I think write-ups like this can preclude those of us (with vivid imagination) who can realistically self-educate from taking up math. Especially since there's much higher expectations and standards of quality placed on those who self-study.

Instead of talking about brutalities of pure math, I'd rather simply talk about (possibly artificial) levels. For example, if you can solve almost all problems in Axler's Linear Algebra and the comparable texts without breaking a sweat, then you're level 0. If you have no problem solving most problems in Baby Rudin (and comparable texts), then you're level 1. Similarly, you're level 2 if you can mop the floor with every single problem in, say, Lang's grad level Algebra book and so on. By this measuring stick, I am somewhere between level 0 and 1. Personally, I find road signs like this extremely motivating no matter how difficult the journey is.

But better of all, there are many books nowadays that break down any topic up to any level in much more digestible ways than many traditional classic texts from the past designed with the expectation that you'd be studying with some kind of mentor. That was before the Internet came along.

That was brilliant. I completely agree that there is no other way to bring the Republicans back from the brink but to beat them for as many offices as possible.