But you see, I had an ulterior motive in posting it; I am now going to use it as a vehicle to point out the intellectual paucity of most Historians.

***

Back in the day, I made the Mistake of taking History at University.  This is part of the reason I feel sympathy for the Occupussies, and it helped lead to the present Disgust I feel with the post-secondary shysters.

You see, here’s the thing; History ought not to be a joke-degree.

English is pure subjectivity; Art History is a minor at best; Sociology, PoliSci, and all their associated minors are nothing Ideology masquerading as Analysis.  But History?  When it’s done right, it’s a Science.

A handicapped Science, granted – there is certainly a deficit of experimentation – but when practiced professionally it involves data-collection and observation, hypothesization (which is then compared to new data), and finally theory.  The goal of history is to try and understand these aggregate-patterns that us oversexed chimps fall into, to develop a heuristic which informs us as to what data is relevant to the trends underway, and how to interpret the biases of ancient authors (and through those, realize which contemporary biases are informing us today).  There’s a lot of muddling, sure – but in the end, it’s a pursuit of an Objective Truth.

That’s the theory, anyway.

***

Let me tell you about my sister.  She wears the Mantle of the Feminist, while living the life of a Traditional Housewife.  Her husband’s a blue-collar Man’s Man, her children are well-disciplined and intelligent, she’s an amazing cook…

…and she insists on doing joke-degrees part-time.  Her current favourite is History.

So over the Christmas break, I tried to have a civil conversation with her; I shared the naescent hypothesis I wrote about last time, fully aware of her massive Hate-On for all things militaristic.  I figured a Historical Hypothesis which was anti-military (or at least, anti-joining-the-military-service) would acclimate well with her neural patterns.  However, before I could finish speaking she said-

“I think you have a very naive view of History.”

Rather than pointing out I had two years of Official Training over her, I responded with an articulate “Um, what?”

“When has war ever accomplished anything?”

“Alexander took over the known world.”

“And then his empire crumbled!”

“…Cleopatra had white skin because of him; he reshaped all of those regions.” She snorted. “Well, then what about Rome?  They re-wrote the pagan religions, spread a common language to all of Europe, built a system of highways, spread Christianity, and unified Europe into a common culture.”

“The Germans took them out!”

“800 years after it was founded!”

“Whatever, you’re just a war monger – and I’m a History Student!” At which point she stormed off.

This is why I tend to avoid family get-togethers.

***

Modern History isn’t about trying to understand our roots, or document the great events and turning points, or to understand the human condition; rather, the Modern Historian – like all of her sisters in the Dept. of Useless Degrees – already knows what The Truth is (after all, if Stephen J Gould and Noam Chompsky said it, it must be true!).  They have their Paradigm, their End Of History State, and if the facts contradict either of those – well, the facts must be biased!

It’s a sorry state of affairs.

Back in the early days of the War on Terror, when I was fledging Free Market Leftist, the schools weren’t quite so bad.  Nowadays Academia has been seeping in Leftist Juices for so long that well-known, and thoroughly proven Facts are Evil & Racist (even amongst STEM degrees majors!), but back then there was still a bit of critical thought going on…

A very little bit.

When I finally dropped out it wasn’t because of the incompetent professors (though I had more than a few of those); it was because of the incompetent students.

With a few rare exceptions, the student-body in most of my classes were the non-thinking, non-questioning, maybe-I’ll-teach-high-school morons.  Dull, doughy girls (and a few insipid, ballless boys) who sat still and wrote down every fact the Professor droned on about, without ever understanding the context; the Professor, for his part, uninspired by yet another Memorize and Regurgitate Student Body, simply skimmed the surface of the textbook.

What a contemptible lot they were.

The final straw was one professor used a BBC documentary to teach two-thirds of his classes during my final semester – I guess no-one ever told him that documentaries are entertainment, not education.

So that year I dropped out of University, quit the army, and moved out West.  My only regret is not doing it sooner.

If there’s any young kids out there, fascinated by the Deeper Questions of Humanity – philosophy, history, literature – by all means, pursue those interests.  Just don’t do it through the University System.  Best case scenario, you’ll live like my sister – enjoying and obeying all the dictates of the Patriarchy, while putting on airs of being a fashionable Leftist.  More likely, however, you’ll wind up impoverished, protesting a corporation for something they didn’t do.

Either way, you’ll remain ignorant, and you might even develop mental blocks against True Errudition.

I’ve learned more on my own, and through the Internet, than I ever did as a student.  You should only pay for education if there’s a trade certificate and a job in it for you; if it’s wisdom you seek, then the only true path is the Life of the Autodidact.

Never forget – the Devil was the first Whig.  In our modern world the Father of Lies is in charge of our Education.  Don’t drink the koolaid.

In the past two-hundred years, I can’t think of a single inter-state war that accomplished anything.

On and off, I’ve been brushing up on my history with the Khan Academy – a site hosting professional University lectures, which I highly recommend (though, like University itself, you should take them with a grain of salt).  I’ve been going through the lectures on the French Revolution, and that’s what triggered it.

Napoleon invaded all the way to Russia – but today, the borders of France are largely the same as they were before he took power.  Hitler did the same thing, with the same result.  WWI was a sadistic joke, Korea accomplished nothing, neither did Vietnam, and as for our adventures in Afghanistan…

It seems that Obama is negotiating with our Arch Enemies the Taliban.

While it’s obvious that these wars have affected the world (even effected the world) – American hegemony & Canadian independence from WWII, for exaple, or the spread of Republican ideals from Napoleon, leading to the unification of the Prussian city-states – it would be hard to argue that these results were Intentions and Goals of the belligerents.

The Utility of War is supposed to be that it enriches the victorous party.  That’s how it worked for Alexander.  That’s how it worked for Rome.  That’s how it works for chimpanzees, cavemen, and gang-bangers in LA.  You acquire territory and resources when you win.

Up until the 18th century, that is; then, all of a sudden, all you get from war is death, destruction, and a tumble of the dice as to which country comes out on top.  Borders don’t change; and there’s no profit to be had.

The Utility of War seem to have vanished.  Why?

One possible explanation is that the Atom Bomb prevents us from waging Total War; that is to say, are we pulling our punches, engaging in Police Actions rather than a Proper War.  Could it be this lack of Will to Power which is preventing conflict from ending decisively?

No, that’s not it – the Atom Bomb is a recent development.  Prior to its development, both the Allies and the Axis were engaged in Total War; they might not have been salting the earth & slaughtering the women and children, but neither were the Romans during most of the conflicts – Carthage was the exception.  The explicit aims of the Axis were to dominate eastern Europe and southern China – to take them over, destroy the local government, and ultimately absorb them.

This was also Napoleon’s goal, and neither did his methods Bar any Holds.

We’ve tried Total War, prior to the Atom Bomb, and it didn’t work.

Second idea – could it be that the Peace of Westphalia, in establishing specific national boundaries, ‘matured’ the relations between countries?  Did the development of nationalism made populations too unruly to conquer?

Again, no – we go back to Alexander, or Ghengis Khan, and find them in a similar situation.  While you can argue that they didn’t have to deal with The State as we know it today, they did have regions with a dominant religion, culture, and political class – close enough for Government Work.  Alexander took over the Persian Empire, parts of India, and the Egyptians.  Ghengis Khan took over pretty-much everyone.  These weren’t groups of European serfs, who cared not a whif who they paid their taxes to – these were ethnically homogenous groups chafing under the rule of foreign conquerers.

And it worked.

Both the Khans and Alexander’s empires eventually fractured – the Cult of Personality had been the glue holding them together – but note I said fractured, not crumbled.  The political establishment they put in place lasted for centuries, the landscape had been transformed, there was no reversion to the prior governments.

Thanks to Alexander, Cleopatra was white.

No, it can’t be matured relations or nationalism that’s rendering war impotent – the Druids were chock full of that, but it didn’t stop them from learning Latin.

So, a third possibility then – technology.  As the old saying goes, God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal.

This one grabs some traction with me.  It would certainly explain why – after ten years, and with the most highly trained militaries in the world – a bunch of fourteen year old kids with forty year old AKs are fighting us to a draw in the Middle East.

This brings up anther corollary – while war has been a Dead Duck for the past two hundred years, revolution has gone through a different pattern.  During the 1800s revolution was about causing so much grief to the imperial power, that they’d let the client state go.  This is what the Americans did – this is what the Hatians did, and almost succeeded.  This is what the Boers tried, and failed, because Britain was able to bring enough Force to Bear to shut the blighters down.

No revolutionary army could withstand the force of a professional, 19th century military – though sometimes they could create enough pain to suceed in their goals.

By the time the twentieth century came around, this had started to change; the proliferation of firearms meant that pretty much any revolution would succeed.  Look at the spread of Communism, or more lately Democracy in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, these modern revolutionaries tend to be invariably Evil.  I trust I don’t have to remind you, gentle reader, of the sheer ammount of torturous death that Communism gave to us – or the psychotic policies that Hitler’s coup brought to the world – and as for the Arab Spring, well, Muslim Brotherhood sums up my argument.  Only the Left can run a revolution.

The Shahs that actually run Iran (rather than the idiot mouth piece people seem to think is running the place) are generally smart enough not to start a war with Israel or the United States.  What do you think would happen if a proper Democracy were running that place?  All I’m saying is that you might want to stock up on Potatssium Iodide pills.

So this seems to be the stage of history we’re at: militaries are utterly pointless.  They don’t accomplish what they’re supposed to accomplish for the country – though they might very well accomplish what Certain Individuals want them to accomplish… but as far as you or I are concerened, they just Eat People.  This is because of the Empowerment of the Individual through Superior Firepower – but, just like Democracy, the Individual is only powerful when the Mentality of the Mob takes over.  An armed citizenry will certainly reduce criminal activity on behalf of criminals, but it will not reduce the criminal activity of the government – it could replace it and grow it, but it would not shrink it.

Meanwhile, Obama is preparing for a War with Iran.

Interesting Times Indeed.

So without further ado, allow me to introduce Omnipitron at The Phantom Tollbooth: One man’s journey through blended family, ADHD, and rampant Misandry; he recently wrote a 5-part series which – in my eyes – contained a stunning insight.

Let’s see if my summary can do him justice.

The Negotiation

Part 1

Why the hell are women so pissed off?  Why these fifty years of feminism, of misandry, and idiotic social policies?  In the Manosphere we tend to look at women – plural – from the outside, examining only their Effects upon the world as if they were some sort of Black Box.  It is only with a woman – singular – that we begin to examine her Causes: hypergamy, fading looks, & her enslavement to her own emotions.  We seldom ask what caused Feminism in the first place.

To understand the cause, we need to realize that women don’t have that much control over their lives – not compared to men, anyway – and this has nothing to do with Patriarchy, or Male Privilege.

It’s their biology that put them Behind the Eight Ball when The Negotiation started.

Part 2

We all know what’s on the table – Men are offering status, Women are offering beauty.  Now here’s the rub:

Us red-blooded Men can (more-or-less) control our status through hard work and learning Game.  Furthermore, our assets appreciate over time – we are not competing with our cohort, nor are we competing with George Clooney – we are only competing with the few-dozen other men around us.  The George Soldinis of the world are rare; generally speaking, every dog has his day.

Women, on the other hand, have almost zero control over what they bring to the table.  It’s Genetics, baby, Genetics!  Stupid can be Taught, but Ugly is Forever – in fact, ugly gets worse as time progresses.  And then – as if that’s not bad enough – unlike us, Women are competing with Jessica Alba – as well as the latest crop of Delicious High School Graduates.

Can you see at this very early stage of the negotiation why women get so butt hurt about men and their ‘preoccupation’ with a woman’s appearance? Hey, us guys do get a little hot under the collar when it comes to some women and their ‘gold digging’ ways, but we can choose to make more money, to us it’s simply a choice (look at that, we have a choice) to improve our status.

Oh, but he’s not done yet…

Part 3

In this part, he brings up numerous examples of celbrity Spring/Autumn relationships.  Women, despite their focus on status, also value Youth and Good Looks to a certain degree; Aston Kutcher QED.

But even if a 20 year old woman should marry a 20 year old sparkly vampire good-looking millionaire, nature will be working against the relationship.  Her market value diminishes; his increases.  The occasional Woman such as Demi Moore might retain her looks well into her forties, but that doesn’t change the fact that Time is her Enemy.

Men grow more secure, and more powerful as they age, right up to the point of senescence.  Women feel a creeping fear that nobody will love them in twenty years, and they will fall into spinsterhood.

Men have a future to look forward to; women have only the past.

Part 4

In this part he rewinds a bit – let’s re-examine the biological principle.

Men – we really just need sex.  In a pinch masturbation will do just fine, particularly with freely available Internet Porn; it’s not ideal, but we can survive off it.  Women, on the other hand, need children… and the money to raise them.

Women need men like fish need WATER, it’s men who need women like a fish needs a bicycle,

Neither sperm banks, nor one-night-stands will settle a woman’s biological imperitive.  Ultimately she needs resources, and a lot of them, before she will be as “free” as a man.  Her assets in the Sexual Marketplace devalue, rapidly.  That is why she has opted for Divorce Theft.

1)      Since women have indirect control over their assets, this means the type of man they can even initially assess may be much lower than they want. They have no means of increasing their value so this affects their asking price significantly.

2)      So long as her prospect is at least halfway ambitious, his value will increase over time, while hers has a very short shelf life and will ultimately decrease. This also means that she doesn’t have quite as much time to haggle with the price as doing so works to his benefit, but to her expense and even what sort of price she can ask in the first place

3)      The biggest one; this situation benefits her quite a bit more than it will ever benefit him so this too also means she can’t set a price for as quite as much as she would like. It also means that he can set a much higher price that she will have little choice but to accept.

But ultimately, not even this works – feminism is exacerbating the problems, by making sex even easier for us to access.  Sorry ladies, you can’t fight nature.

Part 5

‘Male Privilege’ isn’t about institutional power – it’s the biology, stupid!  They’re pissed off because it’s just not fair!!!

So now he introduces another brilliant analogy: pro Football players.

They can’t ask for too much however, because doing so may sour the team against signing them. This is the reality; there will always be other football players willing to take their place. In fact, consider the pressure on any starter in the game. All they need do is look to the bench and they will see many hungry eyes chomping at the bit to replace them if given half the chance. Injury, dismal performance, a downward spiral of attitude can and will eventually mean you and these ‘youngry’ players will switch seats. Does anyone need to state that NO athlete EVER wants to be on the bench?

And I thought sales was stressful.

Lots of pressure wouldn’t you agree? While the money may be phenomenal, would that pressure to perform be worth it? How many men reading this are glad they never have to face such pressures? … women face those very same pressures just by being born female and they have no choice in the matter.

He then goes on to provide roughly a dozen feminist quotes that fit perfectly with the theory he describes.

My Thoughts

I’ve seen plenty of great deconstructions of Feminist ‘Thought’ before – I’ve written a few myself – but this is the first time I’ve run into such an extensive and empathetic explanation of what underlies the ideology.

Obviously this is no excuse for feminism; quite frankly, it’s a juvenile mentality.  As any MRA will be quick to point out, feminism completely fails to acknowledge the sacrifices of Life and Limb that we Men have made throughout history… let alone the fact that Men have largely wielded their ‘power’ with kindess and care for the weaker sex.

So let me finish with a Sun Tzu quote, so well know that Google autocompleted it for me:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Oh, and one last thing – go read his damn blog.  Omnipitron’s a bit wordy at times, but there’s some good, wacky stuff bouncing around that skull of his.

1. A Man is (not) Intimated by a Taller Woman

I don’t know one guy, personally, who has said, “Oh no! Not a a TALLER woman! GASP oh GASP! You mean her legs will be LONGER THAN AVERAGE!? Horrors of horrors. How will I ever survive?”

Folks, I am going to be so uncouth as to reveal one of my weirder sexual fetishes to you: I want to make sweet, sweet love to an Amazonian woman.  I want a woman who’s four inches taller than me, who can bench-press 1.5 times her body-weight, and whose body is completely free of tan-lines.

I once saw such a woman walking through the Student Centre – and was too rapt with lust to approach.

She was 6′6″ if she was a foot, and as perfectly formed as a hot midget – bountifully proportioned, and utterly beautiful, as if someone had exagerrated her proportions in Photoshop.

I really ought to kick myself for not approaching… but here’s the thing: the male approach is all about dominance.  Dominating someone taller than you?  Possible; but it takes training.  There are some very big Small Men, but for each one it took effort.

Men aren’t intimidated, per se – tall women are hot – it’d be nice if she’d walk over and talk to us – but building up the gumption to hit on the 6′6″ is more difficult than with the 5″3′.  There’s also the question of whether *she’ll* like a shorter man…

2. Men are (not) Intimidated by a “Strong” Woman

The problem is “strong” is confused in today’s Moxie world with “loud, arrogant or obnoxious.” Most of the girls I have dated who were truly strong simply demonstrated their strength.

Actually, this time I’m in perfect agreement; nothing sexier than a woman who knows how to fire a rifle.  Trouble is, most that do, just aren’t LTR material; some are Moxie Free, but nowhere near enough.

If I ever get married, she’d better be a perfect Lady, and strong as nails.

3. Men are (not) Intimidated by Women who Earn More Than Them

So naturally the LAST thing I would want is a woman that makes a lot of money. I mean, that’s what EVERY guy is afraid of! A woman with LOT’S of MONEY! I wake up late at night, soaked in sweat because of the nightmares I have of some woman showering me with $100 bills and buying me nice things.

And this is where I largely disagree.

Any of you folks out there ever had a rich friend?  Somebody who can afford to eat out at nice restaurants, who invites you along, and you wind up in a bind – do I ditch my friend, or spend this week’s discount-whiskey-money on filet mignon?

When it comes to dating, that’s a male problem; not a female one.

When things are casual, I certainly don’t mind a woman that pays her own way, and then some.  Hell, one of the things you’ll learn when you develop game, is that women have so much disposable income that they’ll buy you tons of expensive crap for every bag of skittles you buy in return.

Hell, I got a full set of gear-wrenches thanks to Game – Metric, Imperial, long, & stubby.

But over the long-term, if you don’t have the money to take your woman out on adventures, it ain’t gonna last.

The three points the Captain was refuting are essentially true – true in Effect, that is.  But its’ not that Men are intimadated by these women; it’s that women don’t contain the ability to Truly Love a Man who 1. is shorter, 2. is less strong, 3. earns less.

You’ll need at least 2 of the 3 to hold onto her for the long-term.

The Captain is correct, in that Men don’t actually worry about these things – not for the short term one-night-bang – but if the Man is looking at the long-therm, he’ll see the writing on the wall.

Women hate a man that… would be the correct refrain – not Men are intimidated by a woman that…

The sayings are written backwards; but for practical purposes, they might as well be true.

And I ain’t down with religion – particularly not Dawkin’s.

The problems with ideology is tri-fold.  First is the sheer complexity of the thing; Nietzsche (for instance) only penned a few tomes, the sort which you could get through in a long weekend, if you wanted – but that’s just the start of things.  Philosophy (and this includes Natural Philosophy) demands exploration and interpretation, so by the time a century goes past there’s been so much critique of the matter, and so much evidence brought in through the new heuristic, that you could devote your entire adult life to studying any of the philosophies mentioned above that you become Impotent in the process (people who do this are known as PhDs, and they have little influence on the world beyond misinforming University students).

No one can know everything about anything; specialization is the name of the game.

The second problem arises from the over-abundance of information, and the effect of steeping yourself in any Ideology – Objectivism is particularly bad for this.  If you study the ideology professionally, you don’t have time to study its critiques – not fully, anyway.  Thus you become convinced you have arrived at the End Of History, and all knowledge fits into your paradigm.  This conviction will lead a man to massage data which disagrees with his Great Idea, and he will no longer be able to see the forest for the trees.

Incidentally, this is partly the cause of Intellectual Fashions going in and out of style; whatever Approach the majority start studying in any given year, ends up becoming the New Truth for the following generation (that is to say, that Random Genetic Drift could accomplish this all on its own, even without Leftward forces at play in our Institutions).

The third problem with Ideology is how quickly the terms get perverted.  I don’t simply mean the Anarchists over on Reddit who believe in redistributing wealth; for a sublter example look at the word ‘Capitalist’.  When I or the Captain uses the word, we’re talking about the sort of people who put their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honour on the line to build a new Factory; when the critics use the term they’re talking about the embedded money interests who grow rich, no matter how badly they fail.  Privileging one definition over the other is problematic.

You see, what we’ve got is a deformed conjoined twin; seperating the two is going to take one hell of a sharp scalpel, and even then, it might not be worth the time.

So let’s forget about Ideology for a moment; better to admit if you don’t know something then try and force everything into a paradigm you read in a pamplet.  Protectionism for instance – why does the practice seem to diverge so much from the theory?

Thanks to the Wisdom of Old Age, I can just put that one on the back burner for a while, along with the rest of the stuff I don’t know The Answer to.

In the meantime, let’s consider the grounding for all these Schools; which ideas, which ground-level heuristics do all of us Alt Right Folk subscribe to?  After all, it’s not just the conclusions of the Left that we disagree with – if that were the case we could run the numbers, and figure out who was right.  No, it’s deeper than that, our foundational principles differ from them, putting us in diametrical opposition.

I’ve been thinking on it over the past few weeks, and I think they can neatly be summed up in three major points: Mortality, Biology, and Transcendence.

Mortality

To put it simply, the Universe is a Hostile Place.  At the end of the day, if we don’t eat, we die.  Good intentions don’t matter – trying your best doesn’t matter – results are what matter.

Losers always whine about their best.  Winners

go home and fuck the prom queen.

This principle applies to everything – if your car won’t work, it’s because you didn’t fix it right.  If your business fails, it’s because you didn’t have a competetive product.  If the cops take you out, you should have gone in with a better battle plan.  On the individual level luck can come into the mix, sure – but over time luck cancels out.

Contrast this with the Leftist perspective – with them it’s always about the End State.  They imagine their perfect Utopia (results may vary) and try and force the economy into this mould; no business should fail, no person should be poor, no hiccups are allowed in the stock market.  Nice world, if you can get it, but what winds up happening is that they take a few components off the Brand New BMW, to repair the junker that just got in an accident; now you have a shitty BMW, and a junker that still doesn’t run.

We are mortals; this sucks, granted, but it is the Truth.  Pretending we can all be Rich and Famous will just guarantee that we all wind up Broken Dream-ed and Poor.

And speaking of how the Left shoves their heads in the sand…

Biology

The evidence is in; genes matter.  IQ is 0.7 heritable.  Olympic Black Runners vs White Swimmers is not an issue of Racism.  Men and Women have different talents and abilities.

But you know what?  We don’t even need to go there – different Nuture environments and Game Theory will suit our purposes – calling it Biology just reinforces how deeply rooted it is.

Individuals are all different; groups – in that they’re quantifiable at all – are all different.  Different people want different things in life, and they’re going to have disparate results, by any metric.  So will groups.  Furthermore, as individuals (this is where the game theory comes in) they’re going to be ’self-interested’ within the range of Human self-interest – being charitable, for example, is something that most humans are interested in.

While there is certainly some variability built into the system (are Asians really better at Math, or do they just have better study habits – and are those habits environmental or genetic?), but for practical purposes they may as well be fixed.  Barring a friendly singularity, we aren’t going to isolate the 300-odd variables that come into play.

That won’t stop the Leftists from trying, however.

Just as they try and Force the economy into their New World Order, so do they try and force the individual into becoming their New Communist Man – and they’re failing just as bad as the Ruskies did.  50 years of propaganda, and what do we have to show for it?  An atomized society with voting blocks based upon race, creed, and gender.

Ironically enough, if you treat people as individuals they tend to cohese into a uniform hole; when you force them into a mold, they break, and atomize.

It’s not fair that some people are smarter, handsomer, and more charismatic than others, but a Reactionary has the Moral Fortitude to acknowledge such a bracing truth.

Transcendence

This is such a fundamental human concept it’s hard to even point it out – it’s like becoming aware of the fact that you blink – and the level of Sociopathy necessary to ignore it is shocking to a Man in possession of a Soul.

Maybe I’ll just let this ‘pacifist’ explain it for you:

John Lennon – Imagine

My Sweet Satan, how I hate that song.  A few choice quotes:

Nothing to kill or die for… No need for greed or hunger… Imagine all the people/Living for today

Let me posit something: if there is nothing you’d be willing to kill for, no cause you’d be willing to die for, then you are little more than a callow slave, desperately in lust with a pathetic existence.  A Human -goddamned- Being is nothing if they don’t live for something bigger than themselves, whether it be their Family, the Truth, their Art, or simply the principle of 2+2=4 – is it any wonder, then, that one can easily find Leftist Professors with Tenure by the Dozens decrying all of those concepts?

Each and every one of them, in love with destruction, full of contempt for all creation.

So thus the third and final principle of a Reactionary: that He would sooner die a Free Man, than live as a slave.

I might not have all the answers, but at least I know where to start.  Keep your powder dry, folks.

Celebrations included rifles, cigarettes, whiskey, and habanerro-heavy chili, culminating in physical recreation with a Dissolute Asian Girl.  What more could a man ask for?

I’ll be back next time with some more Reactionary Rantings.

Leigh was a quiet sort.  Never saying much, he looked like your typical nice guy – baby-faced, specktacled, unassuming; your standard high-IQ, University educated, reservist Infantry grunt.  Until he opened his mouth, that is.

Leigh had himself a razored tongue, a sharp wit, and a of sense of humour which bespoke an acute awareness of the world.  We used to almost-salute one another whenever we passed in the hallway, a joke at the expense of those who’d chosen bars over chevrons, and for a while there he got nicknamed ‘The General’.

I bring him up because of something he said to me once, as we were killing some time in the smoking pit. “Aurini,” he grinned lopsidedly at whatever I’d just said, “We really need to do something about that soft heart of yours.”

I forget the context, but it’s immaterial, really.  He was right, of course – I’ve always been overly empathetic, often saddened by the tragedy I see in lives others, who are often themselves completely oblivious to it.

Whether this is a strength or a weakness is debatable.  A good soldier desensitizes himself to murder, he trains by shooting man-shaped targets to overcome his natural inhibitions.  A great soldier, however, will never dehumanize their enemy; they will brutally maim and kill their opponent while remaining fully cognizant of the fact that they’re doing this to a person, someone with a mother who loves them, and a faincee who will be heart broken for years after the war’s conclusion.

Without Love in our hearts we can never truly Hate; to blindly follow instincts and behaviour patterns, regardless of success, is more digger wasp than Human.  A trained dog might know how to fetch your slippers, but it doesn’t know that it knows how.  Imagine what it would be capable of if it did.

The whole point of self-awareness is to realize that you’re a purely deterministic creature.  Figuring out your source code is the first step in reprogramming.

True Empathy – self aware Empathy – is a painful ‘gift’ to have.  Weapons are only Useful if you’re willing to use them, but they always come at a cost.  When you achieve a state where you can choose to be willing to choose to use them, you’ve given up the illusory integrity of the morally naive.

The Red Nuclear Button is before you; no matter what you do you will have made a choice.

***

There are certain universals with southern-bound romances.  Men inevitably feel obligation; women just feel guilt.

Men are the ones with agency in relationships.  They shine like Sol, women reflect like Luna, and all those other Old Truths.

The way a woman behaves – level of sweetness, frequency of sex, cleanliness of pussy – says more about her Man, than it does about herself.  Her innate character is akin to the quality of the raw clay, while the Man’s level of Game corresponds to his skill as a potter.

Romans 9:21: Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?

So when things start falling apart, the Man looks for solutions.  He doesn’t blame the raw materials – though to be fair, a workman is only as good as his tools – but he doesn’t make excuses.  He searches for solutions, acknowledges the failings of the Woman, while trying to find a workaround.

The woman just feels guilt over breaking whatever promises she made to him.

Of course this problem is endemic to the modern era.  Women have leaned towards being irresponsible since the dawn of time, but things haven’t always been as bad as they are today in Western society.  This entirely reputable historical list is circulated via email nowadays to shock us at how Dominated women were fifty years ago; but for anyone who can read between the lines they’d notice that this was anything but: these are Ten Useful Steps for taking Agency as a Woman, to consciously turn your husband into the sort of Man you can love and respect.

It’s one of Feminism’s little ironies that it’s ‘freed’ western women to the point where they have as little actual Agency as a Muslim female in the worst of third-world backwaters.

***

When a Man becomes aware of all of this, the Red Nuclear Button won’t stop staring him in the face.  Your modern woman, abandoning agency, has all the moral worth of a piece of tissue; there are many who treat them as such.

And yet, that sort of PUA behviour isn’t fully conscious, it sin’t the sort of self awareness I’m describing.  Learning Game, without understanding women, is the soldier’s equivalent to firing at silhouettes.  It gets your dick wet, and you get to live in the blissful world of the Happy Dog, but it’s not Human.

It’s existentially awful to watch your relationship fall to pieces, fully aware weeks in advance of what the Bayesian estimates are on various outcomes – watching her fall to the level of Dumb Beast, while realizing that you don’t have the skill to turn this clay into an Honourable Vessel (but still trying, despite yoursef).  At most, rather than hitting the Nuclear Button, you withdraw a portion of yourself – backup the kernel, and store it on a separate, encrypted partition so you can peform a System Restore after the fallout.

This deals with the worst of the potential pain, driving it down to negligible levels.  But realizing the Depressive Truth of just how bad the clay has become nowadays, learning in greater detail just how many different types of sand infect it – Empathy and Self Awareness aren’t going to do anything to mitigate this blow.

But better a Bracing Truth, than a Comforting Lie, as Dawkins would say.  We ain’t going to have any room for trained dogs in the realm of post-human uploads.

I, for one, plan on getting smarter, not stupider.  The attendant anguishes are just the growing pains, the over-clocking of mammalian intelligence.

Keep yourselves alive, folks.  Dreamtime is coming to a close… and it is later than you think.

Then I watched the latest ManWomanMyth video, where they discuss intimacy, and tear at the idiotic idea of ‘love at first site’ (an idea which denigrates the slow build up by which real-world Love is characterized).

After that I got to reading an old post by Sophiastry on In Mala Fide about a sexually damaged feminist, with a bizarre take on relationships – apparently she got Viciously Abused by a man when he would not perform cunnilingus.

One particular quote (of Sophia’s) stood out to me:

I always thought the premise of a truly loving relationship for a woman was altruistically loving your partner more than you love yourself. In fact, in my current and past experiences of love, I treated them as a part of my subjectivity, whilst still loving them more than I ever loved myself.

So as usually happens when I’m sitting here in the dark, a theme developed – and all of it got me thinking about the idea of unconditional Love – what it means, what sense you can make it, here in the proto-post-feminist world of the manosphere — but first let’s start with with Love at First Sight.

There’s a brilliant quote from the ManWomanMyth video, where one of the interviewees says what a wise old man told him:

[Paraphrased] If you can give all of yourself to a woman – if you can rely upon them to be your best friend, confidant, lover, wife, hobbyist, compatriot, to be everything to you – then you’re a pretty shallow person.

Fuckin’ A.  Love is not something to trifle with.  It does not happen at first site – it’s developed over years.  And a wife or husband does not replace everyone and everything else in your life – they may enhance it, but they don’t replace it.

The first step to being resistant to torture is to Know Thyself – your identity is something precious, not to be given away at a whim, whether it be to someone who makes your Southern Bits Tingle, or to a Gaoler who advocates a narrative where he isn’t a monster (this would be considered a delusion were Psychology a Science).

To quote R.A. Heinlein:

No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything–you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

But what of Unconditional Love?  This is where we begin to see the genders diverge.

Without exploring too deep into the EvoPsych of it all, for a woman Unconditional Love is quite natural – and potentially quite idiotic.  How many more baby mamas do we need to see before this becomes self evident?

But it has a noble root – there is no greater love than that of a Mother.  Turning again to the expert, Heinlein says:

This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she’ll drive off a police dog.

But what of Mice and Men?

The difference between a Man and a boy is that the Man lives by principle.  One of the frequent refrains you hear within the Manosphere is an argument against White Knighting, suggesting that Heroism is indentured servitude, manipulation by female privlige…

Bullshit.

This is a White Knight.  This is Hero.

The White Knight is no man – he operates out of lust, out of glut, weighing each situation by his only moral barometer – will it get his dick wet?  A man of this callow nature might feel Oneitis, but he will never feel love.

A man of principle – a Real Man – judges all by his set of principles.  He already has that innate love of women (all of us XYs do), but he tempers it with his devotion to a woman who has earned it.  He gives his greatest fidelity to his wife, because it is as his principles dictate.

Unconditional Love is innate to the healthy relationship – though men and women arrive at it by different paths – the shocking thing, really, is that we need to explain any of this.  In the days before Brother Grimm got banned, we learned it all with our Mother’s Milk.  But these days, Jezebel mutants have restructured the dialogue – you gotta fill up a whole chalk board just to write down 2+2=4.  And so describing a sensible approach to love is something that takes up close to 800 words.

Don’t give your hearts away lightly, folks – those who’re bidding cheap are them’s who don’t deserve it.

But when you do love, know how to Keep the Faith.

Now, those of you who show up here regularly will know that my relationship with the cops is Ambivalent, at best.  It’s not that I don’t support Lawful Authority – I believe in the Righteousness of contracts, the inviolability of property, and serving your country like a Good Goddamned Soldier.  I’m basically a Paladin with addiction ‘problems’.  But when you get down to the particulars of the police forces in our society, I’ve got some major problems with how they conduct business.

This Crown Prosecutor, though?  He’s a good guy, got a kind heart.  Granted, his 9-5 job is locking up people in cages like they’re Fucking Animals, but I don’t hold that against him.  He knows what I believe, I know what he believes, and I figure there’s no reason the two of us can’t share a few quiet brews, Fox and the Hound notwithstanding.

He asked me how work’s going, so I mentioned an article I’m working on – thinking it’d be right up his alley.

“Get this,” I said, “You know what he number 1 cause of Peace Officer mortality is?”

“What?”

“Traffic tickets; it’s the most dangerous part of their job.  And for the most part it shouldn’t be part of their job.  May 2-4 is coming up, and they’re going to be out in droves acting as tax-collectors for the city, putting their necks on the line to shore up the budget.  I’m pretty sure that most of the Officers in this city would rather be chasing after real crimes…”

His eyes began to glaze over.  I saw troubled waters ahead.

“Wait a minute,” he said, “You know that May 2-4 is the most dangerous driving day of the year, right?”

“…doesn’t really surprise me?”

“And so shouldn’t the police do something?”

“…I suppose…”

“And surely speeding laws, fines, and the whole establishment are only there to benefit the poor, misguided citizenry?”

Shit.  I was being Lectured To, like a 13 year old questioning his priest about the sodomy.  My friend the Crown Attorney was a True Believer.  Salvation’s so damned easy, don’t you see?  Just read the criminal code, it’s all in there.

But keep up to date with the latest laws – the Revelation changes from year to year.

***

This would be a good time to talk about Morals and Ethics.

I’ve always drawn a sharp distinction between the two.  Morals are hard and fast rules, a code of behaviour – Do This, Don’t Do That – Don’t Lie, Respect Your Elders, et cetera.  They’re binary, black and white.  Morals treat every situation with consistency.

Ethics, on the other hand, are nothing but grey.  They ask the questions “What is fair?  Who are the people involved?  What events led up to this?  How can we move forward?” Ethics recognize that each situation is unique.

So which system is better, Morals or Ethics?  Well, neither, really.  Morals protect against manipulation, while Ethics protect against brutality.  Sometimes a bit of charity is deserved for those whose bad trip left them cold.  But too much of the social welfare, and you get single mothers raising Criminal Babies for The Benefits.

I’m no fan of the post-modernists and their infinite apologetics.  But they’re not the ones carrying guns and government jewellery.  It’s cops and prosecutors, enraptured by the Righteousness of their Cause, that truly terrify me.

I’m baffled by their lack of imagination; their lack of training in the scientific and rational arts.  Earlier today Monroe posted a comic about the Null Hypothesis – to put it simply, your default assumption for any  noticed-relationship-of-variables should be It’s a statistical fluke. Unless you have a plausible causal mechanism, and have repeatedly attempted to disprove the relationship, you don’t know anything.

But this is not the principle by which law enforcement operates.

* Drug dealers are Bad People; ergo, keep drugs illegal, so that we can keep throwing the purveyors behind bars.

* Most fatal car accidents involve speed limit excesses; ergo, the speed limit is perfectly reasonable in All Places.

* Most assaults involve alcohol; ergo, blame the drug, and ban the culture.

***

So anyway – there I was, drinking a Big Rock, and merely suggesting that when nearly 4000 speeding tickets are issued over a single weekend, there just might be an ulterior motive at play; that just maybe we should have our police target Criminals instead of preying upon Average Joes who are violating a minor infraction…

Hell, I was only suggesting it because I thought the cops might enjoy being Police for a change!

His response was that I had to disprove the reasonableness of the speed limit, and every other by-law that might be enforced that day.  Any of you Atheists out there will know the saying “Upon the claimant lies the burden,” – but when you’re dealing with government it’s the Skeptic who must prove themselves.

***

I have a couple of older relatives who are cops.  They joke like soldiers, they pirate software, and I’m pretty sure they speed whenever it’s safe to do so.  They live life joyously, they know when to Enforce & Obey the rules, but they also know when it’s time to let the the rules slide.

My friend the Crown Prosecutor?  I’m not so sure.  I’d like to think he’s smart enough, and kind enough, to see that the Laws aren’t always Just…

But from what I’ve seen of Modern Law Enforcement, it’s mainly governed by Codes (to prevent Racisim) and Standards (to prevent liability).  They’re ain’t no room left for common sense, no more.

One-size-fits-all Policing.  One-size-fits-all Morality.

This is precisely why I’m not voting on Monday.