The Twin Powers: Male Violence and Female Sexuality

Day and Night. Yin and Yang. Men and Women.

Pairs of opposites need each other. Take one out, and the balance is thrown off and everything collapses into chaos.

Men and women are not equal.  Men and women are radically different beasts.  The thing is, they need each other, and when the balance of power tips too much one way or the other, human interactions become thrown into chaos.

Men and women have different gifts through which they can influence and alter reality to suit their needs.  These gifts are unique to each sex, and can never quite be replicated by the other, save for rare and remarkable individuals.

To men went the gift of violence, to use physical force to control and shape the world in whatever image we so please.

To women went the gift of sexuality, to be desired and to entice men to do their bidding.

Both can be dangerous in the wrong hands.  Both have been the death of many countless individuals over the years.  Both have their respective burdens associated with them.  And both need to be correctly sublimated in order to keep civilization functional.

There are few things feminists love to demonize more than the idea of male violence. What they overlook is that male violence (and oftentimes, the mere threat of it) is what make civilized society possible.  While I disagree with much of what Hobbes had to say, I must agree with him that the threat of state violence is a major factor that keeps many in line.

To put this in less abstract terms, imagine what would happen if every police officer simultaneously swore a vow of pacifism and refused to arrest, subdue, or otherwise confront criminals and lawbreakers.  Will harsh words and stern reprimands stop a mugger, or a violent gang?  I think not.

What if soldiers just put down their weapons and stopped fighting?  I do not mean this in the style of a peace and love hippy utopia here.  I mean just the soldiers in your country.  All the soldiers in whatever countries might hate yours are just as armed and violent and dangerous as hostile towards you as ever.  Does that make you feel safe and secure when you are alone in your bed at night?

Just for fun, one more example, this time on a much more micro level.  Who is more likely to get picked upon in school, the skinny nerd wearing ill-fitting clothing or the kid with a dangerous look in his eye and a few years of Muay Thai under his belt?  Like it or not, the threat of violence is a powerful deterrent against uncivilized behavior.

It is through that this enforcement of civilized, proper behavior that male violence, instead of undermining society, allows it to prosper and develop.  However, it is imperative that male violence be channeled towards this end.  Much like fire, violence can allow for life, warmth, and survival, but it can also be destructive, and reduce all it touches to ash.  When male violence gets out of control, society is punished for it.  Youth riots, gang membership, and vandalism are all signs that society is inefficiently sublimating the male need for violence.  More drastic indicators include rampant crime and the joining of terrorist organizations.  Warfare among rival groups can break out.

Women especially are affected by this.  When male violence is unleashed, the environment becomes more dangerous for everyone in it.  In their drive to be protected, women will often seek the patronage of dangerous, powerful men.  One strategy for this is to use their sexuality as a bargaining chip,  to be traded for safety and security.  The power of female sexuality is unleashed, and both powers become unbalanced…

What is the power of female sexuality?  It is indirect.  It is subtle.  It does not burn cars, smash windows, or kill.  Instead, it works its power by seeking to control men, by placing them under its spell and getting them to do the bidding of the woman in question.  It is the ability to hold men under a woman’s sway and get them to engage in violence on their behalf.  Men will always chase women, and do whatever it takes to get them.  When women thus reward men for doing things like creating value for society or looking after the neighborhood, men feel encouraged to engage in behaviors that are good for their communities as a whole.  When women reward men for being good fathers and raising their children properly, men do these things and the next generations benefits,  By offering up the promise of sex as a reward for behavior that benefits society, women thus convince men to control their violence and build civilization.  The powers are in balance, and everyone benefits.

And what happens when this power goes astray?  Well, in short, the few most highly attractive men monopolize the majority of the females.  In sequestered, minimal-consequence environments like colleges, this dynamic is relatively harmless.  Low status men won’t get laid, but otherwise nothing too bad happens.  However, out in the real world, this dynamic has consequences.  Over the years, many men are out-competed in the sexual marketplace altogether.  In an environment swamped with porn, sex toys, and other adult entertainment, these sexual rejects can have their needs met.  However, this is not true of most places in the world.  So what happens when you have  bunch of men with outlet for sexual release?  Some get desperate, and in their desperation, they turn to their own power to get what they want.  Male violence is unleashed.

And as to what happens when both powers swing out of control?  The best example I can think of is the modern urban ghetto, in which gang violence is prevalent, illegitimate children are everywhere, and society itself is run down, degenerate, and barely civilized.  This is not to say that socio-sexual dynamics are the sole cause and the core issue here (it is a mere drop in the bucket), but I still think this illustrates my point nicely.

Balance is needed.  If one factor begins to falter, then the perturbations can be felt all throughout society.  The chain of events that gets set in motion oftentimes leads to a disruption in the reciprocal dynamic,  If both factors are set loose from their proper bounds, then societal collapse is imminent, and civilization becomes impossible.

So if I were to build a society meant to last, what would I do?  First off, I would encourage young men to develop and refine their various predilections towards violence by channeling them to ends that are productive for my society as a whole.  This could mean nudging them towards the military, having them compete in athletics from a young age, or training them in martial arts and teaching them to harness the power of their innate aggression and direct it towards accomplishing productive and beneficial goals (i.e. building a business, pursuing victory in competitive endeavors…etc).  I would seek to impress upon young men the responsibilities and burdens that came with the capability to do great violence.  Instead of sedating them with video games and violent movies, I would seek to teach young men that having the capacity to do violence is a part of being a man, and strive to help them understand and properly use this power, instead of fearing it or denying it.

I would also strive to inculcate young women about the importance of sexual control.  Just as men must control their innate urge to do violence, women must control their innate urge to offer up their sexuality to those individuals who, though perhaps dominant, charismatic, and sexy, do not produce anything or benefit society as a whole.  Unappealing as this truth may seem to some, a woman’s sexuality ought to be a reward for a man engaging in socially approved behavior.  This is not to deny her the agency of choosing her own mate, but a reminder that listening to her mother and grandmother when they warn her against the dangers of sleeping around and wasting away her most beautiful years (when her sexual power is at its height) is actually is a prudent course of action.

The woman chooses the best man she can, one who can provide for her and protect her.  In doing so, she sublimates her sexuality for the purpose of encouraging men to control their innate violence and create value for society at large, so that they may have a chance to win her over.  Man and woman come together, controlling their respective powers and putting them towards proper ends.  Played out over an entire population, a stable society is then built, one that can be prosperous and secure.

This isn’t anything new, grandiose, or monumental.  All traditional societies have this concept in some form or another.  Whenever anyone claims that “marriage is the bedrock of civilization”, it is this dynamic they are referring to.  However, in current times, it seems that this truth has been forgotten (just look at the current numbers of single moms and gang members).  Whether it is by ignorance or denial, a rejection of this arrangement can only lead to ruin.  If current patterns continue, the twin fires might very well spiral further and further out of control.

I’m not sure what will happen if that happens to be the case, but I don’t think we’re going to like it.

SIC VITA EST

New Blog: Archeofuturist

I have recently been informed of a new blog that has been started by by a self-described “Norwegian student of political science with an interest in counterculture, metapolitics and resisting the liberal order”: Archeofuturist.

I keep a keen interest in what our cousins in reaction over on the other side of the Atlantic are doing, so I am delighted that Archeofuturist writes in English, as Norwegian is not one of the languages that I am capable of comprehending.

With several posts already up in a matter of days, it looks as if we will have much to hear from Archeofuturist in the future, so I recommend reading through the current posts while the number is still manageable (I quite recommend this post especially on the idea of Aristocracy).

SPQR

An examination of the Natural Aristocracy

It is taken for granted by many in the Dark Enlightenment that there exists a small proportion within humanity that are just (for lack of a better word) better than everyone else.  The common term for this elite group is “The Natural Aristocracy”.

But what is this Natural Aristocracy really?  It is not nearly so defined as other concepts like The Cathedral.  Perhaps is is like masculinity, in that the concept itself is nebulous and most people have their own unique definitions.  I sense this might be the case, but nonetheless, I shall provide my own examination, in the hopes of clarifying things further and stimulating greater discussion.

I believe that the Natural Aristocracy is defined by 6 traits, and that a failure to express or live up to any one of these characteristics necessarily excludes one from its ranks.  They are:

  • Industriousness – Really working hard is difficult.  Extraordinarily difficult.  Most people are just unwilling to work hard to achieve their goals.  The rise of technology has only exacerbated this phenomenon.  A true aristocrat is not afraid to work hard for the things that he or she desires.
  • Ambition – Some are content to merely exist in life.  As long as the television is on and beer is cheap, they are content with their lot in life.  There is no yearning for something better, no urge to pursue more meaningful things in life, whatever those things may be for them (wealth, knowledge, family…etc).  They are willing to let themselves get complacent, and they prefer their lives that way.  A life of overcoming challenges and ascending to new heights of accomplishment and success is not for them.  We call these people “peasants”.
  • Intelligence – Like it or not, some people are smarter than others.  With intelligence comes the capability to know and understand the world to a greater capacity than others, to reason and think, to analyze and comprehend.  Intelligence is a building block for many other important and desirable traits, and is correlated with characteristics like self-control and low time preference.  A keen mind is a noble trait indeed.
  • Adventurousness – To venture for new lands, seek out new experiences, and to take that risk that no one else will take, is the inherent tendency of the adventurous individual.  To stay within the confines of the familiar is not the way of the aristocratic soul.  Whether it is traveling the world or simply delighting in trying new foods, pushing boundaries and exploring new territory is something that most people are loathe to do, and having a taste for it marks one as an elite and unique individual, superior to those too afraid to break from their comfort zones.
  • Ability to handle freedom – Having freedom does not just mean having the freedom to succeed, but also having the freedom to fail, and to fall into things like drug addiction, poverty, obesity, and other afflictions.  It is the freedom to lose all your money on a bad investment.  It is the freedom to eat ice cream all day.  It is the freedom to not get a job and live off welfare and bang out a bunch of children you cannot afford.  It is the freedom to pursue a life of hedonism.  The ability to handle this kind of freedom without degenerating into a pathetic excuse for a human being is one of the defining marks of the Natural Aristocracy. This could also be labelled as “Self-Control”.
  • High Achievement – The Natural Aristocracy is that percentage of humanity doing great things and accomplishing feats beyond that of most mortals.  While this may involve doing something like curing a deadly disease or building a great empire, other more-easily attained accomplishments like earning a black belt, being your school valedictorian, or becoming an Eagle Scout would still be sufficient to satisfy this aspect.

I’ve heard varying estimates as to the actual proportion of the population this aristocracy happens to be, but I suspect it is at most 10%.  Is this aristocracy genetic?  Perhaps.  I am willing to believe that if you are not born with the potential to be a part of this aristocracy, you can never break into its ranks.  I am also willing to believe that if you possess the capability to join this elite subset of humanity but fail to devote yourself to developing and applying your talents, you will never find a way into this echelon.  I know several individuals who fit sadly fit this description…

But this is not all.  I suspect that there are distinct subtypes within the Natural Aristocracy. After all, two individuals might be able to meet all of the above traits and yet go on to do very different things with their lives.  Yet, with these 6 characteristics in mind let us consider the categories of the natural aristocracy.  I have not yet decided whether to consider this a complete list, but among those persons whom I would describe as “aristocratic” according to the above classification, I have seen their talents manifested in these areas:

The Scientist

With a thirst for knowledge and a drive to uncover it wherever it may hide, The Scientist is willing to spend years or even decades puzzling over a perplexing question.  They will stop at nothing to uncover how the universe works, and those with the most drive and passion often find a way to alter the worldview of the rest of humanity.  Who could consider a mind like Newton’s or Galileo’s anything but aristocratic, noble, and inspiring?

A few more modern examples would be Richard Feynman, Marie Curie, or James Watson.

The Philosopher

Similar to the scientist, the philosopher primarily seeks not knowledge, but wisdom.  Tossing and turning ideas over in his mind, and burying himself in dense tomes, the philosopher seeks to understand the world of the abstract the same way the scientist devotes himself to study of the physical.  Ethics, metaphysics, logic, epistemology, and more are all fair ground for this aristocratic lover of wisdom.  The Scientist might find a cure for a deadly virus, but a Philosopher can create a virus of the mind far more nefarious and deadly than any creation of the scientist.  You may disagree with Marx, but you simply cannot deny that he was influential…

It is into this category I would place individuals such as Socrates, Kant, and Nietzsche.

The Artist

I use the term “Artist” here to refer to all types of artists, including painters, poets, writers, and musicians.   Again, this is not to claim that all artists are part of the natural aristocracy by any stretch (nor all scientists, philosophers…etc), but to acknowledge that the talents of the Natural Aristocracy can manifest themselves in artistic form.  Note that this is irrespective of medium. Comic strips and graphic novels are far from an aristocratic medium*, but the work of writers like Bill Waterson (of “Calvin and Hobbes” fame) should not be discounted merely because of the medium they chose to operate in.

(This should go without saying, but being a popular artist is not indicative of anything here.  Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj are (somehow) popular artists, but anyone who would suggest that there is anything noble or aristocratic about them is horribly misguided and ought to correct that mistake by setting themselves on fire.)

Great examples include Beethoven, Goethe, Hemingway, Shakespeare, and Dali.

The Explorer

Colombus. Magellan. Marco Polo.  What is the common trait among these three men?  A taste for adventure, a yearning to see what was beyond the next horizon, and the willingness to travel to the ends of the earth.  Edmund Hillary did not climb Everest for any “rational” reason, but because his soul yearned to know what it was like at the top of the world.

Such a drive is the distinguishing feature of this class of aristocrat.

The Entrepreneur

Admittedly, this might seem to be a bit of an odd category, but bear with me.  To focus ones’ aristocratic tendencies toward success in the market is a perfectly sensible thing to do in most modern, western economies.  Just as the highest levels of success in art or philosophy require the aristocratic traits, so too does success in the world of business.

Love him or hate him, Richard Branson is the ultimate modern example of this subtype.

The Warrior

Noble, valiant, and courageous, the warrior engages in conflict and fights battles on behalf of principles he believes in.  Violence is simply a fact of life, and The Warrior understands this.  As George Orwell said, good men sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

This term applies to both those who fight personally, like Miyamoto Musashi, and those who command armies, like Erwin Rommel.

The Statesman

Part of the responsibility of the Aristocracy was always to rule and govern the masses.  Even if we define our modern aristocracy not by blood, land, or titles, but by innate characteristics, there will still be those Aristocrats that need to take it upon themselves to rule the masses.  Granted, this responsibility ought to be accompanied by a sort of noblesse oblige and strict moral codes of conduct, as well as a system that incentivizes rulers to actually provide for and protect their subjects, but that is a topic for another time.

Churchill was probably the last great statesman, even if he foreshadowed the kind of corrupt and immoral decision-making we see all to frequently today.  Still, even statesmen like Pericles had to resort to trickery and subterfuge at time.  Politics is just not a clean business.  The most “pure and noble” example might be Frederick the Great.

The Inventor

Frequently found in conjunction with other types (The Scientist and the Entrepreneur are natural partners for The Inventor, and such combinations are often found in the same individual), The Inventor is the individual who designs and tinkers until something completely novel and unique is created where there was nothing new before.  Without these individuals creating and inventing, humanity would be at a technological standstill, at the mercy of disease, the elements, and without any advanced means of transportation and communication.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight Nikola Tesla as the archetype for this classification.

The Athlete

I don’t mean your stereotypical meat-head here (remember the factors listed above).  Historically, members of the aristocracy would have been expected to be proficient in things like fencing, horseback riding, and other athletic endeavors.  Nowadays, we live in a time that really does place less emphasis on physical capability, but this does not mean that aristocratic talent cannot manifest itself in this sphere.  In this day and age, fitness itself is an accomplishment, and when you place an Olympic athlete next to your average American, the former appears like a demi-god in relation to the other.

This is of course, not to say that any artist, athlete, or whatever is a member of the Natural Aristocracy, but I am heavily implying that the most successful, recognized, and talented people within these categories certainly are.

It is quite possible that one individual may be a mix of two or more types.  Leonardo da Vinci was probably equal parts Artist, Scientist, and Inventor.  Plato’s “Philosopher-Kings” were a mixture of the Philosopher, Statesmen, and Warrior subtypes.  The Athlete and Warrior subtypes are often found together in the same individual, due to the inherently physical nature of war.

It should also be mentioned that these types do not necessarily have to be at odds with each other (indeed, it is more beneficial for all if they co-operate). I recall that a statesmen once corralled some explorers, scientists, and inventors (and their respective followers) into putting a man on the moon not just once, but several times…

I must admit, I debated whether to add in the additional qualification that a member of the Natural Aristocracy must also possess a certain nobility of spirit, a certain je ne sais quoi, perhaps that which could be called an aristocratic soul, but I decided not to complicate things further.  To consider such a possibility would make this a far nebulous system of classification, and yet it does seem that there is something different in the spirit of the Natural Aristocrats than those of the common folk. I personally suspect this to be the case, but I shall avoid examination of this possibility for now.

I also weighed the merits of adding confidence and/or boldness to my little litmus test, but at the end of the day felt that while it was certainly a distinguishing characteristic, it wasn’t a make-or-break sort of thing, the way I think the other 6 traits are.  Most of the Natural Aristocracy is naturally confident, but one need not be confident to be a part.

To repeat myself, this is a rough classification at best, and I still have some work to do before I’m ready to call it fully fleshed-out, but I think it still has some utility.  Life would be so much easier if there still existed relevant genetic aristocracies in most Western countries, but in the absence of easily-found answers, we must seek them out on our own.

Note: Some might contend that concepts of chivalry and other honor codes are also hallmarks of the Natural Aristocracy.  While I agree that this has been true of historic aristocracies, like the European Knights and the Japanese Samurai, I view this as more of a cultural development instead of a manifestation of innate qualities, which is what I would argue is the true mark of such an elite cadre of individuals.  Aristocracies should have strict honor codes backed up the the threats of losing reputation, risk of being ostracized, and duels to the death, but if asked whether I believe that members of the Natural Aristocracy would be chivalrous in the absence of any honor codes or cultural codes of conduct, I would hesitatingly say “no”, although my mind on this matter is not quite settled.

I applied similar reasoning when considering whether to cover any sort of moral code.  While I do believe that members of the Natural Aristocracy should act morally (I’m not too picky about whether that means Christian principles, secular ethical systems, Buddhist philosophy, or what have you as long as there’s something and it’s hard to live up to), but I wanted to discuss the concept in amoral terms, without consideration of the ethical responsibilities that come with such gifts.

I realize this was a longer post than usual, so if you have made it this far, I congratulate you on your industriousness and intelligence.

SPQR

*This is of not, of course, a blanket statement disapproving of all comic books or graphic novels.  Graphic novels like “The Dark Knight Returns”, “Watchmen”, and “Persepolis” are deeply thoughtful works that are well-written and intellectually stimulating, and the same could be said of comic strips like “Calvin and Hobbes” and “The Far Side”.

Dark Linkage: A House With No Child & The Art of Manliness

I’d like to give a brief nod to House Perspicacity over at A House With No ChildHis comments both here and on other blogs tend to be thoughtful, and I look forward to reading more of his writings in the future.

Also, the Art of Manliness has a collection of quotes up about what it means to be a man.  There’s a lot of gems in there, so if you’re into that sort of thing it’s worth a read.

SPQR

The Halls of Darkness

As expected, my “Belly of the Beast” post kicked off a fair amount of discussion.  Some thought it was prudent, others misguided, others a suboptimal approach.  It occurred to me that perhaps it would be best if at this point in time I clarified a few things, elaborated on what I’m trying to achieve (there’s an entire second half to my strategy I neglected to mention), and address a couple of common criticisms.

First however, I recommend you read both “Advice for the Student Reactionary” and “The Strong Horse“.  The first covers how to comport oneself as a young reactionary on a college campus.  For those in such a situation, it really is invaluable.  The tips on how to slowly broach the topic of liberalism and how to begin to hammer away its precepts are spot-on.  I’ve applied some several of them myself with pleasing results (remember, even if you choose to go incognito as I do, you still have to be working to convince people that The Right is right, otherwise you’re no use at all).  The latter discusses how the best approach to take is to simply be confident, proud, and unabashed of your ideological positions, to stand strong and unwavering and watch as those who disagree do…nothing actually,

The thing is, I don’t actually disagree with the position that those proud, open reactionaries will do more for the cause than those of us scuttling away behind keyboards and closed doors.  I just think there still remains something to be gained by more subversive means, even if only for a time.  Many individuals on campus are actually willing to listen to reactionary sentiments, and especially so if it comes from someone they perceive to be a liberal.  I suppose it’s more disarming, and thus drops their mental defenses a bit.  Not sure what the psychological mechanisms going on there happen to be, but I can say that it works.

Remember, the liberal guise is just a way to make it easier to talk around and greet yourself liked and sense who in your various social circles might have reactionary or pre-reactionary sentiments.  It really does give one more room to feel people out, but it does one more thing.  See, if one is in class having a discussion on some issue, and one of the “liberals” in the class drops a completely reactionary statement, or asks a question framed to cut through all of the accumulated pretenses and assumptions, then all of a sudden that gives ever other liberal permission to think it.  It’s a bit of a tricky balancing act, but as long as you frame things in liberal terms and pretend to subscribe to progressive narratives, most people really won’t ever be the wiser.

Another reason to spend a lot of time around liberals if you have the stomach for it?  You really get a sense of how they think.  The same way that the best method to learn about a country is to go live there for a time, blending among the hordes gives you a keen sense of what left-leaning individuals value, prioritize, and hope for.  You learn how they argue, and from there it’s enough to figure out how to out-debate them.  On a more nefarious level, you pick up the common insecurities, fears, and weaknesses that appear among progressive types.  An unscrupulous individual can do terrible things with that kind of knowledge…

Some say that eventually you will be outed as not being a true leftist.  This might be true, especially if one is a it more aggressive when it comes to chipping away at leftist idiocy.  However, the thing about liberals is that they really do want everyone else to be just like them, and are willing to cloud their view of reality and accept you if you say the secret words and express concern for the right things, to the point that you can say blatantly reactionary things and then brush it over with a few words about the importance of diversity or equality or whatever.  It’s not until you start getting to the really left-wing crowds that they start eating each other like sharks in the womb at the first sign of insufficient leftism.  Avoid those types (you’ll never get them to see reason anyway) and you really needn’t worry about having the facade be torn off.

I have little doubt in my ability to keep up the charade indefinitely, but I don’t think it would be in the interest of my principles to do that forever.  Sure, I can say the right things and “support” the right movements, maybe even get a job in government or academia and suckle on that teat for my entire life, but I aspire to a nobler cause than just lining my pockets and fitting in with the degenerate masses.  At some point in time, I believe it will be best to fight under my real name, without the mask I currently wear.

The timing is not yet right though.  America has not yet reached the point where it is really ready for an organized public reaction.  When that day comes, I will be a face in that crowd.  Whether that happens on my own terms or if I’m outed by the liberal hordes prematurely though, I don’t plan on doing it alone.  I don’t just want to come out swinging, I want to do it with a full-on Evola-style mannerbund at my back, ready and willing to fight publicly against the liberal narrative of our time, with boots on the ground and the pretense of anonymity behind us.

I do hope no one actually thought that I ws recommending upholding this pretense forever,  After all, what is one to do if you finally do bring someone into the reactionary fold?  Leave them be?  Nonsense.  You aren’t just convincing people of the truth and then turning them loose.  With the method I propose, you have to be actively working to form a reactionary group to call your own.

The endgame I envision for myself is not scurrying around the halls of the Cathedral forever, challenging someone’s assumptions here and pointing out an absurdity in progressive thought there.  It is to bring enough people together in secret to eventually have the numbers for a home-grown squad of reactionaries, cognizant of both the wider efforts of movements under the reactionary umbrella, as well as things that can be done in our current location.

I really do agree with those that think being the strong horse and doing it publicly is the most effective strategy that can be put forth right now.  I suppose what it really boils down to though, is whether one prefers to do it alone, or to recruit people to battle valiantly with him.

This route requires someone with keen social awareness, high linguistic savvy, and a natural affinity towards self-modeling.  It does strike me as a possibility that for someone with those capabilities, it would perhaps be more beneficial for reaction as a whole if they were to come out openly for things like hierarchy, ethno-nationalism, the importance of tradition…etc.  For now however, the possibilities of men on the inside intrigue me too much, and so I shall refrain from passing judgement.

The other common criticism I’ve received is that this sort of tacit approach is dishonorable, underhanded, or otherwise improprietous for a true Reactionary.  While part of me wants to write this off as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, I do think this is a fair point.  A world based on reactionary principles would be a world that returns to principles of honor.  Men would be noble again.  I do seek a world like that, but I don’t see how it can come about if we solely pursue honorable means.  Much as I would love to walk in the light when this is all over, I don’t foresee that path for myself.  I want a world of honor, but I know that I can never be an honorable man myself.  A world based on reactionary ideas would be a noble world.  It would be a better world.  Just not for me.

In a dishonorable world, you need dishonorable means to bring about an honorable one.  There needs to be a small group of people willing to do the dirty work to make reaction as a whole possible.  Once the struggle is over, that group is either disowned or its activities covered up.  It’s messy, it’s dirty, and just the thought of it should make most people cringe.

Orwell once said that good men sleep safe in their beds at night because rough men stand ready on their behalf.  I would just like to add to that this: honorable men exist only if dishonorable men are quickly disposed of.  In a world such as ours in which dishonesty is so prevalent, you need dishonorable men willing to do dishonorable things to pave the way for a resurgence of honor.  Much as it would be a better world if we could settle our disputes with honor (dueling definitely needs to be brought back), honor is a handicap if everyone else is willing to fight dishonorably.

So my path becomes clear.  I will walk in darkness and use any means necessary while doing so to further the cause of reaction.  When I come into the light, it would seem best to eschew such methods, for the sake of avoiding tarnishing the reputation of reactionary movements while they are still growing and picking up steam.  Some things need to stay in the dark.

Reality is messy and unpleasant.  At times, our tactics are going to have to be as well.  Without doubt, are odds are better in the light.  That does not mean though, that we should be scared of the dark.

SPQR

The Path of the Warrior: A Martial Arts Journey

In my free time, when not reading old books and pretending to be a liberal, I like to train in martial arts.  As I move into my 13th year of practicing various styles, and move into teaching what I know to others, I find myself looking back on my experience and realizing just how much my persistence and devotion to various warrior arts have defined me as a person.

I’m sure at this point half of you are wondering which arts I’ve trained in.  This seems a good place to start.  I trained in Taekwondo for 10 years, developing my body to be flexible and agile, learning to use my legs to drop people with powerful kicks.  Mentally, I developed self, control, discipline, and I learned a hell of a lot about myself as a person.  To this day, one of the proudest moments of my life was enduring the gruesome test for my second-degree black belt.  I stood with 9 others as the test began, facing the assembled contingent of instructors who were to put us through the most painful, grueling experience of our lives.  By the end of the test several hours later, only 3 of us were still on our feet.  Limping out of the testing grounds, there was no guarantee that I had passed, but I had made it, and accomplished something that only a very small percentage of men will ever achieve.

After I went off to university though, I could no longer train at my Academy (which is one of the finest in my home state).  I began to search for other styles to train in.  I dabbled in Krav Maga, Wing Chun, and Boxing, but I never really stuck with them.  This is not to say that they didn’t each have important principles and concepts to contribute to my education, but that I never felt the strong desire to practice them that I had for Taekwondo.  I essentially spent a year in a transition period looking for an art to immerse myself in.  While this was going on, I took up weightlifting to give me the sort of physical exertion that I so deeply missed (which in and of itself is a highly worthwhile activity, just not one I will be discussing today).

About a year ago I discovered the Indonesian martial tradition of Silat.  It was like nothing I had ever experienced before, which led to a bitch of a learning curve as I had to iron out a lot of my old habits.  The physicality required for the movements and strikes wasn’t even remotely close to anything my body had done before.  It was a painful lesson that what is proper in the context of one art can be outright wrong in another.

I’ve trained in arts meant for sport.  I’ve trained in arts meant to kill, maim, and cripple.  I’ve trained in arts developed in the past century.  I’ve trained in arts that have been around for more than 1000 years.

I’ve learned it is far better to rise to the occasion than to back down from a challenge.  I’ve learned it is best to fight as hard as you can even if you can’t win.  I’ve realized that defeat may be unpleasant, but surrendering without a fight is the worst emotion you can ever feel.  I’ve learned that when you’re exhausted, covered in sweat, and barely able to stand on you feet the best solution is to fight harder.  I’ve been beaten, bruised, bloodied, and battered, and I’ve given out hefty doses of the same.  I learned that discipline is painful, but losing is inevitable without it.  I’ve learned the meaning of self-control, and I have held a man’s life in my hand and had him hold mine in his.

So where am I going next?  For one, teaching what I know.  No art can survive if it is not passed on, just as a race will die out if it refuses to breed.  However, I don’t intend to stop learning either.  A good friend of mine knows Muay Thai, and has agreed to train me.  I look forward to what should be a painful experience…

I also think it would be prudent to become well-acquainted with guns.  While I’m well-trained in unarmed combat, as well as bo staff and eskrima, the last time I checked firearms were by far most effective weapons on the planet.  If I’m truly going to take on the mantle of the warrior ethos, I figure it would be prudent to get with the times and leave the romantic fantasies to the local Renaissance Fair.

In more glorious times, men actually went off to battle and fought and died and were encouraged to do so.  In our current age, we are forced to find meager substitutes.  Many will turn to video games or actions movies as replacements, but why not strive to be better than the soulless masses?  Training in a martial art (or two or three) won’t ever make you as hard or as tough as a Spartan or a Legionnaire of old, but it will speak to parts of you buried deep in your very core.  It will carve you into something greater than the form you now possess.  You will surpass what you thought were your limits, transcend the capabilities you now possess.  You will become stronger, faster, and tougher than you ever could have imagined.

You will never be the same again.

SPQR