Inspired by Patriactionary, here’s some heavy metal; the best genre of music ever created.
Nothing fuels testosterone production quite like power chords, speed, and distortion, so expect this to be a semi-regular feature here. Here’s
Introducing Manowar:
And, to finish off, the greatest power ballad of all time:
Over at the Neckbeard Chronicles, I came across the term anarcho-monarchism. This is a very small ideology that doesn’t even have it’s own wiki page and I don’t know much about it, but it really appeals to me.
There’s no big analysis today, just some quotes on it from other sources:
The individual person has the self-evident, God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. These rights are best exercised in a capitalist-libertarian, Stateless society. However, this does not mean that a form of government and authority is not required. For any civilized culture, order must be maintained, and thus, authority is indispensable. But it is essential to understand that there is a difference between the State and authority, and how authority is natural and good, whereas the State is evil and unnecessary. Natural government and authority only has one purpose: to secure these individual rights. Acceptable forms of a minimalist government, as laid down by such intellectual giants as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, include traditional monarchies, aristocracies, and republics. The plan envisioned by the Anti-Federalist Founding Fathers, in which the rule of law is bound upon a Constitutional republican confederation in which there is a strictly limited, weak, and anti-centralistic federal government alongside weakened, yet sovereign, independent states (in the colonial American sense), with respect for jury nullification, peaceful secession, and of Natural Law, is possibly the best man-made governmental system ever devised. Regardless of the form of government, the objective of good government should be to promote the common good, individualism, liberty, order, and free markets.
This synthesis of anarcho-capitalism with respect for monarchism, Christianity, traditionalist values, and proper authority is what I call ‘Anarcho-Monarchism.’ It is an anti-collectivist, anti-democratic, anti-statist, anti-nationalist, and anti-totalitarian, conservative-libertarian Rightist movement that stresses tradition, responsibility, liberty, virtue, localism, capitalism, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, and Western identity. It celebrates in the diversity that God has created among man, and believes in the maxim of ‘Universal Rights, Locally Enforced.’
Some may scoff at an attempt to reconcile these influences, but I believe it is quite logical, and indeed absolutely necessary, to synthesize cultural conservatism with radical anti-statist libertarian-anarchism. I view the modern Nation-State as an unnatural outgrowth of conquest and modernity — not of social contract (the classical liberals were wrong in this regard)— that inevitably foments decivilization and cultural decay as a means toward perpetuating its own parasitical existence at the expense of family, locale, and transcendent spiritual values. I categorically and fundamentally reject the modern democratic, egalitarian, and majoritarian State in favor of natural libertarian hierarchy, polycentric law, paternalistic society, and private-property anarchism.
One can at least sympathize, then, with Tolkien’s view of monarchy. There is, after all, something degrading about deferring to a politician, or going through the silly charade of pretending that “public service” is a particularly honorable occupation, or being forced to choose which band of brigands, mediocrities, wealthy lawyers, and (God spare us) idealists will control our destinies for the next few years.
But a king—a king without any real power, that is—is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution. It is easy to give our loyalty to someone whose only claim on it is an accident of heredity, because then it is a free gesture of spontaneous affection that requires no element of self-deception, and that does not involve the humiliation of having to ask to be ruled.
The ideal king would be rather like the king in chess: the most useless piece on the board, which occupies its square simply to prevent any other piece from doing so, but which is somehow still the whole game. There is something positively sacramental about its strategic impotence. And there is something blessedly gallant about giving one’s wholehearted allegiance to some poor inbred ditherer whose chief passions are Dresden china and the history of fly-fishing, but who nonetheless, quite ex opere operato, is also the bearer of the dignity of the nation, the anointed embodiment of the genius gentis—a kind of totem or, better, mascot.
As for Tolkien’s anarchism, I think it obvious he meant it in the classical sense: not the total absence of law and governance, but the absence of a political archetes—that is, of the leadership principle as such. In Tolkien’s case, it might be better to speak of a “radical subsidiarism,” in which authority and responsibility for the public weal are so devolved to the local and communal that every significant public decision becomes a matter of common interest and common consent. Of course, such a social vision could be dismissed as mere agrarian and village primitivism; but that would not have bothered Tolkien, what with his proto-ecologist view of modernity.
And from another site:
Philosophically speaking, anarchism has a strong anti-democratic tradition that, far from seeing anarchism as being democracy carried to its logical conclusion, is actually far closer to being instead aristocracy universalised. Monarchy can be reinvented as a concept to serve a distinctively libertarian ethos, if one can see in the monarch a symbol of sovereignty that is reflected in the absolute sovereignty of the free individual. The word ‘king’ is derived from the word ‘kin’ – so kingship denotes kinship, the king or queen being a symbolic guardian of the people’s freedom and self-determination. Thus handed down generation to generation, the monarch carries the genetic inheritance of the people in a bond of mutual co-inherence. This is beautifully and poetically proclaimed in the tradition of British mythology that refers to King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail, in that the concept of kingship that is envisaged in the Arthurian mythos is interpreted as one of service and humility towards the people whom one ‘rules’. A similar theme is found in the Christian Gospels where Jesus says to his disciples ‘Whoever shall be considered the greatest, let him first become the least and the servant of all.’ (And in this mythological context, Christ is the fulfilment of all archetypes such as Arthur, as well as the indigenous British and Norse mystery traditions such as druidism and Odinism in particular.) The scriptures appear to suggest that at the end of time Christ will abdicate his throne, having maintained a reign so beneficent that all humanity is brought into such a state of spiritual perfection that the need for restraints and for government vanishes (1 Cor Ch. 15 vv. 24-28) – an eschatological realisation that transcends kingship and monarchy into an enlightened theocratic anarchy.
The most contemporary proponent of anarcho-monarchy has to be the fantasy novelist J. R. R. Tolkien, whose book Lord of the Rings has become the international best-seller of the century. Concerning his political leanings Tolkien said: ‘My political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional monarchy’. Further on, he said some years later: ‘I am not a ‘socialist’ in any sense – being averse to ‘planning’ (as must be plain) – most of all because the ‘planners’ when they acquire power become so bad.’
‘Middle Earth’, the imaginary world Tolkien created, was based on north European mythology; it functioned as what Tolkien himself described as ‘a half-republic, half-aristocracy’ – a sort of municipal decentralised democracy (as opposed to a representative democracy) based in a holistic conception of the integrity of the local place and idiom. The emphasis in Tolkien of tendencies towards some kind of hierarchy, however libertarian, and of self-government only being consistent with kinship and loyalty to a particular place, has made Lord of the Rings popular and required reading amongst the radical-decentralist right.
Lord of the Rings is having a profound influence on the contemporary green and environmental movements in that, seen in our present historical context, it provides a coherent and inspirational critique of the modernist unholy trinity of state power, capital and technology. (For an excellent book on this very subject and more see Defending Middle-Earth – Tolkien: Myth and Modernity by Patrick Curry, Harper Collins 1998.) Tolkien, with keen prophetic insight, foresaw that at the close of this millennium the struggle for humanity and nature would be between the diversity of local distinctiveness, place, identity, and culture against the globalist unity and monoculture that turns everywhere into the same place. Also, it turns everyone into the same person with the same status as a passive ‘consumer’, where once they may have been an active citizen or ‘member of the public’.
Something to look into.
Here is a story of a travesty of justice committed against a black man named John McNeil who was defending himself in his own home. It comes from a liberal website (the Root is an off-shoot of Slate dedicated to black issues).
In this article, the Root (not to mention the NAACP) defends the castle doctrine, defends the right to self-defence, and even talks somewhat positively about the NRA and gun ownership. The Root, as is typical of a liberal website, has generally been hard on gun ownership and self-defence. Even though they reject “stand your ground” in the article, it is a less vehement rejection than is normal and it is somewhat amazing that liberals are even defending the castle doctrine at all.
It seems Salon, another left-wing website, had an article about this a few months back, where they also seem to almost support the castle doctrine.
Check out this other article from the Root asking why the NRA is not supporting the self-defence and firearms rights of a women who fired a warning shot. That is a good question, why isn’t the NRA on this?
Lovers of liberty should note these articles, they present a great opportunity to promote gun freedoms. Those who value freedom and firearms should be all over the cases of those like John McNeil.
From this article, it seems that, at least for the Root, black liberals will side with race over ideology. If we bring this story (and similar stories) to the front we can score a major victory for self-defence rights.
Gun control laws originated in historical attempts to oppress and enslave blacks by denying them their freedoms to own firearms and defend themselves and some blacks still recognize the link between freedom and firearms today because of this.
If we push this story (and other similar stories in the future), we can show blacks that gun control laws are not in their best interest, and will be used as tools to oppress them. If this story can get the NAACP (which has fought against gun freedoms in the past) to defend self-defence as per the castle doctrine (even if they still won’t defend “stand your ground”), there is the chance to bring a large portion of the black population into supporting gun and self-defence freedoms.
If we could get a major Democratic voting block arguing for gun freedoms, this could change the entire gun control debate on the left. Imagine liberals and Democrats trying to criticize the NAACP for their position on gun control. Imagine the George Zimmerman controversy again, but with blacks on the pro-freedom side.
Think about it. If we can force the story of John McNeil into the national consciousness, we can force liberals into a quandary: they will be forced to argue (either directly or indirectly) for the legitimate right to self-defence and firearm ownership through the castle doctrine for Patrick McNeil. Either that or they will be forced to go against the NAACP and argue for keeping John McNeil in jail for defending himself and his family.
So, I ask you all to pass around the story of John McNeil. Argue for his self-defence rights. My blog and readership is small, but some of my readers probably have more influence than me, so use that influence to help John McNeil win his freedom and to show the inherent oppression and injustice of gun control and self-defence restrictions.
Free John McNeil.
Came across a Slate XX article from last week on evolutionary psychology.
The article essentially boils down to: evolutionary psychology research that supports my preconceived biases is good, evolutionary psychology that argues against my ideology is bad.
The article starts with the author complaining about evo-psych, leading into this:
There’s nothing inherently wrong with evolutionary psychology—our thoughts and behaviors have been shaped by millions of years of hominid evolutionary history, and it’s worth studying how natural selection acted on traits that we still express today. But too often, evolutionary psychology is a force for social conservatism.
The reason evolutionary psychology is usually a force for social conservatism, is because social conservatism is the inherited wisdom of thousands of years of adaptation by human society to biological reality.
Evolutionary psychology will inherently be socially conservative, because (true*) social conservatism is inherently about man controlling its biological nature so society can function. (Religious conservatives will refer to man’s “fallen nature” and political philosophers will refer to the “state of nature”, which are the same thing for all practical purposes).
Left-liberalism (from which most of feminism springs) is not about managing the biology of man, it is about using reason and/or morality to overcome the “state of nature” for the benefit of all.
Left-liberalism usually derives from either (or a combination of) Rousseau’s amoral, self-interested, animal-like state of nature or from Marxian ideology where human nature does not exist as a fundamental concept, but comes from social relations and man’s relations to his work. (Conservatives usually work off Hobbes’ violent and warlike state of nature; libertarians and classical liberals generally work off Locke’s anarchic, fully free state of nature and of war.)
From the Rousseauian state of nature, men come together in cooperation and submit to the general will as designed through a social contract for mutual benefit. By uniting under the social contract a man can be ennobled, and his corruption comes only through failures of the social contract. By bettering the social contract, man may be further ennobled. Under a human nature based on social relations, the improvement of social and economic conditions will lead to an improvement in human nature and behaviour.
Left-liberal thought is essentially about the perfectibility of man through changing social conditions so he can better himself beyond the limitations of human nature.
In social conservative thought man cannot be perfected and will always be controlled by his human nature. His nature can only be constrained by social instructions, but never altered.
This is the essential and primary difference between the two ideologies.
This is political theory 101. If our education system even remotely resembled a traditional classical liberal education, the author would know this.
If she knew this, she would not be arguing against evolutionary psychology (when it supports social conservatism) or for it (when it supports feminist ideology). She would know that her ideology is one where social and economic relations are shaped through cooperation (the general will ) to create a society based on the common good, overcoming the limitations of man in a state of nature.
Know this: evolutionary psychology will always support (true*) social conservatism, because social conservatism is simply the attempt to control the state of nature so society can function.
To the liberal or leftist, this should not matter. Whatever evolutionary psychology will say, it can neither support nor discredit left-liberalism, because left-liberal ideology exists independently of human nature. It exists as an ideology of social relationships overcoming the limitations of human nature (or it simply rejects human nature, and therefore evolutionary psychology outright).
The only way evolutionary psychology can matter, at all, to left-liberal ideology is if it eliminates the possibility that changing social relations can possibly be used to improve mankind’s lot. If this occurs, the entirety of liberal-leftism will be intellectually unsustainable and void of any claim to truth.
In other words, the only way evolutionary psychology can have any impact on the truth claims of left-liberalism is to entirely overthrow it.
By even considering evolutionary psychology’s impact on the truth of ideology, the author is fundamentally undermining her own.
****
Researchers identify a pattern of behavior, usually some stereotypical sex difference (in part because it’s easy to measure whether men and women score differently on a standardized test), construct a scenario in which that behavior would have been adaptive in the distant past, and say the behavior is therefore evolutionarily selected and encoded in our genes.
…
It’s tricky to disprove the notion that some human trait is the result of evolution. The logic is circular: if some trait exists, it must not have been fatal to our ancestors and it may have helped them reproduce. To critique a claim of evolutionary privilege, you have to show that the trait has no genetic component and therefore can’t be inherited, or demonstrate that the trait is instilled by culture, not necessarily biology.
Partially correct: it’s impossible to disprove the notion that some human trait is the result of evolution (if it’s genetic in origin).
To show that a trait is not a result of evolution requires that the trait is not genetically based.
If a behaviour is genetic in origin (and is not a random mutation or transcription error, such as Down’s Syndrome, or exceedingly rare/recessive, such as Tay–Sachs) it must have not have been fatal to humans prior to reproduction and, in highest likelihood, either is beneficial to reproduction or is linked to a trait that is beneficial to reproduction.
Any genetic trait is a product of evolution and therefore, evolution must have produced said genetic trait. Any genetic trait evolution produces must have been adaptive; the explanatory reason of why it is adaptive may not be correct, but it is impossible that the trait was not adaptive (or at least not harmful).
It may be somewhat circular, but, if you hold to Darwinian evolution, it is logically necessary. The only way to not accept evolutionary psychology is to deny Darwinian evolution.
****
You’re supposed to want someone stronger, smarter, and richer than you. Someone who would sire healthy offspring and protect them from saber-toothed cats on the Pleistocene Epoch savanna.
Not “are supposed to”: “do”.
Evolution (and evolutionary psychology) is not prescriptive, it is descriptive of the large statistical trends of human society.
Just because evolutionary psychology says that something evolved in most humans does not mean you have to follow it (although, you statistically will) and it does not mean it applies in every case (some individuals will always be genetically aberrant and display behaviours and traits outside of what is statistically normal).
This is the kind of logic used by fourth-tier intellects arguing creationism in Youtube comments (IF EVALUTIAN IS RONG, Y U NOT SUPPORT HITLER AND SURVIAL OF TEH FITIST!?! HIPOCRIT!!!… durr). How a middle-brow publication like Slate allows this kind of stupidity through is beyond me. If it was somebody from the Discovery Institute arguing like this, he’d be laughed out of the room.
****
The first few paragraphs of her post are complaints about what she believes to be “bad” science in evolutionary psychology. So, what does she list as the study that redeems evolutionary psychology:
And that’s why my favorite paper of the week is “Stepping Out of the Caveman’s Shadow: Nations’ Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences.” Marcel Zentner and Klaudia Mitura of the University of York, U.K., asked more than 3,000 people in 10 countries what they valued in a mate. On a four-point scale, people rated the importance of various qualities: chastity, ambition, financial prospects, good looks, etc.—all identified by Buss and his likeminded peers as being qualities that only men or only women are evolutionarily predisposed to seek out.
Wonderful. A self-selected internet survey based on self-identified preferences somehow overturns all the carefully designed studies using brain scans, monitoring of biological functions, priming, and so on that support the conclusions of evolutionary psychology. That’s some good science.
The researchers used a World Economic Forum measure of gender equality to rank the 10 countries as (a) relatively gender-equal, (b) backwards but improving, or (c) screamingly sexist (my terms, not theirs). And the results were clear: The more egalitarian the country, the less likely men and women were to value traditional qualities that Buss and co. believe to be innate. In Germany, women said they’d very much like a man who is a good housekeeper. In Finland, men were more likely than women to prefer a mate a bit smarter than themselves. In the United States, women ranked chastity as more important than men did. At the other end of the scale, in Turkey and South Korea, women wanted mates with good financial prospects and men valued good cooks.
Essentially, the survey finds that when asked about sensitive and potentially controversial topics over the internet, a self-selected group of people will give strangers the socially-approved answer. Thank you Slate for pointing out this stunning observation.
In case your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, the study is complete and utter crap and drawing any conclusions about evolutionary biology from it is idiotic.
As the manosphere says repeatedly and consistently, look at what people do, not what they say.
****
So, in conclusion, this article is mostly bunk. It’s a mishmash of a person’s ignorance of her own ideological underpinnings, wishful thinking, fourth-rate logic, and a person determining “good” science based on her own ideological biases.
In other words, it’s typical feminism.
****
* I say true social conservatism, because a fair amount of what we call social conservatism now, is simply the repackaged liberalism of the last century. Actual social conservatives would generally be called paleo-conservatives. ie: Being against gay marriage, but believing in marriage for love does not a social conservative make, it only makes a liberal who doesn’t like homosexual marriage; to be a social conservative requires a traditional view of marriage as an economic, sexual, and (possibly) religious relationship based around the creation and raising of children.
Congrats to the Captain for becoming independent.
The state has destroyed marriage.
Patriactionary suggests an alternative marriage arrangement.
Related: Vox also suggests an alternative arrangement.
Some fun education news.
Related: Those who can avoid the public schools.
Related: The strike, like most of the public education system, is not for students.
Related: Smash the unions.
Women’s liberation means men’s liberation.
False rape accusations are real and not that uncommon.
“It’s their beastliness abusing my civility that angers me. That moment of realization was when I changed from egalitarian to chauvinist.”
“The Dark Triad man is successful sleeping with women because he thinks like his single mother–he is the wannabe rocker, the aspiring rapper. He is the disaffected ne’er-do-well of a single mother.”
You mean women want to stay home with their kids? Surprising.
A women talks of why she should be disenfranchised.
Don’t be a sheeple.
Fisking Jezebel on video games.
I too hate false humility. It annoys me very much.
Long live the Manosphere.
Traditional Christianity has reopened, without comments.
Roissy on IQ and the death penalty.
Mark Steyn on Sandra Fluke and the decline.
An informative post on China’s kleptocracy and it’s effect on the world economy.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
The US budget visualized.
Epigenetics sounds interesting.
Hehe. That’s pretty entertaining.
Proof psychology discriminates against conservatives.
Inside the Sex Offender cluster.
Related: Are pedophiles people too?
Realted: GLP on pedophilia.
How the internet effected prostitution.
Death by degrees.
Related: More student loans stories. These are almost becoming too common.
Bill Clinton: saying something useful almost two decades late.
The modern welfare state is doomed. Only the US dares talk of it.
You mean tax policy can have consequences?
Advocacy and science should be kept separate.
The Democrats condescend to women. I thin most feminists enjoying being condescended to.
Koch: End crony capitalism. I’m really starting to like Koch.
Discrimination against Christians in Britain.
Related: The DNC does something stupid.
(H/T: The Captain, Maggie’s Farm, Instapundit, SDA, GLP, VftP)
Mentu has an interesting post on his contemplations of his family life as he is in the waiting room for a vasectomy. I’d suggest giving it a read, as it’s an interesting look into a man choosing to make his hedonistic lifestyle permanent, but regretting the things that might have been.
I wish Mentu luck, and hope he does not come to truly regret and doubt his decision in the future, but that is not what I wish to write about. Instead, I’m going remark on something he wrote in the post:
I thought about the Manosphere. In my opinion, pro-marriage and Christian bloggers in these parts talk far too much about how to find a good wife, and not nearly enough about how to find a good mother. After a long and exhaustive search, I have finally given up. I actually gave up about three years ago, to be perfectly honest. Women who might make decent wives pop up every now and then, but women in the 21 to 31 year old age range who would make good mothers have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. It’s not as if they’ve rejected the idea; they’re not even aware that the concept exists.
He’s right, the Christian manosphere does seem talk more about finding a good wife than finding a good mother, but I don’t think it’s a deficiency of our discussion, rather Mentu is making a definitional mistake in separating the two. For myself, and I’m sure for most present and future patriarchs, the distinction between a good wife and a good mother is non-existant.
A good wife is necessarily a good mother.
****
The purpose of marriage to the Christian is twofold:
Some Christians may marry only for the purpose, they need passion and sex and marriage is the only allowed sexual outlet. This is not sinful, but neither is it complete.
A Christian who marries solely for passion, or as we would say today, love, is missing out on a fundamental part of a godly marriage, which is having many children. His marriage is incomplete.
The Bible repeatedly and consistently talks of the blessing of a large family of many children. It is one of the greatest gifts a man can have and, in the Bible, to bless someone with many children is one of the highest blessings possible.
Anybody who does not have a full quiver is robbing themselves of a great blessing.
Patriarchal Christians realize the benefit of this blessing. For the complete picture of marriage, the purposes are intertwined: you marry to sate passion, have support, and have children. Any good wife will fill all three of these functions.
There is no difference between a good wife and a good mother, a good wife is necessarily a good mother. If a woman is not a good mother, she can not, by definition, be a good wife.
So, when a patriarch-to-be declares what he wants in a wife and talks of searching for a wife, it can be implicitly assumed that he is also looking for a mother with those traits. I know I am.
****
Having said that, what are some things to look for in the future mother of your children?
As far as I can recall, the Bible itself does not speak much on what makes a good mother apart from being a good wife.
For the most part, what would make a good wife, would also make a good mother:
Some other indicators I’d look for that apply primarily to someone looking for a wife and mother, rather than just a wife:
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, there’s probably more.
****
I’ll end by saying this:
If you are planning to have children, make sure your potential wife would also make a good mother.
On this blog, when I talk about a good wife, a good mother is implicit. For those of you who don’t make that connection implicitly, make sure that your potential wife would also be a good potential mother.
One of my favourite webcomics, posted this today. An encapsulation of what the manosphere has been saying about education in comics form. The comics there are usually entertaining and often thought-provoking. Check it out.
I have recently purchased a number of guns. This was a pain-in-the-ass process due to Canada’s over-bearing gun laws, especially concerning handguns.
There are a number of reasons I put myself through this process, including the usual, such as I want to take up shooting, hunting, self-defence.
Although, not so much for self-defence. I don’t think I would use a gun to defend my home, I would try to use a different method if possible. I own and train with numerous bladed and blunt weapons that I would probably use before the gun. Not because I have any moral problems with shooting an intruder, but simply for legal reasons.
The Canadian legal system is often stupid when it comes to self-defence, such as this recent case where a man defended his home from being firebombed. For his troubles he was arrested, had is guns confiscated, faces jail time, and is still through going through the courts months alter (while the person firebombing his house was not arrested).
I would avoid using my firearms simply to avoid the legal hassles that come with using firearms, especially given that I take martial arts and have numerous other weapons lying around my house. This is not perfect, as the state jealously guards its so-called monopoly over “legitimate” force and will try to punish any who may try to use legitimate force themselves, but firearms just add an extra layer the tyrannical will be able to use against you.
Self-defence aside, these reasons are all good reasons for owning a firearm, but they are not the most important reason, which is freedom.
A man cannot call himself free in any meaningful sense of the word unless he owns a firearm. If you do not own a firearm, you are, as Elusive Wapiti would say, a sheeple.
****
All power essentially comes down to force.
Political scientists and sociologists will talk about the different types of power, whether power comes from authority, from legitimacy, from material resources, etc., but essentially it all comes down to who holds the guns.
The elected official may have the authority of legitimacy, but if not supported by the arms of the police and military, his authority means little. The wealthy man may have the power of resources, but if not protected by the arms of police and his own bodyguards, it could be taken from him by armed men at any time. The demagogue may have the power of persuasion, but if his followers do not have arms, they are prey for those who do.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. – Chairman Mao
****
Freedom comes from power.
Hippies, pacifists, and other such morally bankrupt idealists may talk about peace and freedom while decrying violence, suggesting that somehow you can have either of the former without being capable of the latter, but are only able to do so because heavily-armed police and military protect their ability to say stupid things from people who aren’t so disconnected from reality.
The simple fact is, if you want to be free to act, you must have the power of taking action. If you want to be free, you must have the power to defend and protect your freedom.
Today, power means guns.
Owning a gun is essentially saying, I am free, and I have the power to protect my freedom.
Anybody who wants to take your guns away from you or prevent you from having guns, hates you and hates your freedom. They want to disempower you and take away your ability to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your freedom.
You cannot call yourself free in any real sense of the word unless you possess a firearm.
****
Guns are not the only material prerequisite for freedom.
To truly be free, you must be able:
If you do not have the internet, firearms, a vehicle, and your own property (or have the ability to acquire them which you have temporarily forgone), you are not fully free.
Anybody who tries to limit your ability to acquire or access these hates your freedom and, by extension, hates you.
****
Owning a firearm is an assertion of your freedom and your power.
There is no single action you can take that shows the elites they don’t fully control you better than to arm yourself.
That is why I bought a firearm collection.
Today, I am going to comment on two pieces of economic stupidity from liberals.
The first piece is from a Democracy Now! interview with Matt Taibbi (h/t: Clarissa), in which he writes:
Well, Mitt Romney is really the representative of an entire movement that’s taken over the American business world in the last couple of decades. You know, America used to be-especially the American economy was built upon this brick-and-mortar industrial economy, where we had factories, we built stuff, and we sold it here in America, and we exported it all over the world. That manufacturing economy was the foundation for our wealth and power for a couple of centuries. And then, in the ’80s, we started to transform ourselves from a manufacturing economy to a financial economy. And that process, which, you know, on Wall Street we call financialization, was really led that-sort of this revolution, where instead of making products, we made transactions, we made financial products, like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. We created money through financial transactions rather than building products and selling them around the world. And that revolution was really led by people like Mitt Romney. And the advantage of financialization, from the point of view of the very rich and the people who run the American economy, is that it was extremely efficient at extracting wealth and kicking it upward, whereas the old manufacturing economy had the sort of negative effect of spreading around to the entire population. In the financialization revolution, you can take all of the money, and you don’t have to spread it around with anybody. And Mitt Romney was kind of a symbol of that fundamental shift in our economy.
Now, this kind of argument is made all the time by liberals: that evil businesses and bankers are destroying the manufacturing sector and traditional blue-collar jobs.
The problem is its wrong. Now, don’t get me wrong, the traditional blue-collar model is dying in North America, but the left has the culprit wrong. If they want to see why it is dying, they only need to look in the mirror.
The manufacturing economy is dying because of government overregulation, pushed by liberals. Between an increasingly harsh regulatory environment, brutal taxation levels, the manipulation of local zoning regulations, corrupt unions, political interference, etc., etc. the left has made it all but impossible for blue-collar industry to thrive.
As the Captain has written: capital flight is a built-in feature of socialism.
If you make it impossible for industrialists to create industry in North America, do not be surprised when no industry is created in North America.
As just one example of the war leftists are engaging on blue collar industry, we can look to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The US recently had a perfect opportunity to create thousands of traditional blue-collar jobs. Canada was practically begging the US to allow this pipeline to be built through the US and TransCanada had plans drawn up and was ready to build. XL would have created 20,000 jobs and huge revenues for both Canada and the US. It never happened. Why?
Because a bunch of idiot leftists protested it and the government killed it.
This is not an isolated event.
I lied earlier; I’m going to provide more than one example, to show it’s not just oil pipelines. Let’s look at a few examples of random blue-collar industries:
I could go on forever, but why bother. The simple fact is, at every step, across every industrial sector, leftist ideologues are trying their damnedest to destroy any industry here in North America.
These ideologues have created a government of over-regulation and over-taxation that is destroying blue-collar industry. The programs these people have put in place costs the economy $1.75 trillion a year.
After the huge swath of destruction they have wreaked across the North American industrial landscape, I can hardly believe they have the gall to turn around and complain about disappearing blue collar jobs.
Are leftists so stupid that they can not see the very visible side effects of their ideology or are they just plain evil?
****
As an almost completely irrelevant aside, there is at least one major company (the second-largest private company in the US) I can name of the top of my head that manufactures most of its products in the US. It’s called Koch Industries. Unsurprisingly, it is the target of constant attacks and smears by the left.
****
The second piece of idiocy I’m going to comment on is from Slate. Michael Moran writes:
Are we getting back to normal? Well, of course not: times were not normal to start. To get back to that normal would be national suicide – an asset bubble fueled normal more unsustainable than anything either of our political parties is flirting with today.
…
Do we really pine for the bubble years? Remember, folks, the “prosperity” now implied by those who as about “four years ago” were fuelled by a runaway financial system that treated peoples’ homes, jobs and lives like so many chips in a casino.
Would we be “better off” if the bubble loomed over us again? No, we’d be walking toward an even deeper cliff.
I agree with this, an economy based upon a bubble is stupid, and not something we want to return to.
In the same article he also writes:
First, the view that President Obama wants to emerge from Charlotte: Four years ago the country was sliding over the edge of an economic cliff. Today, we’ve got one leg back on top, and even with the Republican congressional caucus holding onto the other leg and screaming “I’d rather fall to my death than climb back onto that debt-strewn precipice” – we’re clawing our way to safety.
…
Ironically, his economic policies are not the real problem. Again, this was always going to take a long time to solve. We can argue whether there should have been more stimulus (I think so). But on the finer economic points, the general direction has been correct.
…
Recessions, as Europe demonstrates every single day, are no time to cut government spending: the result is a vicious circle in which austerity kills growth and deficits become nearly insurmountable (especially in countries that have to fund them on the open market). So even if deficits rise during a recession, the idea is to hasten the return of growth that, in the end, is the only real solution to such gaps.
It is very clear he is in favour of Keynesian stimulus and against reigning in government spending.
Somehow, he doesn’t see the contradiction between these two positions. One can not be against a bubble economy and be for economic stimulus, as economic stimulus is the creation of a bubble economy.
Government spending inherently creates economic bubbles.
An economic bubble occurs when the nominal value of something is inflated far beyond its intrinsic worth.
Government spending, particularly stimulus spending, is spending on goods or services individuals are not willing to spend on and invest in on an individual level.
In other words, stimulus is spending on goods and services more than its inherent market value.
Anybody advocating Keynesian stimulus is advocating the government creates a bubble by investing where the free market is unwilling to invest.
(There is one difference though, bubbles on the private market will generally pop at some point in the short-medium term when someone realizes its idiotic. On the other hand, government supported bubbles can be propped-up almost indefinitely through tax-payer funding, at least until the state runs out of money).
****
Anyhow, that completes today’s round of liberal stupidity.
Roosh posted Denying Death, arguing that’s it’s better to live for now than suffer now to live a few more miserable years. Danger & Play responded, arguing that being healthy is not for living longer, but for living younger while you live. Captain Capitalism has riffed on the same topic before, arguing not to save for now, but rather to prepare the Smith & Wesson retirement plan.
You should also definitely read this piece on how doctors choose to die.
Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will be cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the intensive care unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly: “Promise me that if you find me like this you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.
Now, as for me, family history wise, I should be long-lived and healthy. Both of my grandfathers are in their 80s, mobile, healthy for their age, and more or less independent, despite the fact that one of them smoked most of his life, but even so, eventually I will reach the point where my body will break down.
I find the thought of living hooked to a machine or living as a adult toddler horrifying. When I come to die, I plan to do so in my bed, surrounded by family, or possibly, go alone into the woods to feed the wolves. I do not plan to fight it, bu to embrace it.
****
Now, the arguments of both Roosh and D&P both centered around health. Do you suffer now by denying yourself foods you enjoy, undergoing painful workouts, and starving yourself? Or do you live in the moment, and die when you die.
For this we will go to my favourite book of the Bible for wisdom:
In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
the righteous perishing in their righteousness, and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.
(Ecclesiastes 7:15-18)
Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, the advice here applies to everything, avoid all extremes.
“Moderation in all things, including moderation.” – Petronius
Be moderate: take care of your health, but only insofar as you need to. Worshiping your health is no better than living a life of gluttony and sloth.
The point is not to deny yourself, not to suffer. Suffering is extreme and unnecessary. The point is not gluttony, that’s just leads to future suffering. Both of those are unnecessary, counter-productive extremes.
The point is to structure your life so you can eat healthy, while not suffering.
That’s why I eat a modified primal diet: the Paleo Fuck You diet, as it were.
****
What?
My base diet is healthy. I generally either don’t eat breakfast, or have a couple eggs. For lunch, a bacon/chicken salad and for supper, some meat. Some fruits for energy when engaged in physical activity and some almonds, berries, and dark chocolate for snacking. I drink water. That’s describes the majority of what I eat.
But, if I’m with friends, I’m going to enjoy myself: pass me another slice and top up my coke. If I really crave a milkshake, I’ll stop by DQ. If I’m in a rush, I’ll pick up something off the value menu. I’m eating ice cream as I’m typing this: I haven’t had ice cream for months, but really craved it on the way home, so I bought some.
I never feel deprived, because I never deprive myself. If I really want something, fuck-it, I’ll eat it.
Yet, I still maintain my diet. I’ve lost 30 lbs (about 15% of my pre-primal weight) since April, while adding some muscle mass. I have more energy and endurance than I’ve had since I was a child. I’m healthier than I’ve ever been.
How?
Read the book Willpower (I mean it, best book I’ve read this year [well, technically tied for best with the Way of Man, read that too]).
Willpower does not matter for dieting. You can not willpower your way to good health or good diet; it doesn’t work. In fact, “dieting” leads directly to weight gain. There are powerful bio-evolutionary forces at work in you that will stop you from “starving” yourself, and there is no way to overcome them.
So what matters?
Habit and environment.
Start good habits and structure your environment to eat right.
I let my natural laziness do the work for me. I shop each week and I only buy enough fresh meat for the next week or two, some eggs, fruit, salad supplies, and a few condiments/spices as needed. I make a giant salad for the week, to split into portions each day for lunch. I do not buy unhealthy food, my fridge is mostly bare except the previous. So the choice is, either eat what’s there, or get to my car, drive to the market/fast-food joint, purchase stuff, and drive home. My laziness wins, so I eat my pork chops happily (with some Bull’s-Eye, because hey, it makes it that much better).
I have some stuff in the cupboard from my pre-primal days and some Coke and what not in my alcohol fridge for when I have friends over. But it takes more time and effort to cook something in my cupboard than to fry up some sausages. I have coke, but if I want one I have to go downstairs to my alcohol fridge and get it, while water is right there: I almost never drink Coke on my own simply because the 20 seconds it takes to go downstairs makes it too much of a hassle. If I want ice cream, I have to go to Safeway or DQ and buy it.
I never feel deprived because I never deprive myself, but I’ve structured life so my natural laziness limits how much unhealthy food I’m eating and the good habits I’m developing naturally take over.
So be moderate. Don’t deprive yourself, but structure your life so that you aren’t tempted. You’ll eat healthy, but never feel deprived.
****
Back to dying. When should you die?
Should you live fast and die young, or should you eke out every tiny bit of life you can?
Neither, either, both. The question is flawed.
The better question is why do you live? What do you live for? What is your purpose, your mission?
You should die when you are done.
You should live until you have accomplished your mission or when your continued existence can no longer serve your mission. You should not allow yourself to die before then and you should not try to prolong your life beyond this point.
You do not deny death, you do not affirm life. You affirm your mission and realize death is simply when you cease to struggle in this mortal world.
Live to struggle for your mission, struggle to live for as long as you are able to advance your mission. Then allow yourself to die. Don’t drag it out, don’t fight it; go to the grave knowing you gave your all for what mattered to you.
That is when you should die, when you can rest peacefully knowing you have done everything you could and there is nothing more to do.
Die when you are done.
****
Roosh, the Captain, and D&P seem to come at this from a hedonistic perspective. They want to enjoy being young; their mission is pleasure. So, it would make sense for them to live fast and young as long as possible, then fellate a gun when they are too decrepit to enjoy themselves.
If you live hedonistically, the Smith & Wesson plan or the early heart attack is the perfect death.
But, hedonism is not something that works for all; it’s just not enough for many.
Most people need a mission; something greater than their own self-pleasure to live their life for.
The S&W plan might not work for them. Living fast would not work for them, but neither would eking ever last painful second out of life work.
What will work for them is dying when they have nothing left to accomplish.
****
Some personal reflection:
These last years, I’ve been looking for a mission. So far unsuccessfully. Because of this, I’ve cared little about whether I remained on this mortal coil or not. The lack of success has lead me to slowly become more nihilistic over time, and hedonism is looking increasingly attractive.
But it doesn’t seem enough.
I want to fight for something, to have a mission. I want to go to breath my last breath knowing that I fought for something greater than me.
Hopefully I can find it, before the S&W plan starts to make more sense than it already does.
****
To conclude, avoid the extremes of health-nuttery or gluttony. Eat moderately.
It’s not about suffering to live as long as possible or dying young. It’s about fighting for as long as you can and dying when there’s no fight left in you.
Die when you are done.