Childhood, Part 2: The Little "Red" Bull

That reminiscence then reminded me of something else. Namely, how I never believed in Father Christmas.

I can't ever recall ever believing Santa was real as a child. Consequently, it always comes as a slight shock when people state that they actually did. When people ask, "How old were you when you found out Father Christmas wasn't real?", I can't quite believe they're asking me it.

I've had this conversation as an adult and as a child. Recently, a friend matter-of-factly told me he remembers when he first found out and the sense of disappointment he had at the time. I can likewise remember being nine/ten years old and having the same conversation. They'd say something like, "When did you find out? I was six," and I'd be like, "What?"

And these were usually kids that were much more streetwise than me, and from rougher homes. It seemed so odd that they actually believed in Santa.

I'd always just assumed that everyone knew it was a fun little thing that we all paid lip service to. Like, yes, I'll say I believe if that's the hoop I need to jump through to get the presents. That's the game, you don't need to tell me twice.

Surely this is what every other kid did too? I didn't think people actually believed there was an actual Santa Claus.

Am I Mis-Reminiscing ?

Anyway, thinking about that got me wondering if perhaps I was misremembering things. Maybe there was a point when I genuinely believed, but it was simply prior to how far back my recall goes. I can definitely remember being very small - circa nursery age - and being a bit incredulous that my mam was trying to reason me into believing it. We had one of those old gas fire fronts with a grill, so no one was coming down the chimney. "If he can't come down the chimney he can get in other ways," she said.

"So he has a key? Why bother coming down chimneys at all when he can just go through the door?"

It seemed so silly to me even back then. Again though, maybe before that I believed in the silliness and I just can't remember doing so.

The Little Red Bull

That then got me trying to think what my earliest memories were. It's a real struggle to remember anything before nursery age. I have barely any memories (if any) of being a baby, or even a half-walking toddler.

The earliest that comes to mind is of me being sung a nursery rhyme about a little red bull. However, I must have been old enough to speak, as I can recall asking my mam to sing it again, and I can also recall questioning what it was about. Something about it disturbed me a little. It felt old, like it carried some ancient pagan message or wisdom. I also recollect my mam not wanting to sing it at one point, like it was something she sang to me when I was an actual baby, but that she felt more embarrassed about singing as I became an older toddler.

Anyhow, out of curiosity, I looked it up and it turned out to be the song, Little White Bull, by the 50s singer/actor Tommy Steele, lol. At first I wondered why I'd misremembered it as red, but my mam used to sing red instead of white because I had red hair. So I guess that's why I also felt it carried some sort of message - as it did. The song's about a white bull standing out amongst the other black bulls. For me it was changed to a red-haired one amidst the black-haired. Of course, I wasn't really too aware of my hair colour back then, so I guess I had this curious feeling of, "What are you getting at with this, mam? What does this mean?"

I'm also a Taurus by star sign, so there was a double meaning implied. That was always something that didn't sit well with me either. I've never felt any sort of kinship with the bull. A fox, yes. A rabbit or cat maybe, a dragon - it's possible, but I just don't see myself as a bull, and never did. So it always felt unapt.

There's a language of the animals. The bull is strong (and vigorous), the fox, cunning. The tortoise slow, the hare, fast. The sneaky snake and the innocent lamb. The brave lion, the greedy pig, the graceful swan.

There's a weird truth to all these associations. However, the bull is a strange one. As it's the embodiment of strength and fertility, yet it's also captive. So it's both powerful and disempowered. Strong and fecund, but fenced in - and there to be sacrificed whenever man chooses. (Incidentally, there's also the sacrificial red heifer too, though a heifer is a female). Either way, as a child I somehow managed to spin a 1950's children's pop song into something akin to an ancient Minoan rite.

And perhaps with me feeling trapped within man's fences - albeit of school and society - the bull was more apt a totem than I realised.

Childhood, Part 1: Lisa Simpson and the Lowest of the Low Time Preferences

Thinking back to childhood. Time to reminisce.

I was walking home last night and something got me thinking about the urge to, "Change the World," and where that comes from. As a very small child, strange as it may sound, I always had this thought in my head: "When I grow up I need to fix all this." As if I personally had to rejig society so that it worked better.

I'm not too sure where this sense of responsibility came from. It may sound quite an arrogant or self-important thing to think, but at the time it really wasn't like that. If anything it was more a way to give myself hope. I knew I couldn't be happy in the world the way it was, so the thought of changing it offered a way out. Though again, why I felt I had to change it, and it wasn't just something someone else would do I don't know.

Perhaps it's an intelligence thing. Like low time preference taken to its furthest extreme.

As a five or six year old I used to ask, "Okay, so I work really hard all day, every day at school, even though I don't enjoy it, then what?"

"Then you get a job," came the reply.

"So how long will I work for then?"

"Until you retire."

"When's that?"

"When you're sixty-five."

"Okay, so where's the pay off? What's the point to all this misery?"

The sheer unrelenting, inter-generational grimness of it appalled my little mind. That you go through all that. That you have children, and they then go through all that. And so the cycle goes on forever. A perpetual toil. That even if you personally somehow escape it, by becoming a millionaire or a rockstar, it doesn't spare your children from falling back into it. Nor does it spare the countless other millions and billions of people.

The balance was just so wrong. Monday to Friday - five sevenths of the week. Nine 'til five - most of the day. "This needs to change," I would think. "It seems everyone else just accepts it," I would think.

"So I need to change it," I would then conclude.

This is why, even today, I still argue for smarter, more flexible - less time demanding - education. I haven't forgotten. I really still believe it doesn't have to be like this.

I think that switch from nursery to fulltime school is the real kicker. You're a three or four year old at nursery. You're there a few hours. You play with the toys, you learn the alphabet, you have a carton of milk. You're back home by dinnertime with the daytime cartoons. "This isn't so bad," you think.

Then, suddenly, you turn five and you're thrown in at the deep end. School! It's all day. It's all work, minus playing in the sandpit for half an hour. It's long. It's tiring. You're on your own all day, away from your family. There's a sudden slog and drudgery to life.

"How long's this for?!"

Until you get a job.

"So, forever?!"

Anyway, I wonder if it's the same for the other people that have this urge to, "Change the World" ?

It's kind of a Lisa Simpson from the Simpsons type character trait. In fact, just to add a topical element, Ash Sarkar has just abandoned Woke ! The criticism from the right is that she's seen which way the wind is blowing and has acted accordingly. It's a cynical, strategic grift they say. However, I've actually always instinctively liked her - as I genuinely think she has this same Lisa Simpson-esq desire to change the world. So, though I haven't always agreed with her views (that might be an understatement), I do think they're reasonably sincere. She often references the Simpsons too, so I would guess she does actually feel a kinship with Lisa Simpson as well.

Next up: Santa Claus

Hairs and Years: The Different Eras of Man

I'm starting to miss having long hair. I always said that when I turned forty I'd start having short, tidy hair. Be a bit more sensible and less noticeable. Be a bit more manly.

I'm now forty-two, and so far I've stayed true to this. Nor do I have any plans to change this course of action. I can't help but feel it lacks poetry though. There's part of me that still wants to be a guitar-playing, gypsy-haired Bob Dylan or Lindsey Buckingham type figure. (I've been listening to a lot of Fleetwood Mac recently.) The distraction isn't helping things either. Leaning me into moody sighs, retroflection and love-stricken Romeo-isms. Or Troilus and Cressida, which I'm reading now, incidentally.

It was always my plan to give up the locks circa forty. I used to tell people that back when I was around thirty. If anyone told me to get my hair cut, I'd say, "There's a time for short hair, and it's not yet."

There's a thinking behind it too. I call my forties and fifties my "JFK years" in light conversation with people. I think the ideal mode of man is different depending upon the age (this applies to women too, but my focus is ME!). Youth lends itself to energetic things, whilst age lends itself to experience.

This is something that women naturally recognise when judging men.

So, for example, if you wanted an example of an attractive man in his twenties, 60s era Mick Jagger would be a good example. Energetic; risk-taking; wild; dancing; flamboyant; expressive; peacocking; ideas; imagination; a challenge to the social order.

Whereas, an attractive man in his fifties would be someone like James Bond. Suave; experienced; in control; strong; powerful; calm; clean-shaven; statesman-like; upholding/defending the social order.

What women find attractive in an older man is not what they find attractive in a younger man - and I'm not making the argument that these qualities should be embraced because they appeal to the opposite sex. I'm more stating that women are a good natural judge of what a good man should be. When we flip the above examples we can see this even more clearly.

A fifty or sixty year old man dancing around and peacocking like Mick Jagger isn't appealing. It looks embarrassing. A man in his fifties doesn't have the raw energy to embody this behaviour to its full potential, like a younger man can. It would also be expected that a man of such an age would've acquired a self-confidence that makes such appeals for attention unnecessary. Showing-off and playing the big I AM can be excused in the rash and young, but it's a bigger sin for people old enough to know better.

Likewise, a clean-shaven, calm, serious young man looks boring. A twenty year old can't pull off being James Bond. He simply can't have the experience and gravitas an older man would have. And his calmness would only highlight that he lacked the vital energy of youth that makes younger men such a force in the world.

So the ideal man in his twenties is not the same as the ideal man in his fifties. And women instinctively understand this, as the older men and younger men they find attractive reflect these differences. Therefore, the ideal twenty year old man is 60s Mick Jagger (or insert your favourite rockstar/footballer/etc at their peak), and the ideal man in his fifties is James Bond (or someone fulfilling a similar archetype).

My younger self picked JFK to fill the older archetype. This might not be the perfect example, as JFK was only forty-six when he died, but to my younger eyes, with his 1950s American looks, he seemed the embodiment of the presidential statesman or leader. In fact, the actors playing James Bond were no doubt younger than they looked too, come to think of it, but you get the picture.

(It's similar for women. A sixty year old Madonna behaving like a twenty year old popstar isn't appealing. If you're a man why would you look at a sixty year old pretending to be a twenty year old, when you can look at an actual twenty year old that naturally embodies those qualities to perfect fullness? A sixty year old just can't have that same vital energy. Attractive older women are comfortable with their age, and embrace the positive aspects that come with it. I'd rather not write a paragraph about what I find attractive in older women lol, but you can fill in the blanks. Or Google a picture of Helen Mirren.

Also, it's probably worth saying, I'm not chastising anyone for how they choose to live here. None of this is necessarily right or wrong in a moral sense. I'm not 100% sure what I should do myself. I'm just making the wider observation.)

Anyway, you could say the younger me viewed JFK as a good older role model, and that at some point I thought, "Yes, I'm going to be like JFK when I enter my forties and fifties." lol. As funny as that sounds.

The Breakdown

I tend to break it down like this.

You have the prince.

Then the king.

Then the wise old elder.

The prince is adventurous.

The king wields power.

The elder relinquishes power.

For the elder (I'm bringing in a third category here), you can imagine a Merlin the Wizard type figure. An old person, who is past middle age, who recognises that his days of strength and power are behind him, but who offers wisdom and counsel. He never tells King Arthur what to do - Arthur is the one at the height of his powers who must execute decisions - he simply helps the king work through his own thoughts, and acts as a repository of past history, "..A long, long time ago this similar event occurred ..and King So-and-so took this course of action..."

So I've always had this idea that as I enter middle age (beginning around forty), I need to become more statesman-like. (You're entitled to laugh out loud whilst reading this.) Then, when I reach true old age - God-willing - I want to be wise, but passive. Not so arrogant and cantankerous that I refuse to relinquish the limelight.

20/30s: Long Hair

40/50/60s: Short Hair

70+: Merlin Beard

😄

ART

I actually think this lends itself to art as well. So, for example, jumping around on stage with a guitar is more suited to a younger man's energy. Whereas sitting down and writing a novel is more suited to an older temperament.

In fact, often you'll see that people who become successful later in life, start out in different artistic fields. For instance, Ricky Gervais was originally in 80s synth-wave bands, long before he made his name in comedy. Perhaps if he'd have been successful back then he'd be prancing around with a synthesiser now at the age of sixty. Feigning the energy of youth, instead of wise-cracking about his middle age spread.

Yet again, I'm not saying you can't make music in middle age (or beyond even), I just think it lends itself more to youth, and that it's worth acknowledging this. That, with age, you should perhaps try to make music that truly reflects your mood and place in life. Not make a false attempt at trying to prove you've 'still got it'. Overstaying youth's welcome. I remember John Lennon, not long before he died, saying he wanted to make music that was the sound of a forty year old with a kid. Not try to be a Beatle, or outcompete the latest generation of artists. That sounded wise to me, and I'd be interested in hearing Madonna's latest album if she too was trying to embody the "wise women" witch archetype - not trying to be twenty.

Saying all this though, perhaps it's me that's wrong. After all, I do feel the pull of long hair. Perhaps we're all just born to be a certain type of person from birth to death. Pre-destined by our stars. Maybe I'm going against my own nature by trying to live according to these archetypes of age.

Maybe I'm the one embarrassing myself by trying to be JFK?

Will there ever be a vegan Nestlé?

I'm still stocking around on the stock market. One of the things I sometimes ask myself is: Will there ever be a vegan Nestlé?

i.e. a really big animal-friendly umbrella food giant that owns lots of smaller brands.

Or will it be more the case that any decent vegan/vegetarian brands simply get bought up by the already existing mega-corps? A good example being Innocent smoothies. A successful British brand that is now owned by Coca-Cola.

Over the last few years some of the vegan stocks have tanked. From the super hype and highs of the Covid new normal era to drastically terrible.

This all interests me for a few reasons. Firstly - like I said - I'm still stocking around on the stock market. Secondly, though not vegan, I am vegetarian, so I do like the idea of a world free of animal cruelty. Thirdly, I work in food distribution - just a normie job in a warehouse - so I see some of these foodstuffs coming through the system every day. Not in enormous amounts, but enough to make me think, "Well, some people must be eating this stuff."

Personally, I tend not to eat meat substitute products. Though occasionally I might buy Linda McCartney sausage rolls for the novelty of having something different. This means I'm not in a great position to judge the products themselves. Maybe it would be a nice experiment to try? Though I've never been a big meat-eater, even back when I actually ate it, way back as a child. I've just never had the craving for it, and I haven't missed it since officially forgoing it.

My thinking goes beyond the individual products though, as I feel that the best ones will just get bought up by larger brands eventually anyway. So, for instance, even if the Beyond Meat product isn't the one that becomes popular in of itself, perhaps they'll just buy up the ones that do become popular. Meaning if you own stock in Beyond Meat you'll get there in the end either way. This brings me back to my initial question though. Will it be Beyond Meat (or some other vegan company) that becomes the vegan heavyweight - the vegan Nestlé? Or will Beyond Meat just disappear and crash out of business if its product isn't successful, as the pre-existing Coca-Colas and Nestlés of this world buy up anything that's worth having?

My Portfolio

I've actually bought some shares in Beyond Meat as a little punt. I also bought some stock in the Swedish milk substitute company Oatly.

About $160 of Beyond Meat and $100 of Oatly.

I bought them cheap, but they've since become cheaper. So I'm now down about $90 between the two. The direction of travel seems to be only one way.

(It's not too bad though, I'm actually doing fairly well overall. I'm beating the SPX500 over the last twelve months, so I'm not doing too shabbily.

Meaning I can afford myself a little fun.)

Non-vegetarians eating vegetarian products

I've also noticed over the last few years non-vegetarian people eating these meat substitute products. I guess they're doing it partly for the novelty, partly for the cost (if meat is expensive it becomes a comfortable alternative, assuming the taste is up to scratch), partly for the health benefits (or sense of such), and maybe even partly to lessen their impact on animals and the environment - a kind of partial vegetarianism.

So I wonder if the biggest market for vegan products will eventually be just normal people who like meat, but who can't afford it on a regular basis, so need a substitute. The vape to the cigarette, so to speak. Not so much actual vegetarians like me that already avoid meat.

People view becoming vegetarian or vegan as a purely ethical decision, but in reality these decisions are as much about ease as about ethics. For example, it would be hard to be vegetarian if you were stranded on a desert island, clinging on to survival, but it's much easier when you can just head to Sainsbury's and choose from the thousands of options on the shelves. So a bet on veganism is kind of like a bet on things becoming more civilised.

If things get better - and people have more comfort and options - they'll have more leeway to avoid things that cause animal cruelty. Though I'm contradicting myself a bit here - as I'm also suggesting poverty and lack of options might push people to the alternatives too. It's tricky.

On top of all this, we also have this idea that the powers-that-be want us all to go vegan. Or to 'eat the bugs' - the weird zombie sister of veganism. Where we don't eat meat, but we do start eating creepy-crawlies. It's a weird world isn't it. I sometimes wonder if the threat of the bugs is just the scary monster used to corral us towards the vegan products. Though with the EU approving the use of mealworm powder in food one has to wonder. There's certainly a lot to think about when it comes to this topic.

Helen of Troy

They say Helen of Troy's skin was so white and translucent that it was like the shell of a swan's egg. The Trojan War. All that blood spilt over just one woman. Was it worth it? It should be an easy answer, but it isn't. When God calibrated the mind of man the world and woman were given equal weight.

It's hard not to think in supernatural terms. When you look at the real life flesh and blood Helen of Troy there's something demigoddess-like. The modern worldview seems philistine. The universe happened by accident, then ..dot, dot, dot, ..beautiful women. An atheist is a man who's never seen a woman. It's like finding a marble sculpture and not seeing the hand of man. There are moody miracles every day, the gravity of their beauty pulling the whole world around them. How can anyone remain faithless when troubled by literal angels?

..a bit of a wallowing, poetic one today, but I'm distracted. I'd get AI to knock up an image of the swan-like Helen, but it just cannot do it justice.