universe in the balance.

If it was Banner who died in that scene, however, we wouldn’t have had the first ‘Snap’ with Banner bringing everyone back and trying to bring Nat back. You could have swapped Hulk for Thor where he might have survived the ‘Snap’ and the audience would have bought Thor’s grief given that he’d have endured another failure in trying to bring back someone he’s only just really bonded with.

If we take Iron Man, it wouldn’t work because Tony wouldn’t be resolved in what’s been the main cause of his paranoia since the first Avengers. Thanos. Everything Tony has done since he sent that nuke into space has been driven by the fear of threats from beyond Earth.

And Tony wouldn’t let Nat die because he’d have some kind of awesome gadget to haul her back up whilst he takes her place.

Having Thor in that scene just wouldn’t work. Thor dying would have been sad and miserable and would have been a worthy reason for the fat shaming I discussed in my first blog. Throwing an overweight, depressed alcoholic off a cliff would have been extremely bad taste and not at all a fitting way for Thor to leave us.

Similarly, having Thor let Natasha die would have been unlikely as well. He could fly down, rescue her and sacrifice himself faster than she could throw herself off the mountain again.

If we look at the other characters of Rocket, Carol, Okoye, Scott, Nebula and Rhodie, Natasha has no relationship with them whatsoever. Her main relationships are with Tony, Steve, Clint and Bruce.

Hopefully, I’ve resolved that element of the debate. So, coming back to Natasha and Clint. As mentioned before, both are the least powerful and so have the least to bring to the table. It would be stupid to sacrifice any of your most valuable members just when you’d need them the most.

Ultimately, what it comes down is what Natasha wants most of all. Redemption. She wanted the red in her ledger wiped out and she chose to sacrifice herself to save her family and half the universe. If that’s not an empowering act, I don’t know what is.

And it had to be Clint and Natasha because Natasha owes him a debt. He saved her life which led her to being part of a family. Now, she’s saving him so he can be part of his.

Her ledger is wiped clean and her books balanced. She can complete her mission knowing she owes no one anything and that the Soul Stone has been secured.

Her funeral, or rather lack of, was also a bit of a sore point for many. I can see why but I think there’s a simple explanation. She was doing her job. She wasn’t being a hero. She wasn’t making big, flash displays of power. She did her job and that involved her traversing the lines of ethics and morality. She wasn’t a God, a Supersoldier, a giant green rage monster or a man in can. She didn’t take the limelight because that’s not what she was about. She dealt in stealth, deception and espionage and because of that, she didn’t really connect with anybody. Nobody knew her because she could be anybody and she liked to keep it that way.

After an Avengers event, the private individuals all go back home. Natasha’s home was SHIELD which meant she went back to being a spy when she was done doing something for the outright good of the human race.

In the end, her death was quiet, respectful, a little tricky but it certainly had impact. Much like the woman herself. The only reason there wasn’t more pomp and circumstance is because she just didn’t have the reach that Tony did. Everyone knew exactly who Tony Stark and Iron Man were but very few knew Natasha.

And, frankly, she’d want it kept that way.

She’d have been a terrible spy otherwise. blackwidow

Bloated God Complex

May 5, 2019 by The Thoughtful Meanderer

There’s been a fair bit of discussion on the interweb (internet is a different thing and world wide web is too long to say) about Thor’s appearance in Avengers: Endgame. Namely, the directors are being called out about fat shaming.

First off. I don’t believe the Russo’s would use weight gain strictly as comic relief since they deftly handled the abuse Bucky Barnes received at the hands of HYDRA and they gave us that pin-drop reveal from Steve Rogers to Tony Stark in Civil War. They also gave us a fully realised Thanos. Yes, it’s funny to see Thor much more relaxed, physically but let’s consider how he got there.

Thor, at his core, is arrogant, ignorant and has quite a superiority complex which he uses to distract from what’s happened around him. He believes he’s entitled to victory and that his presence alone ensures it regardless of his enemy. This is the Thor we meet in his first outing. A carefree young man with all the machismo, bravado and over-confidence of a teenager who thinks they can wage a war because they’ve put over four hundred hours into Call of Duty. This Thor hasn’t been tested. This Thor had little to lose or fight for. He just loved showing off in front of his friends. Hammer first, talk maybe was the attitude. But that was to change. After being denied the throne and seeking revenge against the Frost Giants, Thor was bailed out then banished by the Allfather to Midgard for his stupidity. Odin hoped he’d learn his lesson. On Midgard, Thor was weak, relatively speaking, after being stripped of his powers and hammer, Mjolnir.

Whilst on Earth, he was found and taken care of by three scientists. One of whom was his love interest to be, Jane Foster. During this time, he was shown patience, kindness and understanding. Despite a fruitless attempt to regain Mjolnir, he was taught a valuable lesson. Humility. Thor was measured and found wanting. At that point, you could say the seeds of depression started to sink in. The banishment by his father started to hit home. You’ll notice that Thor isn’t so cocky after that point.

But once he’s put his life on the line and his brother Loki (standing in as king whilst Odin is in a coma) forgives him albeit not without sending a sucker punch, Thor regains his worthiness and he gets his powers, armour and hammer back. He’s no slouch in putting on a mighty show to display who really is. Or who he likes to think he is. After defeating the Destroyer, Jane Foster shows how damned impressed she is. So impressed it seems, she’d want front row seats of every battle forthwith.

With his quest complete, Thor returns to Asgard to beat the living daylights out of Loki. In the battle, Thor breaks the bridge to the Bifrost where Loki falls into the void of space. Neither he nor Odin was able to save him.

In the first film, Thor was rejected by his father, accepted by a group of strangers then experienced the loss of his adopted brother. Did we see Thor grieve? Did we see him deal with any of what he’d just experienced? He expressed anger and something resembling disappointment but I wouldn’t say we really saw him grieve over Loki. And Jane? Well, he busted the only means he could see her. Even Loki pointed that out but Thor kept on doing what he set out to do. If Jane had really mattered to Thor, he would have found another way to stop the Bifrost. If he had, Loki wouldn’t have fallen into space and found the Chitauri and/or Thanos and we wouldn’t have had the events of The Avengers. Nick Fury was right to point the blame at Thor for being the reason SHIELD wanted to use the Tesseract to make weapons, even if he had only half the information.

Moving on to the Avengers and we saw a different Thor. It seemed he’d matured and grown from what went on. But did he? Did he really? When he dragged Loki from the Quinjet in his introduction was he doing that because he wanted to find his brother or was he under Odin’s orders? We never found out but I suspect the latter. He didn’t show himself to be in desperation then relief once Loki was found. He demanded answers. And rightfully so. Loki was trying to start an invasion, after all.

Later on we see Thor feeling the stress. That moment where he was dropped by Loki from the helicarrier where he looks at his hand when trying to summon Mjolnir. He looks like he’s questioning himself. His immortality? His power? His alleged godhood, perhaps? We’re not sure but it is clear he’s being tested.

As the Battle of New York waged on, we get another moment where Thor and Captain America are duking it out on the ground. Both look weary but Thor really shouldn’t be. He’s arguably the strongest so why the fatigue? He’s adapting to the new situation. He can’t go in all guns blazing like he did on Jotunheim. He must be reserved and tactical. He has innocent lives to think of. Captain America is used to that but then, he’s all about saving lives. Thor, at that point, was all about victory and vengeance. Perhaps he was getting frustrated. He certainly didn’t look impressed carrying out orders from a lesser being and he didn’t look impressed with the victory either. But it wasn’t really a victory. It was almost a defeat. The Avengers won by the skin of their teeth and they knew it. The only team players were also the weakest, physically. The powerhouses were the problem. In fact, you could argue that Iron Man and Hulk did the heavy lifting given both are fairly practical and their respective professions demand they get the job done. Even Hawkeye got a good shot at Loki! And Thor? He was busy being thrown from the helicarrier whilst Iron Man was trying to save said helicarrier from falling out of the sky. A mortal man stuck himself in an engine whilst a literal God allowed himself to be fooled by his brother. He allowed himself to be stabbed as well when he should have fired a heap of lighting at Loki. Iron Man didn’t hesitate to open fire and we all know Hulk didn’t. Did Thor learn anything from this experience? Didn’t look like it.

As we move to Thor: The Dark World the opening shot of him is displaying his bravado once again. The hammer flew and the enemies fell. He showed no gratitude when Sif saved him from being struck by an arrow. He even managed to joke and smile as he reigned down destruction and death. You could say Thor went back to liking it easy. Where was the challenge on Vanaheim? Everything was dialled back so Thor could be the hero once again.

When it came to love, Odin advised he look to Sif rather than Jane Foster. But he chooses Jane. My reckoning on this choice is that Jane is easy to impress and eager to impress her would-be beau. She presents no challenge and offers herself freely as his trophy. Sif, on the other hand, presents a challenge. She knows Thor. She’s strong in battle and takes no prisoners. Thor can’t hide behind anything from Sif. So, he ignores her because his fragile ego couldn’t handle being with her. He’d have to work for her affections. She’d challenge him in ways he’d grow tired of quickly. In short, he’d have to be responsible. And Thor doesn’t do responsible. Thor does stories of victory. Thor saves the day. Thor…likes to drink with his friends. With Jane, he can be flash and sexy. Sif, on the other hand, would tell him how many mistakes he’d made and how to do better in the next battle. Which would mean no nookie and Thor likes a bit of nookie.

Even when he reunites with Jane, he gets away with not having visited. Surely, he could have popped over after New York? Loki wasn’t really going anywhere and the World Security Council wanted him as a prisoner anyway. But he just up and left. His punishment? Two slaps and only one was because he didn’t visit. His reason wasn’t even a full explanation. The guy had been gone for months and didn’t have the decency to really give all the details to Jane. Not that it mattered since all he had to do to get her to stop questioning him was talk about fate bringing them together and she goes and gets all doe-eyed whilst her IQ drops about a hundred points briefly. See. No challenge.

Shortly after, he’s impressing her again with a trip to Asgard only to be regarded as unimpressive. The healers don’t seem keen to heal her and Odin calls her a goat.

But by ignoring the express command of his father and king, Thor put Asgard in jeopardy. The Dark Elves attacked because Jane had the Aether within her. Had he listened to his father, Jane would have been on Earth. And Jane may not have encountered the Aether if she wasn’t looking for Thor and she wouldn’t have gone looking for him if he hadn’t led her on in the first film. His arrogance potentially led to Jane becoming host to the Aether but it certainly led to the Dark Elves attacking Asgard which resulted in the death of his mother, Frigga. Even after that, he still saw fit to question his father’s actions. The pretender to the throne was no match for the real king.

Odin, on the other hand, has become weary from rule. That’s the price of responsibility. It takes a toll. Look at Barack Obama before and after his presidency. Thor knows nothing of it yet thinks he’s entitled to question it. I would say that Odin must have felt somewhat disappointed that his son wasn’t up to muster. Plenty of show but no real substance. A king that does not make.

And Thor goes on to defy his father again by embroiling his friends to commit treason which also involves breaking Loki from prison so he can take Thor and Jane to the Dark Elf homeworld! Logic would dictate Jane be kept safe on Asgard. As king, Odin must be and is prepared to lose as many soldiers as necessary to defeat his enemy and protect his kingdom. He’ll do whatever it takes. Thor will not. Thor endangers his alleged love in a heinously idiotic act that gives the enemy the home advantage. He allows Malekith to take the Aether from Jane and in doing so makes her even more vulnerable.

And who saved the day? Who ultimately stopped Malekith from using the Aether to take advantage of the Convergence to plunge the Nine Realms into eternal darkness? Jane! The equipment she’d been using to try and find Thor was used to take out Malekith. In doing so, Thor was happy to endanger the lives of the other eight realms but not his own? Asgard know the Dark Elves and had fought and defeated them. It would make sense to keep the battle contained especially since the battlefield is hosted by a well informed and well trained army where the king is a God of War. But Thor’s vain attempt to protect Jane endangered every other realm and saw a chunk of Greenwich destroyed. Hardly the actions of a person with their head screwed on right. But hey, it didn’t matter because he got to make out with his mortal plaything after being tricked by Loki (again!) and refusing the throne.

In Age of Ultron, not much happened with the illustrious God of Thunder. He seemed to mainly be a plot device, provide some brawn, give birth to Vision and let his Avenger chums play with his hammer. Do excuse yourselves if your mind went to the gutter.

It is a problem though. Each instance we see Thor, he just hasn’t learned or allowed himself to feel anything he’s gone through. Has he genuinely experienced the events or is he treating them all as part of some game? He didn’t shed a tear at his mother’s funeral. He barely expressed any emotion. Perhaps Thor is more of a metaphor for traditional masculinity in that he’s either horny, happy or angry. In the context of the films, that would ring true. He is a prince and, as such, is under emotional restrictions.

It’s not until Ragnarok that we see a good chunk of the veneer of arrogance start to come away. The opening scene is the familiar hammer swinging dance of death which Thor relishes in with abandon. He gets back home, finds Loki has taken his father’s place and goes off to find him. After a brief chat with Doctor Strange, the brothers are in Norway when Odin has his final conversation with his sons then passes. Still, we get nothing from Thor. It looks like he’s about to get angry about something then proceeds to blame Loki for the death of their father. Absolutely no discussion takes place on the revelation that they have a sister who their father imprisoned. That information alone should be enough for some kind of strong emotional response. But the audience is given nothing but a few sparkles which are directed at Loki perhaps wrongfully.

With his hammer destroyed by his newly introduced sister, Hela, Thor finds himself on Sakaar where he becomes prisoner to Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster. Even when restrained, Thor insists on a vain and futile display of might which the Grandmaster treats as just that. Vain and futile. And a bit amusing.

The first point in the entire Thor and Avengers series where Thor shows any real sign of emotion is when he’s getting his hair chopped off. He looks like he’s in real despair when Stan Lee’s barber heads for him with his, admittedly, rather deathly looking contraption. The Son of Odin was genuinely worried and even pleaded his locks be kept in tact. I know this was played for laughs but it’s also an interesting character point that his hair meant more to him than the loss of his mother.

So, he can unnecessarily puts his girlfriend in danger but absolutely no harm must come to his hair? Priorities. Which reminds me. He did warn Doctor Strange about the hair even though his hair was needed for him to be sent to his father.

If we assume the long flowing locks equate to Thor’s vanity then it should have mostly gone once he entered the ring with the Hulk. And that assumption seems mostly accurate. No hammer so Thor believes he has no power and no hair means he doesn’t have to worry about looking good in battle. What we see in the arena is a stripped down and focused Thor. He doesn’t know he’s fighting Hulk yet but even so, he’s thinking strategy. His eyes narrow as he awaits for what’s about to come out. He prepares himself for battle. Like a soldier. Like a warrior. In that arena, he is no god and he now knows and accepts it.

In the fight, Thor isn’t showy or flashy. He’s practical and tactical. He wants to win but he doesn’t want to kill his friend and he certainly doesn’t want to be killed by him. Against the Hulk, Thor can’t afford to be dramatic or over the top. Showing off would only make Hulk angrier.

On the brink of defeat and death, Thor taps into his real power. It’s this moment where the crowd see who he really is and he is adored for it. Thor himself is quick to realise that this is who he is. But interestingly, rather than show his friend mercy, he decides to go for Hulk and take revenge now he has the upper hand. Hardly the actions of a benevolent person, wouldn’t you say? Thor wants to show he’s a threat and wants to remind Hulk that he is the strongest Avenger.

Even though he technically won, Thor was cheated by the Grandmaster and Hulk was allowed to win. This didn’t bother him. He was alive. From this, we can take that Thor was alright not being the favourite….possibly.

After the fight, Thor is locked in Hulk’s quarters and here we see the Asgardian take a leaf out of Loki’s book. Manipulation. He tries to convince Hulk to break him out and one of his attempts of persuasion? He tells Hulk he doesn’t like Banner. He comfortably says this in order to achieve his goal. Ultimately, it fails and Hulk outwits Thor in a rather hilarious moment of karma. Hulk may not be smart but he’s certainly not stupid and he’s happy to point that out.

He tries to convince Valkyrie through some talk of nostalgic legend but really, this was another manipulation to free himself. Valkyrie was’t buying his story anyway but Hulk was convinced that Thor was his friend. A shame for Hulk that as soon as Thor was free, he jumped right out of a window to save himself. Yes, he explained he needed to save Asgard and stop Ragnarok but manipulating the very people you want help from only makes you untrustworthy. It makes Thor Loki.

When Banner returns, we see Thor’s insecurities shine through. He questions the computer’s statement of Banner being the strongest Avenger and sees fit to correct the giant holographic Grandmaster that he’s the God of Thunder, not Lord. Banner is going into shock but Thor can’t have that. Thor must manipulate Banner so he can have the Hulk available later. Thor is dismissive of Banner’s problems because he doesn’t consider them his problem. His only goal is Hulk. A genuine person let alone a God or a Would-Be King would take just a few minutes to use the relative safety of the Quinjet to explain the situation to Banner and ensure he’s comfortable. Thor needed to let Banner talk things out and he needed to help Banner work things out. From what we’ve seen of the character, this isn’t something he’s equipped to do so he wants Banner to ignore what’s happening to him because Thor can’t deal with Banner.

Banner knows this because Banner knows who he is and what he needs to settle himself. And Banner, rightfully, calls Thor out on another attempt at manipulation.

Ultimately, it looks like the only reason Banner and Valkyrie join Thor isn’t because of the man himself. Valkyrie, as a former member of Odin’s premier fighting force, still holds some semblance of loyalty to her fallen king whom she did have respect for. But mainly she wants revenge against Hela and sees Thor as a means to achieve that. Also, she may fancy him a bit in a childish sort of way. She thinks he’s cute and funny but nothing serious. Banner wants to get back to Earth and Natasha and so sees Thor as a way out. Karma. At least now the manipulation is on equal terms.

A real point of growth is in the humiliation and foresight of Loki. Granted, humiliation isn’t really an acceptable form of growth but one step at a time. There are many layers or arrogant lacquer to get through. Thor must display his overcoming of Loki’s endless betrayal and the ‘Get Help’ distraction works nicely to Thor’s advantage. He gets to show his physical superiority over his brother which should serve as a reminder that whilst arrogant, Thor isn’t a bully. He could have easily bullied Loki when they were younger but didn’t such is the level of decency and fairness at his core.

The final battle against his sister shows Thor’s main weakness. He’s unsure of himself. Going up against his older sister, who’s age, clear motives and greater experience give her the advantage. She knows what she wants and has a plan for getting it. Thor, on the other hand, turns up and hopes to punch his way out as he has done every…other…time. The plan is simple and, arguably, idiotic. He knows nothing of Hela’s powers therefore has no strategy with which to fight. He arrogantly assumes he’ll win.

Fortunately, the script allows Thor to win but in a way where he has to make the choice of a king. His sister is far too powerful to be defeated by the combined forces of Thor, Loki and Valkyrie so he makes a difficult choice. He opts to sacrifice his homeworld for the good of his people. Such a sacrifice is a difficult burden to bear but Thor has no other option. Surtur had to be resurrected to enable Ragnarok thus defeating Hela.

With his homeworld gone, Thor had to set about finding a new place for his people to settle. The mission was about to start but then Thanos showed up in his monstrously sized vessel.

We never saw what happened between the end of Ragnarok and the start of Infinity War. All we were allowed to see was Thor beaten. Did his arrogance kick in again where he put his people at risk to show how mighty and powerful he is? Possibly, but we’ll never know.

The issue with Infinity War was that it was a real chance for Thor to show some real growth. Then he didn’t. Yes, we saw him grieve over Heimdall but he arrogantly vowed revenge from a position of weakness.

With his mouth shut by Ebony Maw, all Thor could do was watch helplessly as the final member of his family is murdered in front of him. He mourns the loss of his brother but no further vows of vengeance. Perhaps, Thor realised that Thanos was a very different opponent having watched him easily defeat Hulk, kill Heimdall and snap Loki’s neck like a twig. Maybe Thor thought this was one enemy he couldn’t defeat.

And then that arrogance stepped in again.

After being saved by the Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor quickly constructs a plan to kill Thanos. And, like his other plans, it’s simple and idiotic. Once again, he thinks he can solve his problems with a new weapon. He didn’t learn from his father in Ragnarok that Mjolnir wasn’t where his power came from. Thor is the power yet he chooses not to wield it. His mentality is wrong and this is why he fails so frequently. He believes the forging of Stormbreaker will give his mojo back but it didn’t. How can he regain what he never had to start with? Both Mjolnir and Stormbreaker are items Thor associates with power rather than himself. Going back to the first Thor film, Odin even declared Mjolnir a ‘tool to build or a weapon to destroy’. What Mjolnir does is entirely up to the wielder yet Thor treats it like an ally. We can almost hear the thought run through his mind – ‘Just you wait until my hammer gets here.’

It could be argued that, yes, Odin did fail his son. Rather than have him believe that power was granted through Mjolnir, Odin should have empowered his son and told him he had the power within much earlier. It’s like telling a child they only won a race because they were wearing running shoes whilst everyone else had slippers on. Not that the child was legitimately the fastest regardless of footwear. It sends the wrong message. Even the enchantment on Mjolnir suggests the power resides within the hammer and those who are worthy may wield it. It diminshes Thor immensely. Is he only Thor because of Mjolnir? Then, who is he without it? Such misinformation would have had a profound impact on Thor as a person and may well be the source of his lack of real confidence and assurance.

If we compare Thor to his three main counterparts, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, both are very much the embodiment of their superhero personas. Bruce was already a brilliant scientist who knew his abilities well before his accident. And because he knew who he was, he was able to manage the Hulk rather than be lost to him.

Tony is creative engineer and inventor and Steve Rogers has a very clear moral compass. All three knew who they were before they had any abilities or suits of armour. They don’t define who they are rather they enhance and project but, with Thor, it seems he’s defined by his hammer. Without it, he’s really not much. Just a spoilt brat who wanders around with a sense of entitlement but with no accomplishments to back up his arrogance. Tony earned his arrogance because he has heaps of evidence. Steve earned his place as leader because he’ll always make the good call, if not the right one, even if it means going against orders. And Bruce? He’ll always reason with people because he’s constantly reasoning with the Hulk but, as a scientist, he must present clear and logical reasoning in his work for it to be successful.

Thor, on the other hand, has none of that. He’s a Son of Odin and Prince of Asgard. Not a Defender of the Realm, Keeper of the Peace or Advisor to the King. He has no position or training to fall back on. Just a title. And a hammer.

Ultimately, the journey to Nidavellir should have been pointless. Thor has innate power, so why not use it? The simple answer is, he would have to teach himself which would require learning about himself first in order to figure out what he and his power are capable of. For the sake of convenience and time, getting Stormbreaker made was a lot easier as it didn’t take years of practice and skill to make. It just needed one dwarf with those years of practice and skill and one God driven enough to get it done.

And when it was done, what did he do? He let that arrogance come through again, didn’t he? That fatal mistake of going for the chest rather than the head or arm allowed Thanos to complete his mission. And all because Thor wanted to bask in his moment of glory and let Thanos see him do it. His actions were reckless.

And now. After that long and arduous journey, I come to Endgame. I’m going to make as much use of the recency effect as I can since it’s been a little over a week since I saw the film.

First off, we meet Thor in the initial stages of depression. He’s isolated himself from the remaining Avengers and isn’t really talking to anyone. Rather than join the others and talk things out, Thor chooses to ponder on his failure.

When they locate Thanos, Thor allows his arrogance to get the better of him once again. A pointless beheading sees Thor’s ego get a sliver of satisfaction now he’s achieved the goal he should have achieved at the end of Infinity War. The death of Thanos also left his teammates scrambling for a plan since their main source of information about the stones was now dead. Another reckless move.

Thor leaves it to the other, arguably, more capable Avengers to do all the leg work in coming up with a plan. In the succeeding five years, the throes of depression are in full swing when we meet Thor in New Asgard. The survivors of Ragnarok and Thanos’ attack are all getting on with things. Even Valkyrie seems settled working on the harbour.

Thor, however, is lost. His arrogance has cost him far more than just failure. It’s cost him his mind. If we look at every other member of the team, they have all lost in some way, shape of form but they dealt with it at the time, learned and moved on. Thor’s arrogance only served as a buffer for the tragedy to come and when it did, it hit hard.

The loss count is staggering compared to his fellow Avengers and he never dealt with it. He thought he was fine. He projected an air of confidence and invulnerability when, really, he needed to assess each loss as soon as he could and work through the feelings. In all three Iron Man films, Tony is brought down a few levels and is forced to work through his defeats over the course of each film. His neurotic paranoia and cynicism are what drive him to make use of his inventive engineering skills. With Steve Rogers, we see him question his morality each time he’s faced with more and more ambiguous circumstances. With Thor, we see a static visage of someone who believes himself untouchable and unbeatable even when clearly defeated.

On to the weight gain. First off, Thor has chosen to drink his responsibility away. That and leading a sedentary lifestyle will lead to a beer belly. It’s funny to see because Thor maintains his arrogance and thinks himself more relaxed now. He’s comfortable with how he is and so should the audience. It’s a big learning curve ahead for Thor and, having been in that position myself, it’s a daunting task to take on. More so since to bring a God down takes a whole lot more than it does for a tin man and a super soldier. Tony Stark got a battered ego and had many millions of dollars worth of material possessions destroyed and Steve Rogers lost his friend, a chance to be with Peggy and seventy-five years of life which he got back in Civil War and Endgame, respectively.

Thor lost his girlfriend, mother, father, hammer, friends, hair, an eye, his only sister, his home and half his people. Add on all the failures and betrayals and family revelations and you can only forgive Thor for being so arrogant. Would you want to know exactly how your father got to his esteemed position and that he used your sister as a weapon to do so? No, I didn’t think so. As benevolent as he may appear, Odin acted tyrannically and possibly manipulated Hela into winning his wars. The guilt and shame brought Odin to change his ways and present himself as the warm, loving but hard father we see throughout each Thor film.

The weight of all that knowledge more than justifies Thor’s transformation. It’s not fat shaming at all. This is extreme grief and depression kicking in. And the callouts about other Avengers picking on Thor? Nonsense. That’s how they’ve always been. Rocket got called ‘Furface’ by Captain Marvel and no one takes offense but Tony Stark calling Thor ‘Big Lebowski’ is somehow offensive rather than an accurate description that Thor does indeed look and act like ‘The Dude’. Wayward, carefree and so laid back that something like responsibility is impossible.

And when he does suit up, he’s not what he once was. The trouble with depression is that a person regresses into a state of near nothingness and they can’t be the person they need to be. When talking to his mother during the ‘Time Heist’, the shame and guilt of presenting himself to her is too much. He’s acutely aware of what he’s become. But it doesn’t matter to Frigga. He’s her son and she knows that for him to have plunged to such depths, he’d have to suffered a great deal. This comforts him as well as being able to share a few more moments with her. He cannot, however, face Jane. He’s no longer ‘god-like’ in his mind therefore he deems himself unimpressive to the woman who has been so easily impressed by him.

The final fight is where Thor doesn’t shine. He’s slow, cumbersome and no longer filled with the same sense of purpose and thirst for glory as his former self. Even with Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, he struggles against a Thanos that has no Infinity Gauntlet. It’s understandable that Cap and Iron Man might struggle but Thor from Infinity War would have destroyed 2014 Thanos. Cap does more with Mjolnir than he does which only serves to highlight that not only is Cap’s conscience clear after Civil War but his intent is as well. Iron Man too, gives it his all even in his weakened state. He has a wife and child to protect now. Cap has the chance at a second life. And Thor? From what we’ve seen, Thor has very little going for him. He doesn’t fight like a protector of his people. He fights like he’s given up but here, his arrogance protects him. He keeps telling himself he’s the strongest and, in this case, it did enough to keep him alive albeit there was little conviction in his actions.

In the end, Thor did give up. With Thanos defeated and the loss of Natasha and Tony, he gave the power of ruler to Valkyrie in recognition that she is a leader and he is not. The arrogance and pride is all but gone at this point. He has admitted what he cannot do. He also admitted that he never found out who he is and by joining the (As)Guardians of the Galaxy, he’ll now have the support network he needs and deserves. It’s often the case that the best kind of support comes from those with a common element. With the Guardians, there are many. No real family; loss of family; sibling rivalries; trust issues; false confidence; abuse, I could go on.

In short, I hope we see Thor find peace in his travels with his new friends. I hope he can found out more about himself so that, come the next Avengers, we’ll see who he really is. He may have earned the title of Thor: God of Thunder at long last.

Thoughtful Meanderings

Topical Essays On Anything and Everything

Author Archives: The Thoughtful Meanderer