On Libertarian Morality

Economic Inequality Is Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice

by Don Watkins, for The Federalist, 2016 April 14

Regarding businessmen, for example, we should condemn those who lie, cheat, and steal. But we should condemn them as individuals for their dishonest and predatory actions.

Universally, all white collar crime gets punished multiple degrees of magnitude less than hood crime. Condemning one businessman and not all of them is a concession that a couple of years in a comfy cell for frauding millions of people out of billions of dollars is approximately the right response.

There’s value in condemning a dishonest businessman over a dishonest person. A person’s role matters. A negligent student is nothing, a negligent mother should mean something extremely serious but doesn’t thanks to a certain demographic in tandem with a certain political structure, a negligent father has a special derogatory word made up just for him. Businessmen of today are lords of the past. It’s one thing to say they should be able to get away with more – maybe they should? But that’s not the argument libertarians make. “They’re just the same as everyone else!”

Replace “the rich” with “Hispanics” or “women” or “Jews” in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups?

Good thing this isn’t a problem then.

Actually being against prejudice is even more stupid than buying Hanlon’s Razor, which I’m pretty confident was created to cover for corruption. You are prejudiced that your key will turn on your car, the switch will turn on the light, the food you buy isn’t rotten, and that you won’t get assaulted just walking down a street, unless you’re in South Africa, Detroit, Berlin, Paris, or London, then maybe you would. And why would that be reasonable? Is it because of ley lines? Some miasma? Special ghosts haunting those areas? Some other magic? Maybe it’s global warming? But we’re all “just” people right?

Equality is just for show. Your ten fingers are all different lengths and your two eyeballs have different strengths, you treat your mother differently than you do your wife but we pretend we’re all equal because as a public narrative repeated ad naseum at no one in particular and only believed by initiates, “it’s good for business”.

That’s why libertarianism exists. “It’s good for business”. Full sentence: It’s good for millionaires’ business in screwing over fresh cheap labor. And, on occasion, it’s good for businesses screwing over other businesses. Full sentence: It’s good for some bigger businesses screwing over other smaller businesses. And there’s no world outside of business. Nevermind that there are other narratives which are better for everyones’ business. “It’s good for business”.

Everywhere outside America immigration is primarily a cultural issue, but here it’s terrible to think about closing borders because startups might suffer. You know, those small businesses whose entire purpose is to sell out so that its owners can strike it big and always results in all its employees getting laid off because the buyout was for purposes of obtaining patents and the “brand”? Forget any other discussions, forget the state of demographics in this country, or unemployment, how the current generation of young adults have no future except grinding a life of poverty living in a truck at the parking lot of their dream job. If we limit immigration, startups might suffer.

Oh. No. Not the startups. Anything but the startups.

Prejudice encourages dehumanization – it encourages demonizing “the other” so they are seen as less than human and therefore unworthy of respect.

Whose problem is this? Is this an appeal to me to be a better person at any cost to me all for the benefit of someone else? Come back with a billion dollars and a sentence to few years in jail and then we’ll talk about “dehumanization of the rich” or whatever you want. Of course, the billion has to come first.

Should have plenty of billions laying around. You did seize all those assets right?


We need to ask ourselves: Do we really think of rich individuals as human beings?

I can tell you how rich people in this country think of poor people.

No, I don’t have any citations. No reputable sources. I guess I’m just making shit up.

Making shit up that’s just magically on the mark every time.

Do we ever so much as ask: Did they honestly earn their money?

Considering most people quit their bosses and not their jobs?

Did they gain it by dealing voluntarily with other people, through an incalculable number of win-win trades?

Inside systems with many involuntary parts that favor them.

Remember: Libertarians think taxation is coercion and theft.

This is prejudice, plain and simple.

Repeat after me: The end goal of knowledge is prejudice.

What’s worse, it is not directed toward traits that have no bearing on a person’s character, it is directed at something that is in fact a moral achievement.

A literal statement straight from the mouth of a libertarian that having more money is a “moral achievement“, and that this moral achievement also, simultaneously, has “no bearing on a person’s character“.

Cult of Entropy.

This wasn’t a waste of my time after all.

When I discuss unfair treatment of successful businessmen, I almost always hear comments like, “Oh, boohoo. What do the rich have to complain about? Look at everything they have!” This reflects a crass materialism, which amounts to the notion that money solves everything, and that no one can be hurt by or object to mistreatment unless he’s poor.

We live in an advanced technological society, and enjoy a level of wealth, health, comfort, and opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. What made it possible? The effort of producers, on every level of ability, but with the most credit going to the men and women of extraordinary ability: the inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors who drive progress – and earn a fortune in the process.

Materialism is good or bad depending on the intent of the author in that particular paragraph. Or maybe the author wants it both ways; insults people for being materialistic but believes that they probably still believe it anyways, why not use that too for a little extra cha-ching I mean, impact? Maybe the author doesn’t think of his audience as human beings.

Or maybe this is all “human being” means to him.

originally discovered and commented on Facebook, 2017 April 17
edited and added upon for better flow as standalone

The Machinery of Order

I’ve been out playing a videogame the past few days, and Saint’s Row: The Third has got to be the most fun game I’ve ever played. I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who asks. I got the game packed with all of its DLC for 25 (normal cost: 100) on Steam’s summer sale; it’s still at that cost for the next 24 hours or so, and 50% off until the 22nd. Just the game itself costs 13 (normal: 50).

It may be the best game I’ve ever played. It doesn’t take the title for sexiest models or greatest storyline (TERA; Muv-Luv Alternative). Many things, like the income system and the general open world gangster setting have been observed in other places (Assassin’s Creed; GTA). However, the writing was what put the piece together. The humor was really what kept me going – I never really cared for driving across the map to do a car theft just to drive it back to the other side of the map. Weaving around or evading cops was pretty fun, but it wasn’t anywhere near… good. I’ve had chuckles or moments of excitement and tension in a game before, but it was during Saint’s Row: The Third that I had my first time laughing out loud and excited at doing what I was doing.

It was the superior writing that illustrated to me the other most important reason why I found the game fun:

I was guided through the whole thing, and while I wasn’t guided I didn’t know what was going on.

I’ve finished the main storyline, and I still don’t know where things are. I’ve used maybe half the guns available to me and don’t know how to operate the other ones. I’ve stolen cement mixers, motorcycles, and schoolbusses, but I still haven’t found a stationary lamborghini or a truck head to make my own. I’ve touched watercraft a grand total of twice and both times for missions, and I’ve used airplanes once because I wondered if there were any. I was at the last mission when I figured out there was a bonus for doing nutshots, and only shortly before that did I figure out that using the phone menu to call certain “homies” would summon them to fight alongside you.

A while ago I pondered the reason why I stopped playing Skyrim. I thought it either had something to do with the fact that I took on too many quests at the same time, or with me looking up stuff on the wiki. At the time I took the former more seriously, but didn’t revisit it when I got bored of the game. Having too many things to do affects your ability for purposive action in a fairly obvious manner: it’s the definition of a dilemma if we throw bad consequences in, and the definition of paralysis if we don’t. The second one, however, has more value than I understood then: the ability to know where things are before you’ve looked for them with no linked consequences though (i.e. paying for maps in-game, or doing favors for an NPC who then shows you how to do this or that) warps your mind. The more you can obtain advantages in something without putting in resources (all-encompassing for risk, time, capital, etc.) relative to that, obviously you’d care less about it. If you learned a whole course online and not from the professor you were enrolled with, you wouldn’t give him an ovation in the last lecture. If you had an innate talent for something, you wouldn’t feel as attached to the skill as the guy who worked his ass off to get to the same level. For many activities this caveat can be overlooked, since we actually seem to be fine with not caring about our jobs or classes, and we actually do need to build a base understanding of many things that have a very low probability of intriguing people. In a game however, you are only doing one thing – playing the game (If you were only looking up, say, shooting techniques and not running techniques, it would be different.).

These two are part of a larger principle.

I’ve quoted John Titor on how knowledge is a function of time and situation – I already do not believe that information is strictly good. It was clear to me that there are better and worse situations for any given piece of information. But now, I am taking it to zero and infinity: Some knowledge must always be known, and some knowledge must never be known. A rather awkward wording since “always” and “never” would be read as time adjectives, but the structure at least mystically captures my intent. If it is true that knowledge is a function of time and situation, then it is clear that it is at least possible for some things to never be good.

However the devs ended up balancing the economics and the damage and the sizing and all the factors of Saint’s Row: The Third, the important thing was that it kept me on rails. The fact that it is open world and you can mostly do what you what mostly how you want as long as you aren’t in missions is tangential to why the game is amazing. It is quite possible for a story to be mind blowing and intense without giving you any options at all – it’s called a book, or a movie. And there are many of them which are better than supposed open-world games. In Skyrim, I played it for the main storylines. I didn’t enjoy sorting through what I could carry around. I gave up on alchemy early on. Smithing was only so I could have cool stuff to use so I wouldn’t die during those main missions. Dragons were okay, but not why I played the game. In Just Cause 2, the only thing that kept me going was new trinkets. The story wasn’t too good, and I started loathing the game after a while because you can’t ever outdo the AI. There were no big interesting things to do. It was always an, oh, I can do anything I want to…. but I don’t want to do anything. The average free-to-play MMORPG these days is also, by definition, open-world. But you aren’t seeing any of them at the top of any charts, and rather than playing one of them, it’d probably be better for you to watch Fight Club again.

The best open-world videogames are those which show why these characters are the main characters, and why these storylines are main storylines. It isn’t just because they have screentime dedicated to them (an absolute value). It’s because they have more screentime dedicated to them (a relative value). It’s because you give them the screentime, and you know why you are giving them more screentime. This I contend is the reason why truly free and true sandbox games are never super big hits and never really remembered. The Sims allows you to create your own character and build your own house, but it gets repetitive real quick because it’s only about the next gimmick. Cities XL allows you to build your city however you want. With some rules of course: if you put your residential right next to heavy industry and have shops nowhere to be found, people aren’t going to come to your city. But even with these rules, there’s nothing to create. It wasn’t a creative act – after the first few placements, things I did were not positive anymore, but rather anti-negative. I was no longer building, but fixing. I need to build more of this, or more of that. No real sight of the big picture, the only thing seen is what to do on the margin. The world becomes the margin and only the margin – and because what that margin is about changes on a moment to moment basis, because there is no unifying purpose or whole, life itself becomes halation.

It isn’t just the “getting more stuff”, or “go to work make a family grow old with your love” that’s halation. If you live in the margin, all of it is halation. You can’t escape it. The margin is the halation.

“All this choice made it possible for me to do better but I felt worse.”

“There’s no question that some choice is better than none but it doesn’t follow from that that more choice is better than some choice.”

“The value of choice depends on our ability to perceive differences between the options.”

It may be a useful perspective to see differing people and professions as simply the training and experience which allows us to make choices. Ignore the non-person logistical details of muscle memory, jargon, capital, and business connections. If we just look at the person logistics, the mental logistics, this is all there is:

The ability to perceive differences is what differs one mind from another.

Everything else – religion, culture, discipline, language – is a tool for that, because differentiating is what allows us to act in reality. What is creativity, experience, or leadership, but the ability to decide on the better one where it counts, to perceive differences and thus live in a world that others don’t even know exists? This is the reason division of labor exists in any group – because better decisions are made by those who can perceive the relevant differences. Those “professionals” are used as such not because they have a higher probability of making the right decision, but because it significantly lowers the probability of horrible effects from coming into existence.

I was an anarchocapitalist for a long time, and the most asked question (aside from “who will build the roads”) was “should everyone really have access to nuclear weapons”? I always had some long answer about how everything would be decided by the free market, how nukes would be expensive and they’d probably have some really stringent contracts and controls. Kind of bullshitty, really. It’s not really access for everyone then is it? Should everyone be able to have a nuke, yes or no? Most people answer no, but they don’t have a principled answer because they live inside halation. “No because people could get killed” means nothing, because it’s really easy to point out where murder is the best possible option (read: good). And then they run through random topics like headless chickens, talking about capital punishment and the prison system, whatever. The answer is no because people don’t know how the fuck to use a nuke.

The same concept applies everywhere because in 99% of possible human activity, you don’t know what to do.

There are some people better than others, at any given point in time. Yes, you could learn. Yes, you too could gain some of the abilities the pros at whatever field have. But right now, you don’t know. Right now you don’t have the skills, the perception reservoir. Do you disrespect a 70 year old kung fu master now, because you can beat him up and eventually you might be able to learn everything he has to say? Do you look down on doctors’ advice, because if you spent enough time on Google and Wikipedia, you too could make an informed decision? Do you ignore the captain and flight attendants’ advice or orders because you might eventually go to flight school and learn all the things there are to learn about safe conduct aboard airplanes? Would you just ride alongside in a cycling race, even though your failure to understand peloton mechanics could do anything from ruining the race or ruining the lives of more superior competitors? It doesn’t matter what you could eventually do if you spent however much time on it, and this concept will still apply even when humanity gains immortality. One can not act now with the power he will have later.

It is a fact of life that you will have situations where your best course of action is defer agency to do as you’re told. Better people do not see more options. They see less. It is the people who don’t know any better who see everything at the same time, not knowing what to do or how to act. The best person for the job in any given field is the one that sees the fewest and most correct options. Not so obvious is that the fundamentals of anything are the most difficult. It is obvious, however, that the best people in their fields are the professionals, or the pros.

The best people at social organization, i.e. those who are best at understanding and managing the condition of man both in themselves and in others, are the aristocrats.

Just as the pros should make decisions because they are the best at finances or engineering or art or whatever, the best at politics should rule in politics. Aristocracy – rule by the elite. And of course, there is a best of the best.

He’s called the monarch.

Note that any reactions about slavery or feudalism or imperialism or things like that are all simply uses magic words. I have not mentioned any specific political policies (outside of the nukes thing). What I have done is go through the logic and ended up here. Another common reaction I saw when I argued anarchocapitalism was that it was simply a world of chaos, and that eventually, gangs would form and some dictator would be on top – and we need a state to counter that. This is more correct and desirable than they think.

Equalitists bitch that we are oppressed right now, but really, right now is about as close to what they want as reality can get it. You have all your choices of salad dressings, bread, lettuce, apples, and cakes at the supermarket. All your life choices and change you could make whenever you want just by going back to college. All the women in the world are now open to you through a massive array of online dating sites. Co-ed dorms. Co-sex bathrooms. Co-sex workplaces. The more equal we get the less happy about that we get. People are confused about why things aren’t getting better, and think that if only things would get better, they’d get better. Really. They don’t realize that the problem IS the confusion.

What we have right now is an extremely high amount of chaos. Professors aren’t taken seriously in their lectures, and less important fields are now on equal ground as more important fields, political leaders are seen ss more electable if they are more like the common man. The hundred million choices at the electronics stores. Cultural relativism. Philosophical relativism. Identity relativism. Everything might as well be fucking equal now even if it isn’t yet; getting things more equal will not change anything because all it does is dissolve MORE things into the halation. Marriage, religion, tradition, and politics have already gone to shit. You name it, it can go to shit too.

Gangs form in chaos because they are better at the unifier than most people. They are better at providing happiness all things given than others are, and they are upheld as leaders. If this is not true, the gangs fall apart because the group is not as good as another group. Small groups of superior skill will always form, and power relations will always be established because they are symbiotic. Dictators are simply whoever happens to be the best of the best at the given point in time. Those who do not survive a reasonable test of time are brought down and remembered as tyrants. Those who do survive and prove themselves to be that much better at the unifier than everyone else for a long period of time are remembered as heroes.

You have people who you defer to in your lives. You do. Maybe you don’t know their names, maybe it’s Wikipedia. But you defer to some human agency, in some factor. You defer to them not in the same way you’d defer to an opponent or an enemy, not in a purely responsive manner, but in a submissive manner. Maybe it’s not even an entity, but some idea. The philosophy you subscribe to, no matter how much you’ve made it yours, was contributed to by someone else. You did not choose everything in your life. Someone else makes choices for you in some way, and you like it. If you don’t like the choice, you at least like that you don’t have to make the choices that led to that choice. If your mother made you or bought you all your meals and you liked that better than having to drive out to wherever, buy stuff and come back to prepare everything yourself, you deferred to your mother and she had power over you. We are not free agents. We are parts of greater wholes, whether we are the monarch who makes the political decisions for a nation or we are a child who decides what dolls she wants to play with. The monarch respects and follows the advice of his advisors or mentors. The child does her chores and eats her vegetables.

If the monarch does not defer and does not make good decisions, he will be overthrown. If his advisors plan behind his back and work against him, they will be executed. If the child does not defer and chooses bad things, she will not have a fun childhood. If her parents are too controlling, they will not have a good time as elderlies. All optimal relationships are symbiotic. If the quote “A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man,” seemed familiar, that’s because it was from The Godfather.

We are all children who no know nothing in some aspect of reality; players who need game world designers.

I loved Saint’s Row: The Third because the devs were masters. I’d join the Saints if I were in Steelport because they are the best, not just because they have the aesthetics and style, but because they are the most powerful, morally correct, and funny of all the groups. The open world game structure is great, but as Just Cause 2 showed, without a great plot the freedom means nothing. Who cares if the mechanics are amazing, if the game moderators are always there to screw things up? Why does it matter that the items look good, if they’re in a game where the market is inflated by farmers and nobody at the studio has a fix for it? I’d rather read a book, oppressive as the storyline is, than deal with that. Similarly, there are many, if not most, things in life where it really would be better for society and individual health if people didn’t need to choose things. Yes, we all know how good freedom can be. But it is not the only thing that is required.

Order (aka happiness) is the general unifying principle of human activity. Not freedom (aka equality).

And Order is created through Authority.

The Unifier: Jack Donovan’s “The Way of Men”

There’s this picture of me, before I started preschool, that I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

I don’t particularly remember what occasion it was, probably Halloween or something, but I was over at a guy friend’s house and we were on a couch with a girl inbetween us, waiting to get a picture taken. We were only introduced because all of our moms were friends, but that didn’t really matter. The guy was my best friend and I treated him like a brother; the girl was a friend too and I treated her like I treated my sister. For whatever reason though, the girl latched onto the guy and they were moving away from me. I was used to taking pictures stock-still, but if both of the other people in the picture with me were going to be playing over at one end of the couch, I should join in too right? Basic stuff, even kids understand this.

But for whatever reason… I was rejected. Either one of them or both of them wouldn’t let me join in. So, I moved to the other side of the couch, and pouted, like all kids do when they don’t get what they want in public… except this time, everybody was content with it. Happy with it, even. All the grown-up women were laughing, my sister was laughing, and the guy and girl who I thought were my best friends were also laughing. All laughter, all happiness, a bright light flashed, and I was the only one alone unhappy, and now more importantly, confused.

The guy and girl didn’t get together. The girl’s mother was actually really strict. Before middle school, the guy’s parents divorced, and he moved away. We’re all around 20 now, and though I’m Facebook friends with the guy, I can’t say I know him at all. He’s a completely different person – that of itself doesn’t mean much, but he’s changed from that open and spontaneous “friends forever” boy I loved, the guy who seemed to be happy to triumph in getting the girl and showing it off for everyone to see… to someone dark, brooding, with no big dreams, no passionate and silly relations, no personality on the street where every stranger would look on and think, “I’d like to find out personally what that man’s all about”.

He had lost “it”.

Just like everyone else.

I have a need to derive things from the ground up. I have this need everywhere I go, in everything I do. It is inescapable, and I do not care to escape it – I encourage it. If this need ever goes unfulfilled, you have yourself a >99% certainty I will be bored of it within three months and 100% certainty I’ll not care about it at all within a year.

I need to derive things from ground up.

I need to understand every single link, every single reason anything is true, from a point which is “natural”. It could be calculus, where the idea being shown is the truth of the Epsilon-Delta definition. It could be a movement, where the idea being shown is how you should personally be involved in the political change of something. It could be just a motivational message, where the idea being shown is why you should believe in yourself and your ability to succeed at anything you put your mind to. In all of human life every activity starts with an understanding of something, which leads to either more understanding or a course of action. And for me, understanding needs to be absolutely sure all the way to “Ground”.

“Ground”, or the natural state, is where we are comfortable naming our knowledge as axioms or assumptions. We all know of math classes in school or university where, rather than actually following the professor who gives “useless” rigorous proofs in class, many of us simply memorize how the method works and that’s good enough. We know that there is a more grounded understanding than ours, but we are satisfied with our Ground. Even better examples are Biology and Psychology, famously known as “memorization” classes, but the Ground idea exists everywhere. It’s why the classic philosophy question of how to answer a kid who asks why the sky is blue, then why does the air diffract light in that way, and then ad infinitum , seems so silly to us. Some of us are fine with just accepting that the sky is blue; that is our Ground. Others of us are fine with accepting that air happens to reflect light in such a way, that light operates with such and such wave properties, that the sun creates light in such a way; that is their Ground. Some of us don’t feel that’s enough, and search for even more Grounded answers – that would be the people at CERN and NIF.

I believe the choice in Ground is only partially arbitrary.

Those who think of classes as “just memorization” never end up actually caring for the subject matter. People who think of activities as nothing more than following the set of instructions they’re told or handed will not think back fondly on those times they spent – they may even think of it as a waste.

However, kids who have all their life seen math as an art, a way to explain and see the world, something they can engage theirselves in and something they can produce real and amazing things out of, have a passion for it most people can’t understand. See this video of Terence Tao. There are three notable figures in it, Mr. Tao himself and two faculty members. You can see very clearly that Tao is in love with math. One of the guys is in love with Tao. And the other guy just doesn’t give a shit and treats it like an interview. You don’t even need to read his body language or need to listen to his tone. The fact that he keeps using vague words like “gifted” and “talented”, these facetious and arbitrary Grounds, shows that his opinion is really just filler and he believes it.

As for people who only follow instructions but think of their activities as more than just being a cog in some machine… look at any brotherhood, ever. Did mafia boys ever think of their job, no matter how small, as just something else to fuck around with while they were on earth? Do battle-hardened soldiers treat their orders like a college freshman treats his math homework?

I accept that different people have different inherent tendencies on where to rest their Ground. Not everybody’s going to like math, or psychology, or whatever subject or hobby here. Few people will care why the sky is blue, how tire spokes hold up the entire weight of bikes and cars, or insert any fact here. I’m an aspiring aerospace engineer whose dream is to get people to space, but I think of the entire world as flat when I go out cycling and I really couldn’t care less about the solar activity going on this second. Ground is as relative as Truth – it depends on your Purpose. My purpose right now involves me getting a degree, so I care more about math than I did in middle school. Currently my purpose does not involve studying solar winds, but it may someday and my Ground will change to force me to pay more attention to the physics of that and its intricacies.

However… I’ve always believed there was a Ground of All Grounds. A more fundamental “theory of everything”. It could be improved of course, as everything can be improved – the Grounding process is called “learning”. But to improve something, it must first be there.

And it was missing.

I think we have more people in society now that describe a feeling of missing something, “There’s just something missing in my life, I don’t know what’s missing”,

but yet they describe something very tangible, very very close to them…

Bicycle Dreams

If I had to pick one point in my life where my life “started”, it was that point where that picture was taken. And if I had to pick one question, one line my life has revolved around, it is “Why do people do what they do?”

“Because they love it”, “Because they have fun”, “Because it makes them happy” has never cut it, and until recently I have always read such lines as lies and all who used them as liars. Happiness, you say? Why are you a snide little bitch when it comes to certain topics then? Why do you blame others when you encounter misfortune? Or perhaps most importantly, how exactly does walking into a large building and giving paper to somebody or showing a plastic rectangle to a machine and then obtaining some machined material make you “happy”? (I just described buying stuff.)

How the questions were linked was uncertain to me, but I felt they should be linked. It just felt like, even though they happened at different times under different circumstances, that the questions belonged with each other. After all, I’m still describing the same person, or the same group of people. If we consider larger scales, we’re also in the same geographical location with the same culture in the same era of time speaking the same language, and we’re all people, not aliens or something.

I’ve been told all my life that those questions are separate, that they shouldn’t be asked with each other because it’s apples to oranges.

As if “fruits”, “stuff to eat”, or “plant reproduction methods” were all invalid categories.

All my life, everything has been sorted into disconnected categories, like subjects in elementary school. Just like how everything was done for an hour, bell, do something else, bell, repeat until 3:15PM, every question posed and every activity done in all spheres of human activity seemed… isolated. Unmeaningful. Not special. Like scrolling through pages and pages of videos or images, on your hard drive or on some site, of 3D or 2D women getting nailed so you can jack off, just to get it over with, just to do it and be in bed for the night. Which one you pick doesn’t exactly matter. Really, the fact that you jack off doesn’t seem to matter much either (after you’re finished). Point seems to be just jack off and get it done with.

Except you’d just rinse and repeat and do the same the next night, so there’s no real point at all.

I’ve searched for a meaning to those categories for as long as I can remember. Any category. Every category. Sorting fruits and vegetables makes sense because historically we’d need to know what to eat and not to eat so we don’t get poisoned. But why does it matter or not we get poisoned? Because we want to live. But… why? The answer to the meaning of life is quite simply to reproduce and to propagate. But even armed with the meaning of life, it felt like I had not reached the Ground of All Grounds. There was no unifying idea.

I’ve tried on many hats.

I’ve been all over the spectrum politically both in breadth and depth, everything from the average vanilla democrat to the social democrat / Marxist to the conservative white nationalist (I’m not white) to the anarchocapitalist.  Politics and economics did seem to give a much better explanation than the non-existence and non-explanation any average person would give. But none of it was based on any personal desire that I could “truly” connect to. Equality, liberty, or even just money – none of these things unified anything outside of a specific bubble. Money famously fails to explain why people choose to start a family. Liberty and Equality are just high minded talking points.

Psychology looked promising because it claimed to explain how people think, but it only talks about people in context of themselves and is riddled with silly assumptions. Sociology isn’t cutting it; it talks too much bullshit, not enough real patterns about real questions, and is completely at the whim of politics. Linguistics, with the powerful Sapir-Whorf, was able to show many differences I had not thought of, but in the end it was only a dry “form defines function” truth and not something which provided any direction.

That’s the other thing, right? You can look back and be like “Oh I did good”, but then there’s also those times where you know you’re going to win – you just pulled something off, something which took great discipline and awareness, a passionate drive and the graces of fortune. But the timing window has closed for all that opposes you. Nothing can stop you anymore. You’re going to win, and the only thing that is left is for the fat lady to sing.


is amazing.

I’ve gotten close to the Ground of All Grounds with my own attempt of unifying Discipline and Motivation, a glimmer of the correct feeling I think I should be getting, but it ultimately fails – as I have always stated it will. I only talk about how to improve individual behavior. I talk about social dynamics only as a side note, as a way to improve something else.

One of the reasons why I’ve been interested in antifeminism and the manosphere is because it’s just like another psychology or socio class to me. I believe that, perhaps here, I will find the unifying idea I’ve been searching for. Many things I’ve learned have indeed explained a lot. Why women fall for bad boys, why there’s sexual harassment suits everywhere, the fact that women are not even socially shamed for lying about an event which would throw a man in an isolated steel cage for over 10% of his entire lifetime and grant her more money than she’d ever know what to do with (I just described false rape accusations). On top of the bad news, I learned many amazing things as well. The logistics of how to approach a woman, how the way we’ve been trained to look at the world is inconsistent with multiple real and otherwise obvious thigns, that you need to actually be an interesting man with an interesting life if you want a woman to be interested, and many other things on what to do. It’s all made a lot of sense. It was definitely something much greater, much more true, much more real, than some political movement or theory in psychology.

I felt I was getting closer but nothing I read and I knew that it was somewhere here, but not even the intro and summary to the manosphere hit it right on the head.

It was here though.

And I’ve found it.

The Unifier is in Jack Donovan’s book “The Way of Men”.

In the 70’s the American Army did a scientific study on soldier psychology. They researched stress levels when fighting aliens and the effectiveness of certain motivations in new recruits by comparing psychological evaluations of soldiers during the two world wars and the early BETA conflicts. They found and interviewed retired veterans from every corner of the globe.

They found some interesting results in the part of the survey asking why front-line soldiers fought.

What do you think the most common reason was?

Well, the obvious answer would be… for the sake of humanity or the Earth – And in the older wars, for the sake of their country I guess…

Wrong. That’s the reason given by soldiers who’ve yet to be sent out or are on their way to the battlefield. Some keep thinking that way even on the battlefield. But it seems that the more unfamiliar they were with real warfare, the more likely they were to give idealistic, political answers, or what their education told them. The families of those being sent out probably want to hear reasons like that in order to help them accept the painful truth.

Then… was the correct answer fighting for their relatives or loved ones?

Unfortunately, no, that’s also one most common before reaching the front lines. It also seems to be the real motivation for many of those being sent out.

In the end, the most common reason was… they fought for their comrades.

Surprisingly, whether they were fighting humans or BETA didn’t change this result. They didn’t want to let their comrades-in-arms die after living through battles with them. That’s why they fought so hard. Far below in second place, was the fear of being killed by the enemy.


That was why the retreating German Army resisted so fiercecly near the end of the German-Soviet war, for instance. The fear of what would happen if the Soviet Army took them prisoner was enough to reinvigorate the German Army, whose equipment and morale were in ruins.

What about you, Captain? What do you fight for?

Me?… good question… I think… I fight for my comrades too. I want everyone I’ve fought alongside to live at least a little longer. Not that I don’t want Alternative IV to succeed or humanity to win the war. If I’m ordered to infiltrate a hive, I’ll obey, even if I have no chance of survival.

But, once I’m inside, it would be difficult to fight to the end for that reason alone.

Maybe because I’d start to want something more concrete to fight for…

Maybe because I’d start wanting a reason to believe my death would not be in vain…

– Capt. Isumi to 2nd Lt. Shirogane, “Muv-Luv Alternative

Donovan’s book is relatively simple.

In the first half of the book he discusses the four virtues of men, and in the second half he discusses history and society today. In addition to the standard fare structure, the reading and wording are very accessible, and the ideas have plenty of citations. Some pages feel like they’re missing “something”, until you flip the page and find that the reason why there was a blank area on the previous page was because the last part of the paragraph was moved for a long footnote on the next.

What Donovan fills the simple and generic structure with is what makes “The Way of Men” The Way of Men and The Unifier.

What is masculinity? Ask ten men and you’ll get ten vague, conflicting answers. Unlike any book of its kind, The Way of Men offers a simple, straightforward answer-without getting bogged down in religion, morality, or politics. It’s a guide for understanding who men have been and the challenges men face today. The Way of Men captures the silent, stifling rage of men everywhere who find themselves at odds with the over-regulated, over-civilized, politically correct modern world. If you’ve ever closed your eyes and wished for one day as a lion, this book is for you.

– Book description, Amazon.com

Many people easily Ground at “These men are angry at the world, just men being men”… even men who are angry at the world. I’d seen this book advertised before on several occasions and I didn’t get it for that very reason, that broken-record reason that you hear everyone saying whenever a man does something society doesn’t like. We all know it’s always going to be men too, because if women do something society doesn’t like, it’s because somebody or the system (“The Man”) has wronged them. It’s always men. But we don’t ask why. Even those of us who are unsatisfied with this Ground (mostly men, because obvious reasons) can’t help but be swept along almost all of the time, because there’s not enough to hold onto.

We know that men don’t just do shit because they’re crazy. In this age where everybody goes through almost literally the same experiences from age 6 to 18, it has become harder to imagine the theft or drug dealer or serial killer or activist or literally anybody that isn’t exactly like the sitcoms we see on TV as someone who’s truly alien. We can’t say anymore that these people were raised in the wild, lived without language and human interaction, and then just happened to do this thing. We can’t imagine that the cannibal or homosexual or rapist is just someone from another community, another culture anymore, because we all live in the same culture. We can’t explain it away.

But we do, and that’s why we’re all scared and confused. We hear “This person is just like that because they’re unique”, “Men are just being men”, more of this “just bad apples” isolated incident bullshit every single time, and we know something’s wrong with it. The average 30 year old LA gangster has gone through about the same experiences as the 30 year old prodigy CEO in Europe – people living in those two areas would have been much more different even just one thousand years ago, less than one step in the path of written history. We know that something, somewhere, is going horribly wrong. If that something wrong is in the guy on TV, it’s also in all of us. Or, if it’s the “system” that’s wrong for the guy on TV… that’s the same “system” that’s over our heads as well.

We know enough about Ground, intuitively, that something somewhere is wrong, and that we need to seek the Ground of All Grounds in order to begin to really fight and change anything. Unfortunately, the Ground of All Grounds these days is a fucking commodity. From Vegetarianism to Occupy, from Saving the Planet to 9-11 Truth, every god damn whore and her pimp is selling meaning. A friend of mine is interning for some startup, and he asked me to help him put up an ad for it last night. So I went to the site, and guess what I found the slogan was?

Experience Real Life. Can you imagine? They’re selling you YOUR OWN GOD DAMN LIFE.

If there is one problem about this book, that would be it. It’s sold. It’s another book about not selling out, but it has to be sold. A message in media, criticizing the form it has been delivered in. For anyone who still can see reality, and definitely for any jaded consumer, it is going to be hard to believe yet another manifesto which claims to tackle a large problem in a small amount of space. It has come out in a nonoptimal form in a nonoptimal time.

But really, that’s not the fault of the book. If fault is to be distributed, it should all be to the times.

Problems which are inevitable and a threat to all things good must be solved in some way. Everyone recognizes that those who complain about how violent revolutionaries should instead seek to work within the system to change its direction while people are being murdered for walking across the street have their heads on backwards. There’s a set of priorities we know must be adhered to no matter what. But the moment it’s not so overt anymore, everyone becomes those guys who have their heads on backwards. It’s not okay if just anyone is murdered for walking across the street, but it’s okay if they were all locked up instead. Or no maybe that’s not okay, but it’s okay if people were just separated and different. Or no, that’s not okay either! WE NEED FULL EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! But you have to do that through the established channels. Otherwise it’s not okay.

All this standardizing based on what’s okay. What’s acceptable. Everything that’s not “don’t do that”.

Not what’s desirable. Not what is worthy of praise. Sure we always get the TED talks and the political campaigns about how this or that should be done, but once you look at the concepts themselves, they’re all just negations of something else. Equality is for ridding the evil differences between people. Education is for saving the children from horrible experiences of never being in debt. Peace is for democratizing a nation and getting rid of those bad fascists and people who disagree with us. Never discussed is what’s honorable. Never is something tried and achieved, suffered and accomplished.

Always this god damn running away.

The Way of Men holds the fucking line.

It states, simple and clearly, that there are four virtues all men everywhere and from all times admire, and should respect, for those ideas are inherent and necessary for the role men play in reality. The virtues are Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor. The role all males play that we can never avoid, and should never avoid, is – for lack of a better word – Man. In these gender-free times, the idea that men have to be Men means less and less – and that is not correct. There are certain things men cannot become, without destroying or corroding all that we know and love out of existence. Cultural relativity and all other relativities be damned. There are things that must happen at all times.

Drawing from history, discussing evolutionary psychology, and touching on philosophy, Jack Donovan lays out exactly what it means to be a man and why the meanings make sense. It is not something that can be achieved once and forgotten about; it is a code of conduct, an ideal of perfection, something for which you must strive for at any and all points in time to even be near it. Being a man, Donovan argues, is not something men choose to want. Like the natural tendencies to be intrigued by this or that subject, The Way of Men argues that all men want to be men.

It is this desire, this inherent need, which causes many if not all of the true social problems we have today. Not only are men being forced to not be men, they don’t know what it means to be a man. They know vaguely what’s respectable. They know that this man is fit to be a mentor and that one is just forgettable. But there is no coherency in the mainstream culture about what it means to be a man. A real man does this. A real man does that. But in our hearts we all recognize the same problem as it exists in politics and inspirational talks: everyone’s talking about something to evade. About fixing some problem. Not about accomplishing a dream. Nothing about something to run towards.

Men aren’t the kind of creatures designed to run away.

Donovan builds civilization from chaos in front of your eyes in the second half of this book, and weaves not only sense into why societal things are the way they are and why it seems to be getting worse, but also constructs a cautionary and inspiring tale of how history itself operates – for what is history, but a story of men creating reality?

In and of itself, Jack Donovan doesn’t explain too much in this book. He doesn’t discuss the manosphere’s topics of picking up girls and female psychology in starting divorces. He doesn’t talk about national problems about welfare and healthcare, of war and economics. He doesn’t do the muscle work and elbow grease for explaining every single empire throughout history, why they rose here and fell then. It really doesn’t say too much at all.

But what it does say, unifies everything else. It is a set of ideas which causes all others to adhere and organize in the way they do.

There have been criticisms from the Humanists to people like me – they say I shouldn’t deconstruct things so often. That I should look at things “as a whole”, because there are many things you can’t know about something by studying it alone in a controlled and nonexistent environment. I agree with this criticism fullheartedly, and I turn it back to them and everyone else:

You are ignoring men. It is not Liberty or Equality or Social Welfare which holds civilization up. Men are the glue which holds everything together, and Men are the ones who created it, and Men are the ones who will create civilizations after this one has fallen, and Men will be there again to create it again and again, for the duration of all time.

I recommend this book to anyone and everyone, men and women alike. If the understanding you seek of something has anything to do with “Why do people do what they do”, this book will help you understand it. For women, it can help gain an insight into who men really are, not some vaguely humanized version of the laughingstocks on the glowing screen. Of course, for men, learning who you are is a great reason to read this too. But more importantly, this book also points you in the direction you need to walk, shows you an image of what you want to do, and will need to do, for all things good, holy, and sacred.

“The Way of Men”, by Jack Donovan.

I have added the author’s site to the blogroll on the right.
is the excerpt that got me to buy the book.

Anyone Who Calls “Discrimination!” Is A Scrub

And if you’re a white person, when was the last time you felt any privilege for being white. Never for me, I feel like as a white male, I’m under personal attack most of the time.

Apocalypse Cometh

You can’t win against people who play the victim mentality.

It’s not doable. Attempting to engage them on the battlefield of ideas while adhering to the rational rules of engagement will leave you in a very very sad place. Those who have the victim mentality are capable of doing, for many people, the equivalent of breaking the laws of physics. Why are you blaming rape victims for rape? Are you not hiring this man because he’s black? She has the same qualifications as the man you actually hired, are you a misogynist? Race, sex, class, beauty, age…

…”Discrimination”. Always that damned word.

For the duration of this post I will assume that equality is a virtue or praiseworthy value. Which, I must emphasize, it isn’t. I will also engage in other, less than graceful practices.

I like my boring and straightforward style of analyzation and I try to keep it while on this blog, but this “~issue~” boils my blood.

Every time anyone talks about discrimination I feel like I’m in an emperor’s new clothes scene. It is inevitable that the person crying wolf “inequality” will talk about how the other person believes something evil, and talk about how they have been harmed by it in some way. It doesn’t even matter if that other person has said anything. Have you noticed that? It doesn’t matter if the other person has said anything yet, but it is an unspoken social rule that you hold true what the accusing “victim” has claimed. There is no “until shown otherwise” clause; it is impossible for the accuser to be wrong. How could She possibly be wrong? Everybody knows that every last human being always has some innate bias they can’t remove. So this person must have it too! And He must be shown the right way and punished. It is for the greater good; it must be done.

Everyone’s known for forever that blacks basically have a get-out-of-jail free card called “racism” whenever they want to use it, and they’ve had it at least since the Civil Rights movement. Congressional White Caucus would be racist, we don’t see any C. Chinese, Arabian, or Indian Caucuses, but a Congressional Black Caucus is perfectly fine. We still have that whole Trayvon thing, even though it was revealed that Zimmerman was actually some Cuban Jew or whatever and not actually white. Black history month. The works. You know it, I know it, it’s the elephant in the room.

Women have a similar card called “misogyny”. It’s almost common knowledge these days that the courts are designed to prosecute rather than serve justice and that plea bargains are encouraged by public defense lawyers to an insane degree… but the public has barely given a thought to the frequency of false rape accusations, even though it’s clear to anyone who gives even half a look at the newspaper once a month can tell that “sexual harassment” has become a super big deal to the point where the physical action of having your hand on some woman’s ass can eliminate your income and basically any chances of getting future income for as long as you stay within these 10 million square kilometers because you’re put on some national public “offenders” list… all while your accuser is awarded much fame and cash, often from your pocket.

I just wrote out the long, non-euthanized version of “sexually harassing a woman can get you fired and jailed”. Sounds more powerful, doesn’t it? Doesn’t just sound like something you could only read about now does it?

By definition false rape accusations, whatever their percentage (you know logically it must be nonzero), increase proportionally to the rate of rape accusations. How many accusations have you heard recently? You want to know what can make a grown man cry? This isn’t even touching on rates of cuckoldry, a word which you probably haven’t even heard of.

More likely than not, you know about this societal screwing over of men, even if not consciously. It’s because it’s been ingrained in your thought processes via how language is used. You know that men are treated like shit. Just like whites are treated like shit, and young people are treated like shit, and every “oppressing” category is treated like shit.

An assigned reading I was doing for my socio class helped me figure out exactly why -this problem- we face seems so elusive. The week’s topic was on social constructs, and the reading was an excerpt from Lareau’s “Unequal Childhoods”. On page three Lareau writes,

America may be the land of opportunity, but it is also a land of inequality. This book identifies the largely invisible but powerful ways that parents’ social class impacts children’s life experiences. It shows, using in-depth observations and interviews with middle-class (including members of the upper-middle-class), working-class, and poor families, that inequality permeates the fabric of the culture.

If these inequalities were so invisible, then why are they THE ONLY things that are talked about?

I’m sorry, I asked a rhetorical question. Bad form on my part.

People always talk about how we shouldn’t talk about race, and how there are environmental factors or childhood experiences or whatnot and all these other things, but really, who talks about race anymore? In the intellectual sphere, when was the last time someone actually tried to claim that race contributed even the slightest to any trait? Nobody, because guess what happens to them once people find out. Who talks about race? Nobody, other than these people who say we shouldn’t talk about race.

The whole argument structure itself is a joke to begin with. The original is of the form “[genes] can’t explain everything, [environment factors] are in a high correlation with [some set of events or attributes]”. First of all, nobody who believes in race or genetics believes race/genetics can explain everything; strawman. Second, the argument form given is a nonsequitur; just because there’s some correlation with environment doesn’t invalidate any kind of correlations with race/genetics. Sure you can choose to focus on one rather than the other, but that’s not what we’re doing as a whole are we? No, people try to start a fucking witchhunt no matter who the person is, even if it’s a Don at Cambridge. No taking into consideration why people believe in race/genetics, or in what ways they believe it or what strength they believe it – no consideration of breadth or depth – if they say they’re even considering it exists, bring out the god damn pitchforks.

You see the same fucking image, copy-and-fucking-paste, whenever any touchy-feely scrub cries wolf “inequality” on any other issue. “We” keep on responding to shit that isn’t there. The argument against income inequality, that if women really earned 70 cents on every dollar a man makes for the same job then every business would rush to replace their entire workforce with females to realize a massive amount of savings, is a broken fucking record AND YET women still claim oppression and patriarchy and evil shit. Say the slightest thing that gives seed to even the tiniest suspicion that women could be anything other than pure heavenly and faultless innocent angels, and you’re labelled as a misogynist. Doesn’t matter what statistics you have, haven’t you learned that only statistics which support the correct opinion are correct yet? You’re an adult, you should have learned this by now. Logic doesn’t matter either. Any person with half a brain now would realize that they want miles and miles between themselves and any potential discrimination lawsuits; if anything people who are less skilled or are more ugly are being hired in greater proportions than equal conditions. But no. People are evil no matter what the cost, because they’re evil!

There is a specific type of person that I am attacking.

It simply happens to be, but it is the average liberal of the masses, a person who claims the moral high ground because they are intelligent and educated, and tolerant of diversity. Their goodwill is endless, from feeding the poor to feeding the African children, from saving paper to saving *the* whales and the whole of this heavenly body.

It is also a position that, at the slightest hint that someone disagrees with them on certain issues,will batten down the ad hominem hatches and fire the righteous torpedoes. Have you noticed that? The moment someone disagrees with them fundamentally, all these people do is try to find out what kind of person this is and then proceed to derive characteristics based off of that. Oh, Zimmerman was white? Killing Trayvon MUST have been a hate crime. Oh, you’re a young man who thinks that the current system of marriage and dating has something wrong with it and it’s not the patriarchy? You must be a shut-in slob who hates woman, why don’t you go and buy a hooker.

Average response to my kind of criticism has been “Not All ______ Are Like That”. I have not known a response to this. Now I do.

I now know I can’t respond to it.

It doesn’t matter how many statistics I cite about how race is the best predictor for violent crime, they can always claim that it was done wrong or funded by some ~evil~ organization. It doesn’t matter how wrong or obnoxious one of their members can be, they can always claim that that person wasn’t a REAL feminist. No matter how right I may be, there will be exceptions. No matter how wrong they may be, those wrong examples and statistics are the exceptions. AND ALL THE MEANWHILE victim mentality reigns and grows stronger and louder, with purely (read: supported only by) emotional appeals, imagining some delusional painted dystopia to avoid.

And they can afford to fix these nonexistent problems, because they aren’t the ones doing the fixing, and they can force these people who don’t want to work, to do it, for free. Who loses and ends up toiling harder and longer when there are institutional forces to change the race distribution, irrelevant of actual skill? The oppressor group: the whites. Who loses and ends up toiling harder and longer when there are institutional forces to change the sex distribution, irrelevant of actual skill? The oppressor group: the men. It is the law of all such “social justice” organizations and movements to work in such a parasitic fashion, and it is also the law that these will not survive indefinitely.

Because they are parasites, you can’t attack them directly. You can pull a gun on another man, but you cannot pull a gun to shoot your infection. But once you realize they are parasites, you know that the proper response is not to outfight them, but to outlive them.

Outperform. Show that people you are better than the equalitists and masses who huddle around and reinforce each other’s notions of reality. Show that you are willing to subscribe to your own views, to anyone’s views as long as they treat you with respect and as long as their views are consistent with reality and pertinent to your interests.

At worst, all you need to do is point out the structural contradiction in their pretended argument, noted above. Otherwise, ignore them. You’re probably a better person than they are in every other aspect of life. Shine there.

There is no “And if it doesn’t work” clause. Everything has a chance of failing.

Do you want to fail while outliving, or while succumbing to a simple “u mad xD?”


This will be a post I will link to in the future if anyone calls “Hate Speech” or “Discrimination” on me, or asks how to get past the accusations of.

While I have been gone I have been introduced to, and have been reading, “race realism” and “the manosphere”, respectively. I’m not too interested in the former so I won’t talk directly about it too much, nor will I give a precise and rigorous definition about it. A layman’s understanding has sufficed for me: race exists, and it can be used as a predictor for various biological and non-biological traits and attributes. No big surprise or anything for me, I’ve always taken race as something which exists but “shouldn’t be talked or thought about”. The second part has simply been removed, so I may mention it from time to time. It has always puzzled me how everyone could talk about super hung black men and micropeen Japanese men, but yell for mommy any time black IQ scores are brought up.

As for “the manosphere”, it is a term which refers collectively to the pick-up artists / seduction community and the men’s rights movement. Its main unifying factor, at least in my point of view, is the idea that men these days don’t know what it means to be a man. It is not a given that male means man; increasingly, male actually means absolutely nothing at all. Aside from basic philosophy and motivation topics (like the ones I’ve discussed here),  a lot of discussion rests on diagnosis of society in relation to sex. It probably isn’t too much of a stretch to say that the average young man today thinks of society as having no mechanics which operate off of sex, and only knows of how to interact with the opposite sex as someone of a different sex based off of what they saw as a kid in Cinderalla, what they read in Romeo and Juliet, what they see on Jersey Shore and vague stories they can’t relate to (and thus can’t understand) from their parents and grandparents about proper courting. The manosphere attempts to illustrate in various ways how differences in men and women, from their biology to their psychology to their behavior patterns, interact in society – either in today’s, or in hypothetical ideal or dystopian ones.

Reading people write on such topics are truly a breath of fresh air. Even reading motivating stories feels stale sometimes because of how common and socially accepted they are. But I’ve always felt in my gut that something was wrong and some idea wasn’t being touched on which could vastly explain much of social interactions. The idea that I am a Man and that this fact requires something of me and sets my social position which is expected to do some things in some ways, in some sex-based system, is, if not what i was looking for, at least something which has vastly better predictive and explanatory powers than the standard equalitist theory of everything.

I am open to discussion on these topics, as I am actively reading up on them and looking for more. The ones I currently find are the highest quality may be found on the blogroll links to the right.

I simply get quite livid whenever anyone starts to say that I am ignorant or intolerant or use some form of ad hominem against me because I am considering socially taboo ideas. I don’t particularly care for attempting to never get mad at anything – case in point, many equalitist shits subscribe to the “outlive” idea I wrote above; you can just see it every time they talk smack about you but then end it with a :3 or a :] or some shit fucking smiley DESIGNED to piss you off. Being mad has its uses, I abhor the lobotomized “happiness” many people seek. I find this victim rent-seeking mentality a very serious issue and worthy of riling my emotions, but the little equalitists shits correctly believe that them getting me mad and getting me to spend time responding to them is equivalent to acknowledging a loss.

This entry is my compromise.

In one go, I have not only given an explanation of my beliefs on discrimination to both supports and detractors, but also links to content of similar opinions on the matter. A written out and detailed post that will far outlength any particular criticism, but can be used to respond to each criticism – and though at first it may seem to be an instant win because I have spent so much energy responding, over time it means less and less. The more people and more instances in which I refer this post, the more and more total amount of mental and energy each of my opponent will use in raging against me will exceed the total amount of energy I used to write this one post, one time.

If that pisses them off, good. You gave me a canned “umad;)” response, I give you a canned bitchslap full of “fake” evidence to piss you on. GG bitches.

I believe, though, this way creates the best balance. I can’t get everyone to agree, nor do I think that’s a worthy goal. I believe what I have done here allows me to maximize the amount of people who will consider not only my point of view, but also learn to consider other socially taboo ideas either from others or on their own.

Outside of learning ways to improve passion clarity, that is the greatest goal I have – to help people achieve what they want to achieve, by showing them that no matter how creative they think they are, there is always a new thing to learn, a new way to learn, or new way of looking at the world entirely.

Kind of disappointing that something as simple as how a knee-jerk ad-hominem response to racism (belief in race) needs to be clarified as nonrational. But what needs to be done, needs to be done.

Ergo (Coordinate System)

I attempt to speak from a nonpolitical point of view. I believe I have achieved this more or less thus far – I base my argumentation on principles which I believe to be true, and I lead from them into my results. If my results happen to be categorized somewhat accurately by a pre-existing ideology, hey, so be it. Though to be sure, 1) I think I have sufficiently shown that my focus is not on politics, and 2) I really don’t fit the pre-existing ideology anyways. Libertarianism is largely based on liberty and the non-aggression pact… neither of which I believe in.

Perhaps I “believe” in them tangentially – that is to say, I end up acting the same way. But that is, I think, stretching the definition of “believe”. If I believe in something and end up taking a course of action, but you believe in the course of action, you can’t usually trace backwards and end up the same way. It probably isn’t incorrect to say it’s impossible because it’s, well, backwards.

Kendo appears to be mainly about swinging a bamboo sword. Picking up girls appears to be mainly about delivering winning lines. Fishing appears to be about catching fish. Cycling appears to be about getting to the finish line first. All of these are true in the sense that they end up in their respective actions. But starting there will not get you there.

I do not believe in Libertarianism. With sufficient chaotic levels it will disintegrate, because it is not based on a desire. “Liberty” is not personal. “Non-Aggression Pact” is not personal. Though intuitively the concepts of “Discipline”, “Honor”, and the act of seeking “Order” do not seem personal, I have shown that it is so inextricably tied to every action you take, that such is at least a fair approximation if not the best perspective to take on the world. It matters not what you desire – women, speed, money, glory, fame – if you want the best of what you want, you must use Discipline to get there. The only things in this world which are infinite and immutable are passions. “Liberty” is not a passion. So I cannot believe in it. It would be an exercise in futility.

What I do believe, directs me to think that free markets are the best form of organizing society. Libertarianism simply happens to end up in the same place.

It is important what you focus on.

This should be quite obvious as what you focus on becomes the center of your universe, and quite literally everything else revolves around it. Your frame of reference changes, and that is not to be underestimated. The world is very different if your goal is to not fail a test, rather than to ace it; if your goal is to not get rejected by a girl, rather than to get her to want to bed you; if your goal is to not lose, rather than to win. Needless to say, this is also apparent when you are not even focusing on the same subject.

As a result of my “heartless” Machiavellian “libertarianism”, I give much “harsher” responses to liberals… but at the same time, I am also able to write much less generic and much more inspiring arguments.

The culture today though… it has no focus.

For all are equal.

And where there is no focus, no order can be created. And thus, everything else falls apart.

I do not say that the culture today has no desires. We have plenty of desires alright. Politically correct ones include helping the poor, caring for the old, saving the whales, educating the young, and so on. Ask them which ones are more important, however, and suddenly they’re forced to talk about it like they talk about normal, sinful, everyday life.

It is perfectly okay to talk about most things in an order – you want to go to class on time over playing your game a few more minutes, you want to not piss off your boss over letting off steam where you stand, you want to save money now so you can buy something for your significant other later.

But you can’t say that educating the young is more important than caring for the old.

Because all are equal.

How this leads to the support for an infinite state I’ll leave as a mental exercise for you, but that in short is the problem with everything in this “world” (hint: all of these equal desires have infinite weight).

There is no order to it. All are equal. The belief is that the machinery of the universe are made with parts such that any two parts are interchangable, that the ecosystem of the culture are made with creatures such that any two organisms can swap niches,  that the community of this civilization are made with people such that any two people can Freaky Friday… and everything would be exactly the same as before.

“The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian Left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.”

– Murray Rothbard

It is not a true statement.

And thus, since Equality is the enemy of Order,

Therefore, I am against Equality.

Example 3

Answer to previous example: There are several things wrong with this quote. We will start from the most basic and move towards the most obvious. Thankfully, the lines line up in that order.

The first problem is that the conversation happened. We assume the topic to be feminism or something of the sort. I forget if I’ve explicitly said this before, but arguing in general doesn’t work for the same reasons protesting doesn’t work. Feminism is one of the best examples of where arguing doesn’t work, not just because there are enough people who believe it to show that arguing is frustrating and gets nowhere, but also because there are enough people who are against it who agree with the stated basic tenets that can understand why their comrades are wrong. (This second half of the balance, for example, is significantly undermanned in comparison for the topics of government and race) It does not really matter where an anti-feminism post is made – that is to say, it is not relevant whether it is an original post on your own site or if it is a response on a feminism-oriented board. If it was on a page owned by you, then you do not “take the bait” when an inflamed response comes.

It is probably true that you should never “take the bait”. I have yet to make some kind of a proof for it, but it applies in this situation so we’ll leave it for now.

The second problem is in the second line. If someone asks you a question, you do not tell them they’re dumb. The third line is a decent example of what you do if you must be glib.

I do not think this needs extra explanation. That, and it’s already been covered extensively tangentially by the general topic of this blog.

The third problem is in the last line. I have gone over this before (ctrl+f “infinite weight”), but it really doesn’t matter why you want to do something if what you’re doing doesn’t get there. The method in question is vocal explication – i.e. communication. In communication, you must always first respect the other party – if you don’t, nothing else matters. They won’t listen to you, thus won’t care to figure out your concepts, thus won’t care to even see if they agree with you. The problem would not be so bad if it were simply an insult (“DUM”). In this case, however, and in most pretended intellectual discussions on online forums, the problem is that people are simply talking past each other.

Let us assume that the feminist in question is out for the purpose of defending her gender. How does she plan to do this? In war there are two ways of winning, and only one of them really works. The first is to make them run out of the capacity to fight, either by draining their stamina, their supply line, or something else. This is attrition warfare. The other way is to make them run out of the will to fight. This is generally achieved through politics, but of course backhanded tactics also exist. The former doesn’t work as efficiently, but I won’t get into it here because that’s the one that doesn’t work in debate. You can’t get people to run out of the capacity to fight in an online battle of ideas. This is vaguely less true in real life, where you can pull a gun out on them, blackmail them, or something similar, but still holds true generally. The latter is the only way you can get people to join you – make them agree, or at least pacify them so that they don’t care about disagreeing.

“SHE’S DEFENDING HER GENDER” does not achieve this.

>>> >>> >>>

This one won’t be split into Q/A between entries. I have things which are incorrect, which I also give the response to.

They’re parts of a conversation I had with some lab mates for physics since the lab this week didn’t demand much mental intensive work. It started with a random comment when I asked if we should get another piece of the large paper. Went in directions I forget for reasons I do not understand, but it doesn’t really matter.Here are two of the sections I remember.

Italicized are not mine.


Don’t you care about saving trees?

‘The environment’ doesn’t mean anything to me.

Wow, so cold.

I find these “save the planet” environmental campaigns very annoying. So you say save the trees… as opposed to saving something else? I agree that we shouldn’t use more paper than we need to, but that’s not in the context of saving the planet. I conserve paper because I conserve everything. I don’t understand what it means to save the planet. Save the current system and environment of the world? Against what, the next one? Then you’re back to where you started, because you’re still destroying a world – just not the one you’re living in. My head can’t handle that stuff. But I do understand myself, and I get nowhere by using more than I need. To say “save the trees” to me implies that there are some things not worth using with moderation, or not worth using correctly. I do not agree.

But in the end, you’re doing the same thing. You don’t use more than you need, so you will be saving the planet.

Right, but it’s not the same thing. I start with myself, and I end up helping the environment by tangent. To start out with “saving the planet’ and then going back is, well, literally backwards.


“Should” is a concept that only exists in my mind. What other people do is part of reality, something I find cause and effect in and react to. To say “should” to other people, “you SHOULD do this”, is pointless to me. I don’t really care about what other people do.

Do you plan on having children?


Would you let them do hard drugs?

I would raise them in such a way that they would not want to do hard drugs. I would let them, yes. Would they? No. But if they do for whatever reason start using them, I would trust that they were using them for something they believed justifiable. Or I wouldn’t, and [I’d] react accordingly.

I do have my reasons for using a second sheet of paper, by the way. It’s the same reason why I don’t like using back and front for homework – makes everything I write harder to read, and I can’t lay it all out at one time when I need to look for something efficiently. Is that worth using whatever amount more resources?

To me, it is.