Wednesday, July 27, 2022

What Does It Mean To Be A Warrior?

It has been my assertion that the only path to long-standing liberty is to take on warrior culture, and I maintain this position on the matter.

But what does it even mean, "warrior culture"?  More pointedly, what does it mean to be a Warrior?  Let us begin once more by repairing to the various dictionaries to see whether we may find help there.  But first, we need the right words - those that define the qualities of a warrior.  To wit, and in the broadest terms, a Warrior bears the following characteristics and qualities:
    1. Courage
    2. Generosity
    3. Clear intellect/magnanimity
    4. Industriousness
    5. Honor
    6. Impeccability
There are several other list items, but they all stem from these, more or less.

Courage, n. : Bravery; intrepidity; that quality of mind which enables men to encounter danger or difficulties without fear or depression of spirits; boldness; resolution.  It is a constituent part of fortitude; but fortitude implies patience to bear continued suffering.

Generosity, n. : The quality of being generous

 Generous, a. : 2. Noble; honorable; ...

3. Liberal; bountiful; munificent; free to give; ...

Intellect, n. : That faculty of the human soul or mind which receives or comprehends the ideas communicated to it by the senses, of by perception, or by other means; the faculty of thinking; otherwise called the understanding.  A clear intellect receives and entertains the same ideas which another communicates with perspicuity.

Perspicuity, n. : 2. Clearness to mental vision; easiness to be understood; freedom from obscurity or ambiguity; ...

 Magnanimity,  n. : Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness; which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence; which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest, and safety, for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects.

Knowledge, n. : 1.  A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of our ideas.

Impeccability, n. :  -> 

impeccable, a. : Not liable to sin; Not subject to sin; exempt from the possibility of sinning.

Honor,  n. : True nobleness of mind; magnanimity; dignified respect for character, springing from probity, principle, or moral rectitude; a distinguishing trait in the character of good men.

Industrious, n. : 1. Diligent in business or study; constantly, regularly, or habitually occupied in business; assiduous; as opposed to slothful and idle.  3. Given to industry; given to diligence; as, an industrious life.


Applied to an individual, these standards set a high bar for any man.  The Warrior is, after all, the superior man.  However, his superiority arises not based upon his perfect attainment of these characteristics and qualities, but in how well he aspires to them, repairs his errors, and learns from them.  We are all of us fallible men and cannot be reasonably expected to be without flaw or error, but knowing right from wrong is well within the reach of even lesser men, and so it is well expected for nearly all individuals to act in accord with that knowledge.

Lesser men might be be expected to copulate on the street like dogs, but this is never possible for the Warrior, whose sense of proper comportment keeps him right at all times.  Let us be clear that we are not speaking of the proverbial Boyscout, for even the Warrior may have a sense of humor and of the harmlessness of petty sins committed on occasion with a wink and nudge.  But he is always firmly and centrally aware of the slippery slopes that exist in the committing of such exceptions, and is keen and determined never to allow himself to fall into those traps, which so stealthily sneak up on a man, the next thing knowing that he has fallen into dishonor and perhaps even gross criminality.

The Warrior retains self-control and shows the dignity and responsibility of a man who is able and willing to judge every situation for himself, knowing where reside the lines which must not be crossed.  None of this is easy and much of the practice constitutes the high art to which all decent men endeavor to apply themselves with diligence and fortitude, pursuant to the honing of one's skills at the highest levels possible.

Warriors fear no adversity, their will to move forward in spite of fear lending the very definition of what it means to be a courageous man.

Magnanimity and generosity stems not so much from how widely they open their wallets to those needing help and care, but rather in their will to allow others their lives, just as he wishes his own.  Sincerity over hypocrisy is the way of the Warrior.  Recognizing the equal, just claims of his fellows, he honors those claims as he wishes his own to be respected, regardless of whether he agrees with another's choices.

The Warrior is in possession of himself and is immune to the ill-considered words and gestures of ill-sentiment of others.  His sense of strategy leaves him thankful to his adversaries, who give themselves, their opinions, sentiments, and at times their intentions, freely away to him with their harsh expressions of mockery, disdain, and threat.  Those expressions comprise invaluable information as to where he stands in relation to other men, and when the words are disagreeable, he knows how to react in order best to avoid trouble.  Compare with the mean man who becomes upset and raging over the intended insults of other men, foolishly responding with sweat and shaking fists.

Becoming a Warrior is an endeavor toward complete self-control rendering others powerless to force one's hand, even when life and limb come to threat.  He chooses his responses, rather than the other way around, which is the way of the Weakman.

A Warrior treasures intellect and strives to make the most of that with which he was gifted.  This is as much an issue of attitude as it is of those gifts, such as they may be.  The Warrior develops his powers of intellect, and in accord with his journey to self-control and ever greater knowledge, strives to learn when logic and reason must shorten the reins of his passions, that he not run amok, head-first into gross error.  This is all part and parcel of knowing who you are, what you want, and what is right versus what is easy.

Unlike the Weakman, the Warrior knows when he is best served by industry, his bent to self-control cracking the whip against the hind quarters of his lassitude, thus propelling him into action, pursuant to all good diligence.  He is indolent when it profits him to be so, for we all need our rest.  But when the duty of good and necessary labor beckons, the Warrior answers the call promptly and with good cheer.

The Warrior loves freedom above all things and will place his honor, his fortune, and his very life on the line to preserve it against threat, whether it be his own liberty, or that of his fellows.  To defend the rights of others, is to defend one's own.

The Warrior is a student of strategy and tactics, for each is needed in the treatment of all threats to common liberty.  He must exercise the courage to do what is required in defense against the evil machinations of the manifold tyrants who would see all men set to chain and manacle.  The Warrior understands that freedom is at least as scary, and at times utterly horrifying, as it is exhilarating and joyful, for the world is replete with all imaginable hazards, most of those issuing from other men.  The Warrior accepts these hazards as part and parcel of freedom, embraces them, and prepares himself as best he is able, always with the full understanding that this world offers him no guaranty of his continued survival, much less of health or prosperity, or even justice.  He accepts reality and girds himself for all contingencies to the degree his will and ability allow.

The Warrior's greatest gift and weapon is his attitude, for it is by that instrument that he retains (or relinquishes) the ability to be captain of his own life, regardless of circumstance, fair or foul.  One cannot always choose his conditions, but he can always choose how he will meet them in terms of his attitude.

Warriors are strong, self-reliant to the greatest possible degree, self-possessed, courageous, generous, honorable and worthy of trust.  They are good for their words, taking responsibility for the things they say; the promises they make; the contracts into which they enter.  They hold skills of real value to the world and are unabashed to render service.  They are adult enough to judge and assess people, things, and situations for themselves and stand responsible for the choices they make pursuant thereto.  They own their errors and endeavor to learn from their mistakes.  They expect nothing from those who owe them nothing, but are always thankful for whatever kindness comes their way from the hands of a fellow, regardless of how seemingly meager.

The Warrior is a good man that anyone of reason and decency would eagerly accept as a friend.  A Warrior's path is arduous more than it is easy, and it is this precise circumstance that lends his good character, for no man of questionable composition would be likely to make so difficult a journey.

The question for every man who considers himself of reasonable character is whether he is up to the fatigues of the Warrior's journey.  When considering that at the end of it all, we all end up once again as the dust whence we came, it seems to me that the difficult path is the one to choose.  But as with everything else in life, the choice is yours to make for yourself.  May I gently suggest you choose carefully, for regret can be the bitterest of all things.

Be well, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.


 

 

Thursday, June 16, 2022

Implications Of Rights

 

Though I have written on this topic priorly, I feel that given the gross ignorance of the general public on a concept so centrally important to our liberty, repetition is in order.

Years ago I expounded, however modestly, on the qualities and characteristics of "Rights", where we discovered the definition of the term, as well as the fact that there exist two basic categories: inherent and synthetic (or contractual).  If you feel your understanding of the term may not be quite up to snuff, I would suggest reading at the link, above.

All rights carry implications.  There are no exceptions, for it is in the very fabric of a right from which its concomitant implications arise.  If there is no other implication arising from any given right, there is always that of the right of exercise.  If you hold a right, you then by direct implication also hold title to exercise that right.  Were it otherwise, the right in question would not be a right, but rather a privilege.  Rights and privileges do not even live on the same planet.  Mr. Apples, meet Mr. Oranges.  This truth is inherent to the very structure of a right.  Anyone who claims to the contrary, speaks pure nonsense.  Imagine, if you will, opening a door to find a man over a struggling body as he stabs it in repeatedly vicious fashion with a long knife, blood spurting everywhere while turning to you and with a straight face proclaiming that he is not stabbing a struggling body.  That is the brand of absurdity of which we speak when someone asserts that while you may hold a right, you do not hold the authority to exercise it, much less the means of doing so.

One of the iconic examples of this is the old "you can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater.  I hate to break it to you, but you can, and you may, no matter what any statute to the contrary might say.  This is not to suggest that one ought go out and test my assertion, because we already know that the police will come and take you away in bracelets, most likely, if you do.  But there is an important distinction to be made here with regard to the manner of exericse.  

If someone waltzes into a theater, unceremoniously begins shouting "FIRE!!!!" and the crowd panics, stampedes, and people and property are damaged, then the utterer of those words is indeed guilty of a tort at the very least, if not a crime, in that the exercise of his right resulted in such damage.  Such an act with such a result could be said to have been an incorrect exercise of his inherent right, much the same as my right to keep and bear arms would be exercised incorrectly, were I to enter a bank, draw a pistol, and try to commit a robbery.

But if prior to the show I were to get the attention of the audience, beg their indulgence to yell "FIRE!!!!", get it, and then do so, resulting in no damage done, the "authorities" would have no valid basis for molesting me in response to my actions.  The theater manager, however, might be within his authority to ask me to leave the premises.  After all, if during a play one of the cast has a line wherein he repeatedly shouts "FIRE!!!!", are the police to be summoned, with said cast member to be dragged off to the hoosegow in manacles and cuffs?  Once again, context is king.

And so we see a problem with the prohibitionists: not only do they often fail to understand the differences between proper and improper exercise - at least in any explicit fashion - but they also are of the habit to advocate for prohibition on the deeply tacit assumption that all exercise is wrong or even criminal in certain cases.  This is as absurd as claiming that all injections with syringes are wrong, just because once every three generations or so, some murderous lunatic kidnaps someone and kills them using a syringe and some poisoning agent.  Nobody makes such claims because they understand the difference between proper and improper use.  Similarly, when some maniac uses his automobile to mow down dozens of pedestrians, nobody calls for a ban on all such vehicles.  And yet, there are those who refuse to acknowledge this quality of reality along certain lines.  

Firearms are the quintessential example of this.

The anti-Second Amendment people largely dismiss the right to self-defense.  They deny this, yet their self-contradictory beliefs, as publicly professed, clearly indicates otherwise.  One can see endless examples of this in the news media where the bereaved mother tearily proclaims to the camera that her baby didn't need to be shot.  Tell that to the defender who was facing a nearly seven-foot tall, 300 pounder, coming at him with a machete in his hand and murder in his eyes.  To those mothers, there is no evil to which their children might have applied themselves that would have justified a defender opening fire.  This, of course, is pure insanity, but that makes no end of the practice of some people proclaiming that self-defense with a gun is not a valid response to clear and present threats to life and limb.

Do also note the back-channel implication of the assertion that a man holds no authority to exercise his right to self-defense: you as a living, breathing human being are obliged to hand your life over to anyone who demands it.  Some will rebut with, "I'm not saying that at all.  You can always call the police and shout for help."  Excuse me while I stuff my eyeballs, which have just rolled out of their sockets, back in.  The rank absurdity of such arguments defies words.

At the very least, you are obliged by implication to assume the risk of your own life at the hands of one who is apparently attempting to do you great harm, for the sake of not bringing them to harm.  This fails to so much as rise to stupidity.  No decent human being wishes to bring others to harm, but equally valid is the desire to avoid being harmed.  No man is obliged to risk his life for another.  That so many do so is a credit to the generosity of men, but under no circumstance are they so obliged.  Therefore, then one man threatens another, the threatened party stands centrally within his rights to take whatever defensive actions he may deem necessary to the preservation of his existence and his health, such as it may be.

If I hold title to my First Property, which is to say my life, then I may be said to hold the Right to my life, those terms being semantically interchangeable.  The first implication of this is that my life is my own, and nobody else's.  If that be the case, then it directly follows that nobody holds the least right to take my life from me in any manner or measure without my consent, all else equal.  Some would go so far as to proclaim that even I hold no authority to surrender my life to another, much less that they may take it without permission.  It has been long said that God enjoins all creatures to preserve themselves from harm and death.  Whatever the ultimate cause, it is clear that all living things struggle to remain alive because it is better than being dead.

If I hold title to my life and nobody else may rightfully take it from me, whether through murder, maiming, or by casting me into involuntary servitude, then it further follows perforce that I hold every authority to defend my First Property from any and all such threats.  If this be the case, then I hold the right to exercise the right of self-defense when I am threatened with violation of my First Property Rights, and if I am entitled to exercise that right, I am perforce entitled to obtain the means of exercise.  Such means may include empty-hand martial arts training; it may include the acquisition of various weapons such as knives, swords, firearms, sticks, billies, staffs, stones, explosives, automobiles, etc.  It would include the right for me to build a fortress-like dwelling, to furnish it with the accoutrements of defense, and that of making their use when a threat surfaces.

Several years ago a truck driver threatened to kill me with a pistol he had brandished at me on I-64 just outside of Lewisburg, West Virginia.  The moment his hand touched the hood of my car, I stomped the throttle and ran him over.  He was caught in Virginia and taken to jail.  I was cleared of any wrongdoing because I'd properly exercised my natural right to defend my life from the threat of extinguishment at the hands of one with no valid authority to do so.

So what about self-defense vis-á-vis an attacker's right to his First Property?  This is, after all, the very argument of the grieving mothers for the lost lives of their angelic, gang-banging issue.  The answer is simple: the moment you initiate an unjust action against another human being, you have effectively repudiated your claim to life.  By unjustly threatening the welfare of another, you have placed yourself at their mercy precisely because they are in no way obliged to grant you license to bring them to harm, whether great or small.  They are, therefore, fully authorized by Nature itself to take whatever actions they may deem necessary to preserve their existences.  

This isn't rocket surgery.  And yet, there are those who attempt to obfuscate the clarity of these truths with all manner of obliquely architected language that is rotten and impacted with all manner of tacit implications which have served them well in ensnaring the unwary who fall for one of the most commonly used fallacies: the appeal to emotion.

But do not allow yourself to be fooled.  LEARN what your rights are and what they imply.  If you gain that knowledge and hold it well, nobody will be able to rob you of your sovereign authority as a living and free individual.

The basics may be summarized with a list:

  1. A right implies a concomitant right of exercise
  2. A right to exercise implies the attendant right to validly obtain the means of exercise
  3. A right must be exercised properly, lest a crime or tort be committed
  4. An act of violation of another's rights may place your own claims in jeopardy
  5. Want your rights respected?  Then respect those of others.  Don't be a hypocrite
The basic principles of proper human relations are simplicity itself, and yet we humans appear to find them ever so difficult to put into practice.  This is most especially true of the political class, that cancerous vestige of the Age of Kings, the members of which far too often believe themselves entitled and rightfully empowered to circumscribe and even deny the natural prerogatives of free men.  These upstarts have wreaked endless havoc and misery on the lives of those to whom they swore oaths of good faith and competent service, thereby revealing themselves, prima facie, as the scurrilous bounders and felons that they are in glaring  word, deed, and consequent fact.  

Never allow anyone to cow you into believing that your inherent rights are somehow conditional, or into surrendering them to others.  They are absolute and should never be allowed to yield to the aggressions of those who would strip you buck-naked of everything you should be holding most dearly in your life.  

Resist.

Refuse.

Rebel.

Mors omnibus tyrannis, vel magnis, vel minimis.

Until next time, God bless America, humanity's last hope, and please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, June 11, 2022

A Constitutionally Limited Republic

America was founded as a "constitutionally limited republic". Forgetting the fact that a vast plurality of Americans  today do not even know this fact, all too commonly getting things grossly wrong by referring to America as a "democracy", many of even those who know the proper appellation still do not understand what it means with any sufficiency.

What, then, does it mean to be a constitutionally-limited republic?   Let us take a quick look and divine the true meaning of this term which seems to have evaded so many, myself included at a time.

The "republic" part was intended to enable the discharge of certain aspects of governance PURSUANT to the maintenance of the individual freedoms of the people as recognized, enumerated, and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Beyond that, "government" was to have absolutely no role in the lives of the people because the people were recognized as INHERENTLY FREE and morally beyond governmental touch. 

Stay with me now, for this shall become clear in short order.

The most basic premise upon which America was conceived was the innate, inherent, and most naturally obvious state of freedom that is the birthright of every human being to take breath.  That assumption was the foundation upon which the Founders of this nation intended to affect humanity's escape from the boot-heel of the endless litany of tyrants who had taken humanity by its throat with iron fists.  This was the cardinal assumption of the Framers of the Constitution upon which America was architected for the sake of offering humanity a fighting chance to exercise those liberties which the infestations of world tyranny has had for so long diminished, disparaged, denied, and so brutally and criminally violated.

That was the intent.

Pursuant to that intention, the Framers cobbled up a constitution whose purpose was to institute three basic functions of protection to best ensure the individual freedoms they recognized as being innate to our human fabric.  These functions were the national defense, the passage and enactment of Law, and the courts to adjudicate issues of crime, and civl contention.

In my considered opinion,  the Framers did a pretty good job of it, especially considering that nobody in written memory had ever really done so before; an indication of how temporally extensive has been the tenure of the Age Of Tyrants.  They did well, save in one respect: the formation of Congress and the grant of powers thereto.  It is clear in our 20/20 hindsight that the Framers of our Constitution grossly overestimated the moral character of those who would occupy the seats of the legislatures, as well as that of the people at large, whose job it has been to ensure that those in Congress comported themselves properly.  Perhaps the Founders cannot be faulted for having failed to sufficiently prognosticate the depths of the manifold corruptions to which the American people would plunge themselves so eagerly as we see everywhere today.  But if nothing else,  they knew that the power to tax was the power to destroy, so my ability to excuse their architectural missteps is tempered thereby.

Yet another way in which the Founders failed most deeply is in having not been more explicit in the expression and specification of the authority of the People to take immediate procedural control of any institutional element of governance that has run off the rails with respect to their duties to those to whom they swear their oaths.  Furthermore, the Constitution remains devoid of specifications for the holding to account of those who violate those oaths, the punishments for which should be draconian.  Finally, the oath of service is itself lacking in specificity and completeness and, in my opinion, should be rewritten to a far more correct, complete, and exacting standard to which any Freeman should be able to hold those in "government" in cases of betrayal.

Back to the more salient point, the "republic" aspect of the nation was supposed to be so minimal as to be of vanishing perceptibility in terms of the daily lives of the people.  The major, primary, and most forceful quality of the American nation was supposed to be the very innate freedoms of the people to which the Constitutional document refers, the rest existing but to reinforce those freedoms and ensure they were respected by all, for every breathing soul in the land.  The raison d'être for the establishment of "republic" was not so assume powers not granted in the document of ordain and establishment.  And yet, we sadly see how utterly that intention has failed.

We have run afoul of the Founding Intention so widely as to leave thinking men in abashed awe and appalled disgust at what we have all allowed.  Our "government" has gone from ostensible guardians of freedom to the very worst sorts of tyrants against which the founding of this land was intended to hold at bay.  But we the People lost our ways, having allowed ourselves to be corrupted with the seek of material comforts, regardless of cost and to accept as truth those stupidities and evils that made us "feel" better.  We have traded our most sacred gifts of innate liberty for the sake of having cell phones and net.pornography.  We have literally sold our souls for not even thirty pieces of silver, but have in fact given them over most freely to the devils in whose hands our world now rests.

The Constitution limits the REPUBLIC, which is to say the form of governance, and not the people to whom it is supposed to answer.  It is governance that is supposed to be limited to a very narrow spectrum, and not the other way around.  And yet, how many people do you know who see the "government" as some all-powerful authority whose edicts may not be defied?  Are you one of them?  If so, do you now believe that you should remain as such, or is it perhaps time to reconsider your views on such matters?

It is all up to you, and him over there, and her over in the other corner.  It is up to every one of us to get ourselves right in our thoughts and views with respect to the actual, objective, and demonstrably correct principles of proper human relations.

Our Republic is supposed to be all about our freedom, and not the powers of madmen running amok with pen and sword as they pile-drive our sacred freedoms into the dust.  Our "government" is supposed to be all about protecting us from violation, rather than being the primary source thereof.

Protect our freedoms from external threats with the militia.  Protect our freedoms from internal threats with the courts.  Remove nearly every power from Congress which it has so feloniously usurped and arrogated unto itself.  Leave people to live as they please, with the usual restrictions against bringing damage to one's fellows, and leave the rest to us.  We neither need the other ministrations, nor should we be wanting them, much less accepting them.

The English had it right when they established the common law, whose tenets are but three:

  • Be good for your word
  • Bring no unwanted harm to others
  • Make whole those whom you damage
It isn't rocket surgery, and yet when men's hearts have been tainted with the four corruptions of Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, and Lassitude (FAIL), they find every means of, and excuse for complicating things such that they get what they want, no matter who gets hurt.

It is time this all came to ends.  Leave us to freedom and to the governance of self and the defense of that which is a man's rightful property.  Get off our backs, for we will not tolerate you for much longer.  Our technologies are offering means of liberating minds that tyrants will not be able to overcome, save that we allow them to defeat us by pure force of our own wills.  We, the Freemen of planet earth, are not obliged to return to slave status, but will do so if we allow it.

This is all on us, now.

Mors tyrannis.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

The "Destruction" Of The West


Earlier today I viewed a video by Jordan Petersen.  It was a string of discussions with various people regarding the rise of totalitarianism in America, as well as in other places once deemed as the "free" world.

Early on, and speaking to the warfare that has been waged against him, Petersen opined that the assault never ends, and essentially asked why it is so.  To that question I responded in the comment section as follows:


"It doesn't stop because you are pissing in Theire cornflakes. Theye seek the removal of western civilization from the hands of the Mean Man. This makes it appear as though it were being destroyed, but it is only being stolen and squirreled away for the Worthy. Theye will keep it for themselves, of course, because it is powerful, and power is the whole point of all this Machiavellian churn. Western "values" empower the individual, which is anathema to the authoritarian who would be king despot. There can be no rival and competition begins with thought. Therefore, the destruction of powerful thought skill is paramount for broad and unquestioned dominion. This explains virtually everything we see these days. We are in the midst of a revolution. This revolution is the most dangerous ever, setting those of Russia and China to pale precisely because they were not subtle, but rather blood-soaked. Despite the conflagration of Portland, this one is far more nuanced, insidious and I daresay, pervasive. The base of this revolution is not a comparatively small raft of wildly violent "freedom fighters" acting out as the other 99.989% stand idly agape. This one has the support of a vast plurality of young people whose minds have been turned to functional pudding through the wildly powerful mechanisms of the public school systems, in concert with choice and specific corporate collaborators (think "MTV", for example), all of whom have erected a structure of perceptual indoctrination sufficiently coherent to steer millions of young minds away from the tenets of freedom and basic human decency, toward one that superficially appears as those things (Brave New World appearance), but is actually something very different (rotten heart of 1984).

That plurality who have drunk the koolaid of envy, resentment, entitlement, and the naturally resultant rage, are legion, and wildly eager to see the changes that promise what they think is the Utopian paradise to which their world view will give rise. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that those things with which the young minds were inculcated and lead astray from basic sense, is naught but the cancerous beginnings of a nightmare which those stilted and stunted minds cannot imagine, much less accept as the fate to which they have committed themselves. These are the perfect stooges, engineered by those who have used the very values of the west to contrive the framework and methods for achieving their goal of utter domination. Part and parcel with this whole notion of a global despotic hegemony, one must consider the possibility of a program of broad liquidation of "undesirables", at the very least. The world view that is now being promoted and peddled to the young strongly suggests a program of mental preparation for the eventual cull of a large subpopulation. As insanely evil as this notion appears to people who retain some shred of sense and humanity, it must nevertheless be considered as a possible element in the overarching architecture for dominion. Those who can and WILL think independently pose an intolerable threat to the technology-enabled tyrant. There is no degree of independence that can be regarded as innocuous. Therefore, I would have to reason that those who are "not of the body", so to speak, must be eliminated.

Acclimate the young, who shall then become your allies - partners in crime if you will - to the notion of the desperate global circumstance, and they will "understand" (i.e., blindly accept) even the idea that those billions HAD to be sacrificed in order that the lucky survivors would have a future. This is rioting evil, and it is marching toward victory as the race of humans stands and watches, and does nothing.

If all of this is viewed through the lens of one whose ultimate objective is the final acquisition of absolute power over the entire globe, then everything to which we bear daily witness makes perfect sense. What we are witnessing, *living*, is a highly tuned, technologically-enabled, scientifically-based revolution intended to be the final realization of something very big - something on a global scale.

Raise a new crop amenable and perhaps even demanding of your whims and caprices, eliminate the thought-competition (mostly the "old" people, as well as the statistical outliers), and you shall truly be master over all that can be observed from any point on the globe. This is the fundamental transformation of the human condition for which tyrants, despots, and other conquerors have striven since Sumer. It is in a very real sense a TRANS-HUMAN mental metamorphosis that, if pulled off, will leave western thought in the hands of the ruling elite as Theire most powerful instrument of acquisition and maintenance. What will be left for the dregs over whom they wield their largely bootless gestures of material power, is a state of functional intellectual castration which the hobbled will embrace and indeed demand as their blessèd status quo. Brave New World will have been made real. The top tier will be the true alphas. The Betas will be their wholly obedient front-line administrators and the rest will be the effectively mindless Gammas, whose raisons d'être will be to do as they are bid, without question. As in BNW, there will be "soma". Phones, drugs, mindlessly obsessive sex with no love or deeper feelings are already in place. We all see directly how effective they have been, and stand with tuning to become even more so with the generations. One can only wonder what other traps our technologies will contrive to ensnare and coddle those who will come long after we are dust.

I am afraid there is little hope in all this. I may be mistaken, and pray that I am, but it seems clear that some dimly lit threshold has been crossed where the character of the mean man has been so compromised with corruptions subtle and blatant, that as these megalomaniacal loons continue to close the noose around humanity's neck, we will do nothing but watch, fret, and wait for a non-existent knight to come with his legion to save us all from the boogie man.

Dire is the circumstance, as are the prospects. I have tried to sound the clarion's call, but to no apparent avail. Perhaps that is for the better. I no longer can tell with any certainty. But I suffer the defects of my virtues, namely that I am stubborn and believe in hopeless causes. Press on, regardless, I say, for to do otherwise is to dishonor oneself and all he may claim to esteem and love."

The instrument of western thought built the world we now know.  The material world stands as non-equivocating testament to the power of the western mind, which has in many ways far outstripped all rivals, certainly in terms of those material results.  Our technologies and moral principles are all the products of the western mind as it has evolved over the past several thousands of years.  All other modes of civilized thought-architecture long disappeared in the west's rear-view mirror.

The rights recognized by and the morals derived therefrom are all the products of the western mind.  No other cultural tradition has so much as approached the qualities of western civilization's philosophical underpinnings.  Most ironically, those who curse the west as racist, homophobic, and so forth down the dreary list of Regressive talking points, do so from the standpoint of that which they condemn.  More sadly amusing yet, they think that their moral positions derive from something other than the wester philosophical tradition.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but when you point this out to them, the most frequent response is rage-soaked denial, replete with the usual wishes that you die of cancer and that your children are kidnapped, raped endlessly, and then slowly murdered in the most freakishly agonized and prolonged manners possible.

Similarly, they curse "capitalism" using means and methods that only the capitalist west has provided them, and could have provided.  Would that I might live to see the looks on those faces the day they twig to the truth of that for which they so stridently clamor.  By that time, of course, it will be too late to retrieve, so much juicier the raw anguish of realization.

Recognizing the vast capacity of the western mind, Theye now seek to remove that power from the hands of the common man, seeking instead to replace it with a toddler's sphere, such that when provided with a minimal set of vapid diversions, babies in adult bodies will remain content with their status as slaves, a truth which will remain opaque to them for all their days.  It is a brilliant, if obscenely evil, plan that as of this writing appears to be coming off quite well.  Well enough.

May we find our way out of this nightmare quagmire.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes. 

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

We Are All To Blame

In another forum, I've been admonished to trust God, prompting me to respond:

"The problem lies not in whom one may place trust, but with those in whom trust must be withheld. God isn't the problem, people are, and it is people with whom we must daily deal. It is people who disparage, violate, and trespass against us.

Trust God, DEAL with people."


I've never cottoned to the idea that trust in God necessitates passivism in men, which is to say that we sit idly, expecting God to do it all. Furthermore, I've never had cause to believe that God micromanages our lives. After all, what would be the point?

We have been gifted with brains and the capacity to judge.

"Judge not, lest ye art prepared to be judged" is not an admonition against using one's ability to assess, but is rather a warning to employ one's judgment with humility and great caution, for it is ever so easy to run afoul of propriety in the process.

God gave us everything we need to live good, happy, prosperous, and healthy lives worthy of the motions.

That there is so much disease, poverty, and misery in this world rests squarely and solely at our feet, not because evil men make it that way, but because good men do nothing sufficient to stop them.

Every last one of us who have attained his majority is to blame for the evils that now gallop roughshod over face of the earth. We have been remiss in our duties to basic sense and propriety and have much for which to atone. That is at least in part the reason I write these lines, though it is not enough.

I admit my shortcoming in all of this.

Will you admit yours?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Monday, March 21, 2022

1984 Or Brave New World?

 When I was in high school, we were required to read both "1984" and "Brave New World".

When we were done, the teacher asked which of the two do we think most likely to make itself real. Most of my classmates felt 1984 was the likely candidate, whereas my answer was "both". Being the odd man out, the teacher demanded I defend my position. I'd come to the suspicion that our immediate future was to have the face of BNW, but that its black heart, which was precisely the same as that of 1984, would become less candy coated, and thereby more 1984-like, with time.

At the time I was unable to articulate why it would be so, but I believe my instincts have proven themselves correct over the decades since. The face has mutated from that of a bright future full of wonder, to that of a vacuously inane clown where the superficiality of life becomes caricatured in itself. This is reflected everywhere we turn in the outward behaviors of far too many young people these days. Huxley's depiction of the idiotic mantras of BNW's dopey "alphas" are made manifest in the meme culture that has arisen as one result of the network technology we now "enjoy".

The standards of assessment for what it considered knowledge is now so low as to leave me wondering at times how it is that the human world does not come flying apart, though we appear in some ways to come closer to it by the day.

The emphasis has run wildly away from the classic virtues of individual freedom, learnedness, mutual respect, honor, love, and self control, to that of utter self indulgence. The manifestations of this are everywhere made apparent, particularly on the network, which has become a major source of influence in the ways that young people come to see the world, and their places in it. Aided and abetted by "media" and the so-called "educational" system, all former senses of the world appear to be slipping away as the fog of what was once pure relativism has been transmogrified into what I will call the New Absolutism. This has taken place either by the wildest set of coincidences, unimaginable, or by some very clever artifice. It mirrors most perfectly the absolutism of our religious past, and against which it continues to rail and shriek to this day. Anyone failing to subscribe, subordinate, and prostrate themselves to the new Absolute Truth as doled out by the Oracles of Eternal Progressive Wisdom, is to be condemned for heresy. This is most literally the case now.

Could anyone of a now-older generation have imagined a time where "men" who swear that they are not homosexual, publicly proclaim, nay brag, that their girlfriend's "peg" them? If you do not know what that is, look it up. It's hilarious and miserably sad and pathetic all at once.

What passes for knowledge in what seems a vast horde of humanity, is something at which one can only marvel whilst shaking his head as if to wake himself from a goofy dream of killer klowns, soon the turn into a black nightmare.

As I suspected, the cancerous heart of this innerly rotten apple, has become ever more apparent in time, with the once nearly latent tyrants now having made their presence and position most painfully apparent to anyone taking but a moment to notice. In 1984-style, we are seeing a reversal of everything. Good is bad, evil is virtue, up is down, yet the candy-coating of BNW persists, even if it becomes more gossamer-like with each passing year.

It's the old stick-and-carrot act. People have been bent toward the weakness that arises through excessively indulgent self-centeredness and the pleasure seeking that arises most predictably therefrom. The ready availability of the most base forms of self-seeking, namely that of the sexual variety for example, is universal in the "west", with porn sites more popular than ever, acting as a primary source of indoctrination of the young. Make no mistake, I am not on a diatribe against sex - far from it. But when it is made a focus out of proportion such that other life considerations of equal import take a far back seat to it, it requires no feat of rocket surgery to figure out that something is not quite right in the world.

Concomitant with the carrot of strongly advocated self-worship and gratification, is the stick of ever more draconian results for those who fail to adopt the new orthodoxy of obedience to naked, bald-faced evil. Do not question anything, lest ye be stricken from Facebook and Twitter, heaven forbid!

And so in time, my suspicion that with the years we would see an ever expanded edging of encroachment upon the rights of the individual has come to pass and continues to wreck its way through the lives of every man on the planet, the exceptions representing a vanishingly small subpopulation. My perception of the tyrant's nature proved close enough to correct in that he cannot contain and control himself, such that he is no different from those over whom he presumes to lord, save in the dint of his having landed into some seat of power that enables his rot and corruption to be realized in ways the mean man will never know for himself. The tyrant is ill-disciplined in his apparently insatiable lust to exercise ever greater management authority over increasingly minuscule details of the lives of those over whom his tyranny reigns.

The question that arises is whether the tyrants, having perfected their system of domination, will be able to contain themselves over the longer term to the metes and bounds of prudence in the administration of that system. Or will they themselves fall to the perennial human failing of never being satisfied, thus creeping or even leaping over that hazily defined line that would give the now utterly cowed dullards cause to rebel? My suspicion is the latter, if left to their devices. But our technologies stand as the wildcard predicators in that question, and here I speak very specifically of artificial intelligence. If Theye (those in material social power) are smart, and I cannot with certainty attribute their successes thus far to intellect, versus pure determination, they would endeavor to cause the contrivance of an AI sufficient to the task of general, central governance. Were Theye to hand their prerogatives largely over to such a system, elevating it to the effective status and function of an oracle, they might be able to hold on to power indefinitely into the blue future.

The problem with tyrants has always been a lack of self-control in the respects to which I here refer. Having the correct measures programmed into a system which would then be trusted to maintain the proper balances between tyrannical interest and the boiling point of the proletariate, could become the near-guarantee of dominance with no foreseeable end.

Only time will tell, and we old geezers will likely not live to see the longer term outcomes. But it would be quite interesting to be a fly on the world's wall, witnessing how this all pans out over, say the coming century or two, assuming we don't send ourselves to hell in a nuclear fireball, the prospects of which have been recently revived from their former states of rest.

But if you defocus your gaze and zoom out to a broader view of things, the one thing that stands out in all this is the eternally immutable principle of change. Things always change, and so bearing that in mind, it is no wonder that that which we knew and accepted as right and proper is swept away in the currents of time. This may be the only real hope remaining to us: that the need for change is so embedded in the very fabric of our existences, even the most technologically enabled tyrannies must eventually transform, replacing themselves with... well, what exactly?

It seems I have wandered adrift from my original purpose... or have I? You decide.

Be well, be prosperous, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Sunday, March 20, 2022

Mr. IQ, Meet Mr. MQ and Mr. SQ

The concept of IQ, or Intelligence Quotient is well known to many people as a measure of basic, innate human intelligence.  While there remain controversy over the merits of the actual measurements used to arrive at the relevant numbers, the basic idea that there are differences in intellectual magnitude between individuals is well accepted across a broad cross section of the human population.

I would now like to introduce the idea of two more measures: The Moral Quotient (MQ), and the Smarts Quotient (SQ).  I would like to think of these as close analogs to the IQ assessment, only relating to a man's "moral intelligence" and that for his smarts.  The latter, of course, is as yet something of problematic, given that the body of human knowledge is so large.  This raises the question of for what shall we test?  Knowledge of physics?  Machining? Paining?  Farming?  Medicine?  Professional wrestling?

It would seem that the SQ should measure knowledge of a basic sort - things that perhaps ought to be common to all people.  Perhaps knowledge of things like the Principles of Proper Human Relations.  If you understand those well, the rest would seem to stand pretty well as secondary.

Imagine being able to measure a man's MQ and SQ and have those numbers publicly available of those people seeking to run for public office, for example.  If the measures were reliably and predictably accurate, it could go a long way toward dissuading the wanker wannabe tyrants from bothering in the first place, and failing that, providing a trustworthy basis upon which voters could make their choices.

It is just an idea, but I thought I would toss it out there to give you all something about which to think.  Imagine making it a requirement that all candidates for any government position take such tests, as well as that of basic personality types.  Naturally, the viability of such things would necessarily require the honest and competent administration of such assessments, but if we assume it for conversation's sake, perhaps it might give voters and edge against the scoundrels.

That's it for now.  Until next time, please accept my best wishes.


PS: This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is also somewhat forthright and serious.