Defeating the Riots

In the face of rampage, screaming, and chanting... answer with relentless quiet.


The year is 2014, and all legitimate institutions have taken meaningful measures to reduce or eliminate racism from their midst. Let me state this clearly, for ME, racism is over. I owe you nothing for the actions of my ancestors, or the ancestors of others with the same skin color. You owe me nothing for the actions of your ancestors or the ancestors of others with the same skin color. We can spend eternity waiting for a greater authority to declare victory over racism, or we can choose to declare victory over it individually. If every person can beat racism in their own context then racism will be truly put to rest.

Make no mistake, if you are a racist the conversation is over. In the wake of the controversial case of Darren Wilson and Micheal Brown I have come to the personal conclusion that I am done with this endless fighting. If you tell me that "a white cop shot a black man" the conversation is over. I will ignore you and we will not continue to discuss the topic. The appropriate description of the event is that "a police officer shot a young man". Contextual use of racial descriptors should be limited to reasonable situations like medical reports or suspect descriptions. If we do not change our use of language to reflect a change in our mindset two things will happen. One, it will be an indication that we haven't actually changed our mind. Two, it will encourage us to continue to think in the framework of the supporting language.

In this free western civilization we are afforded the right to freedom of speech. We are also entitled to the freedom not to speak. I am calling on each and every non-racist person to take on the bold and brave action of being silent in the face of endless yelling. We must prove that we are adults that are able to set aside our grievances and feuds. As well as refusing to speak to these racists and race baiters we have the right to choose to ostracize those who wish to continue advocating racism. It will be incredibly difficult to shut down conversations or avoid friends, but with discipline and self-control it is achievable. We can teach the racists the virtue of colorblindness in society by showing them that there is no way forward together with those views. There can be no reciprocal conversation or work with those who absolutely refuse to let bygones be bygones.

"Two households, both alike in dignity

(In fair Verona, where we lay our scene),

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."

Romeo&Juliet - Shakespeare

Every halfway educated member of western civilization knows the story of Romeo and Juliet, and it's true meaning. There can be no peace between warring factions if they do not set aside their differences completely. The cost in youthful blood will be absolute and destructive to all involved. Darren Wilson and Micheal Brown weren't white and black people, they were people. If your ability to communicate hinges on differentiating by race you are a racist and our dialogue will be pointless. If there are statistical realities to be faced about subtle racism I assure you I will actively work to limit it. For my part, I've never had a problem associating with someone who displayed similar values to me based on their skin color. Human will, human reason, and shared values supersede any minor genetic differences or variations. 

My opinion is just one opinion. I'm just one man, but I'm here to say, if you intend to be racist, this is one less person that will speak with you. I sincerely hope that this deafening silence can drown out the racist outrage of the world. My fellow non-racists, I implore you, please consider my strategy. Together we can put an end to racism in our communities and our nations once and for all. 

Obey the Law.

#Ferguson

A hotbed of discontent and illegal rioting is breaking down communities across the USA, doing damage to innocent people and a cause in the process. There is a major clash occurring between the law abiding elements of society and the unruly mob that feels as though everything is stacked against them. When the legal process provided no indictment for officer Darren Wilson certain portions of the community took it upon themselves to throw an illegal tantrum and burn things down. This is typical behavior from criminals and special interest groups that want to turn the world upside down.

The truth has prevailed. Micheal Brown was a punk and attacked an officer, and died as a result. His destructive behaviour is nothing for anyone to aspire to. Society needs to learn from this experience and re-orient themselves towards justice. What is the true cause of that young man's death? It's a culture that has thrown aside respect for the law and for authority. It is a "F*** DA POLICE" attitude that gets young men shot by police or each other, and that gets women objectified and treated like garbage. Promoting thug culture is a disservice to youth and immensely dangerous.


Moving forward.

As we move forward as a civilization, we should take this opportunity to confront the enemies in our midst. There is a corrosive undercurrent of extreme ideology that wants to take apart western culture and substitute an anything-goes self-destructive way of thinking. Freedom is important to the West and always has been, but respecting the limits of freedom has been central to our success as nations. There is no way for us to move forward as a cohesive society if we disregard the rule of law and undermine our legal and democratically asserted authorities.

Make no mistake, disregarding a legal and democratic result or ruling is fighting against the will of the people. The people have spoken on these matters and declined the special interests of extremists. There are many changes we can make for the betterment of our land and people, from the economy to social programs, but they require our obedience to the legal system. A system crafted by the people who established our nation, a system defended with the lives of our soldiers, a system supported by the back breaking labor of millions of taxpayers. The rule of law and all its protections for citizens, the equality and responsibility it engenders, this is the true heart of western civilization. Without secular law and the capacity for reason we lose everything that our ancestors built and we inherited.

Lift your chin and stand your ground. Law abiding citizens of our western nations, now is the time to stand together in solidarity against the chaos of the world. If the criminal elements and hateful entities of the world mean to destroy our civilization let them try. If they mean to draw a line in the sand and threaten the basic foundation of our countries let us step to the line together and rebuff them.

Scream. Cry. Throw things and burn things. We'll be here. You will not win, we will not submit. The West will prevail.

Society out of control

Control.

Control is the most important and determining factor of a civilized human being. Self-control is largely what separates the successful from the unsuccessful, the lawful from the unlawful, the moral from the immoral. The greatest advances of human history have been made in the form of control - of mastering the world around us. Our defining trait as animals is the ability to perceive the world as something greater than our basic senses dictate, to be able to form abstract ideas and put them into practice. We learn the rules of the world and then we use those rules to create things, from the simplest stone tools to glittering skyscrapers. Behind every development is the capacity to control it. It is inherent to every efficient tool to be readily controlled by the user.

When we don't have control, we have the wild world of chaos. Outside of the most fundamental and pervasive laws of physics it seems to be a place of madness. Your circumstances can change daily, your future is uncertain and potentially full of strife. There is a constant sense of fear with that unknown and untamed world. A fear of violence, a fear of hunger, a fear of the elements. All these natural and important fears that have dominated human history and whose reality have killed untold numbers of people. If you do not farm, you live at the whim of nature. If you do not raise livestock, you live at the rise and fall of local animal populations and their migration. If you do not control yourself you live at the mercy of your emotions and if you do not control others you live at risk of theirs.

As a society we have erected the rule of law as a monument to control greater than any one man or woman. The rule of law has bent kings to a knee before the people and made god a choice, not a necessity. The rule of law is what separates us from animals and from people who behave like animals. Law is control. Law is created around the rules of the world. For better or worse it is a force we are all subjected to, just as we are subjected to gravity, to heat, to light, and to all the other basics of the universe. Our rule of law grew out of common law, of basic uniformly understood principles that effect every human being. It grew and grew from a common spring in every human soul until it was bigger than kings and gods and nations.

To protestors who revel in their lawlessness

These people are nothing short of traitors to western civilization and the sanctity of the law. There is certainly room for the law to be improved. We can reign in the agents who work to undermine or twist it. We can root out the traitors in our midst who falsely use the law as a shield to fund personal ambition at the expense of the people. The law exists first and foremost to satisfy and protect the most basic needs of the people.

HOWEVER, changes to the law must be made within the framework of our democracy and constitution. When a person defies the apparatus we have created to protect and work out these ideals they reduce themselves to an unruly mob. They become closer to animals in their methods and tactics. By their own choosing they become something less than civilized. It applies to homeless people or drug addicts ignoring injunctions in public parks. It applies to the Kinder Morgan pipeline protestors in Burnaby. It applies to young people rampaging through Vancouver after a hockey game. Their defiance of the result of the law is immature, infantile, dangerous, and condemnable. Those who choose to throw tantrums when things aren't ruled in their favor, screaming and shouting, or blockading with their bodies, are like insolent children. These are the tactics of children who will thrash or pout and refuse to move and obey, who make a scene by needing to be dragged away by force.

We need better than you. You need to be better than you are in your conduct. There is no future for the civilized world that bows to the whims of fickle protest. We have mastered the plants and animals of the earth. We will master you as well. You will obey the law and work within it to change it for the better, or you will find yourself caged like a senseless animal.

Remembrance Day

...

Today was Remembrance Day, on the 100th year anniversary of WWI. There is too much to say about the world war for a single blog entry, and at the same time too little. The solemn moment of silence was as powerful as ever, as was the solidarity of the people with the soldiers. Parades had a swell of pride and a sense of loss at the same time. It was a bittersweet day as it always seems to be. A day that made you feel important as a Canadian, as if you had been entrusted with a special gift. You are, and you have been.

We will never forget the sacrifices that were made for our country. The lives that protected our freedom and the toll that established us as an indispensable ally. Our nation is one that is born of war, that faced the worst conflicts in human history as a rite of passage and emerged stronger. Across the country people were forced to face the true gravity of war and its consequences. All at once we are aware of the glory of war and the reality of dying in mud on foreign soil. Canada takes from history the most important lessons and refuses to let them go. There is a sense among the people of the profound nature of Canada itself. Unrelenting, stoic, strong, and brave. We would not, could not quit. Even when tasked with the impossible Canada fulfilled its responsibility and defied defeat.

Just as those before us, I cannot quit. In the face of mounting threats and accusing stares I must remain vigilant. The nation that our veterans have fought to protect is slowly evaporating. It is unrecognizable now from the place they left one hundred years ago. Freedom and prosperity run the risk of being quietly subdued. A kind of rot has taken hold of the nation and is ravaging it from within. The government seems unwilling or incapable of taking the drastic measure necessary to correct our course. I hope that in time my actions can show that I am not the enemy of the brave men and women who have served this country.

The world will never forget the dedication of this land to the cause of justice. To forget the sacrifices and strength of character will not be permitted. Each and every single one of us will be made to look into the mirror and confront ourselves. We will be weighed against some of the most courageous people in human history. We will be reminded of what it is to never stop until the job is done, to accept victory humbly, and to lead by example. By this time next year we will be a full step closer to embracing our heritage and realizing our destiny.

Principles and Magnitude

1 or 1,000,000

It occurred to me today that I am pretty thankful to be living in the modern age, with a contemporary view of many social phenomenons. I was watching the music video for that song "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. Contrasting the romance and dedication in that story was a conversation earlier in the day on http://myliberals.com/ about BDSM culture and freaky orgies. I suppose for every loving and dutiful couple gay or straight there is a bunch of deviants or chronically bored people. Not that I'm opposed to a couple spicing things up with blindfolds or something, but I draw the line well before the crazy stuff like gimp suits and peeing on each other.

Looking back through time we can see that homosexuality has been treated differently by different cultures at different times. One thing that's true is that homosexuals were often ostracized or killed. In fact, there are many places in the world today where being openly gay can end in imprisonment or death. Given the sheer amount of time and prevalence of this violence its easy to imagine the number of people that have been killed as a result. Human death is rarely encountered in huge numbers, so the actual scope of this can be hard to visualize. With morbid curiosity we can envision monuments dedicated to the expression of this reality - great heaps of corpses made of stone that rival the Mayan temples. Perhaps the only silver lining of the Holocaust is the fact that photographic technology allowed us fully digest industrialized murder.

The number of people killed in the name of social purity is truly immense. It would be staggering if it weren't spread out worldwide, over decades and centuries. Estimates put the number in tens of millions. For a country like Canada with only roughly 35,000,000 people, it could easily be the entire population. Diehard animal rights activists would probably compare these numbers to industrial meat production. We tend to dispassionately murder hundreds of millions of animals to serve our appetites. Theoretically then, we can assert that the people who orchestrate these killings are the farmers and butchers of men. No one would actively support a leader who openly intended to kill them all from the outset, so it stands to reason that these individuals must have served some greater purpose. Society must have looked at these men and women and understood that their actions benefited the whole in the long run.

Necessary evil

One thing I tend to find is true in the world is the fact that big or small moments can be profound. Whether its a quiet epiphany or a major spectacle there is a heaviness that sets in at points in our lives. The core of every thought and action can be traced back to principle. It is our principles that provide the base for who we are and how we handle our experiences. Magnitude becomes irrelevant if you take a principled stand on an issue, which prompts the age old debate between consequential thinking and principled thinking. A person who stays true to principle in the face of overwhelming consequences might be labelled a fanatic, whereas a person who picks on a case by case basis might be regarded as scrupulous.

Using the above ideas, we can explore how principled actions turn 1 into 1,000,000. If your principle is that human life is more important than animal life and that it's appropriate to kill and eat an animal it's pretty easy to kill a million animals. At that point all you really need to do is reason that you're feeding a few million people in the process. The industrialization of death requires a degree of hardness typically associated with career killers like hunters and butchers. We make the same value judgment when it comes to our soldiers and national armies, entrusting a minority of people to kill other human beings for our defense. The difference between a single enemy soldier or criminal being killed and a million of them being killed is just a few logical steps. By looking at the core principle of the action we can determine that there is little if any meaningful difference between the one and the million.

A lot can be said for the devastation of war. The collateral damage, the expense, the toll in human life. If we reverse engineer the scope of these engagements we can draw similarities to street fights. There have been wars that were short and brutal, wars that were long and grueling, and wars that have been mostly posturing. Each of these wars can be drawn back to a number of reasons that are consistent with national character. Whether its an ethnic cleansing, a war of expansion, or a bitter feud between rival states they all average out to the common motivations of the state. Even if you take a war like the invasion of Iraq where the public was misled, the core of that war can be drawn back to a profit obsessed capitalist economy which is consistent with American values. It is that same insatiable hunger that led politicians to wheel, deal, and lie to the public. The Iraq war was simply an issue of false advertising.

Killing is wrong, isn't it?

Killing in and of itself cannot be wrong as a matter of principle, because we are a type of animal that kills to survive. We kill plants and animals to eat them or harvest their body parts for other uses. Even sustainable practices like eating fruit can be regarded as comfortably ripping a limb off a creature just because you know it will grow back. Even the most primitive cultures understood that killing things unnecessarily was counterproductive to the greater task of survival. Ignorance might have led them to hunting styles or activities that were wasteful, or ritualistic practices with no supernatural value, but underneath that the concept remained. Human beings are distinct for their mindfulness of the world and abstracts.

We must accustom ourselves to the reality of eternal struggle, of limited time and resources. The modern people need to take their newfound wisdom and apply it to age-old principles. There are criminals and traitors in our midst that do not deserve to live at our expense. There are enemies in other countries plotting our demise, dreaming of destroying or subjugating us and erasing our values from the world. Vast monuments of human death and suffering have been erected throughout the ages, and it is our responsibility to pay them due respect. For every person that has been unjustly killed we cannot let the guilty continue to live. Every breath taken by murderers, rapists, and terrorists is an affront to justice. Every pulse they have, every moment they enjoy as their victims rot within the earth is a travesty. That the common man has been tricked into dragging an orgiastic throne of criminality across the dirt where their loved ones lay is blasphemous.

It is time we cut loose the weights that are holding us back as a society. We cannot be intimidated by the magnitude of our task. The principles of our laws are intact and can serve this purpose adequately. All our brighter future requires is that we open our eyes to the reality of survival. With truth as our ally we can dispel the feeble arguments and empty condemnation of those weak people who shy away from life's hardest tasks. Let them turn blind eyes to our work and live their lives in comfort and blissful ignorance. In the end, they will thank us for doing what they could not.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
the true north strong and free!

Solving Homelessness in Canada

How do you do it?

Homelessness is a widespread problem in pretty much every country, and an expensive one to deal with. In BC specifically our cities have homeless camps popping up in public parks that cause safety concerns for both the public and the homeless. There are many different causes for homelessness ranging from bad luck to personal crisis, childhood abuse to mental illness. It's important to accept that homelessness is not a problem that can be solved by the allowance of independent decision making, as most homeless people are incapable of executing good strategies to get back into mainstream society. There is an abundance of social programs and religious services designed to insulate the homeless from their condition and to keep them alive, but ultimately these things tend to fail or commit the homeless to a recurring cycle.

We need new ideas, and to that end, we look at intervention that is stark and meaningful. It occurs to me that most of the problems of homelessness can be directly attributed to a lack of stability. There are few things more stable than a professionally operated compound designed for a specific use. Think of it as a mandatory temporary housing arrangement, similar to a prison in some respects but with a greater degree of freedom. There are many places where we could build such facilities, accessible for mass transportation by rail. This would make transporting and processing the homeless as efficient as possible. I've worked out a very basic idea of how this would work.

First, an officer of the law would find someone they suspect is homeless. At that point they would ask the individual for some form of identification indicating the person's home address. A failure to provide this adequately could lead to an arrest and processing. During processing an individual would either provide additional information to show they aren't homeless, or they would be temporary held in order to try and verify their identity. If someone was found to be legitimately homeless they would be told to fill out a simple government form. It would cover things like:

Name
Last known address/city of residence
Next of kin
Reasons for homelessness

After being processed, the homeless person would be transported to the labor camp. Upon arrival they would be processed, cleaned, and given new clothing. Men and women would be separated. A publicly accessible database of all persons at the facility would be made available. Terms of internment would vary according to the severity of the person, ranging from 1-5 years.

During their stay, each person would remain fed and clothed. Detoxification and labor would be mandatory. Each person would be paid $200 a month into a secure account, accessible at the end of their rehabilitation. While at the facility the core issues of homeless would be resolved while building up the strength and stability to return to society.

LABOR would get the individual accustomed to work. It would resolve the main issue of joblessness. In addition, a profitable enterprise could help offset the costs of the facility. It would also contribute to overall fitness.
INTERNMENT would solve the problem of homelessness itself, by putting a roof over their head and giving them three square meals a day. There would be no more starving or freezing to death, or struggling moving from shelter to shelter and city to city. Additionally, this would keep them out of the cities and away from predatory drug dealers.
REHABILITATION would cultivate a sense of responsibility. The stability afforded by the camp schedule would help prepare them for the real world. Money put away into their personal accounts would give them a solid headstart on return to mainstream society, with enough to cover the basic costs of finding a place and a job.


Without being too idealistic, one must concede that if this solution were to be implemented a certain number of people would inevitably die. The various needs of different homeless people are considerably different. A hardcore heroin addict for example might not survive the process of detoxification and adjustment to their new lifestyle. However, it seems to me that these kinds of deaths are practically inevitable to begin with. We turn a blind eye to the issue as a society and in the process squander millions of dollars a year on the court system and temporary medical services. Our homeless people are already dying on the streets at the hands of people who want to hurt them, their own vices, or the elements. We are already spending an inordinate amount of money trying to combat homelessness to no lasting success.*

It is time we tried new ideas. It is time we broke bad habits.

*It might seem as though I am callous, but I prefer to handle matters dispassionately. People shouldn't misconstrue my thoughts as some effort to hurt the homeless. I think we should definitely ensure that such a facility be regularly monitored to prevent abuses, and that the needs of the individuals within are met. That being said, I think that the best way to serve the homeless and the rest of society is by giving them the tools to lead productive lives - whether they want them or not.

Anyway, it's just an idea. God knows nothing else seems to be working!

Secularism, Fear, and Freedom

Render unto Caesar

There is a common trend in North American society to vote for Christian representatives, or to look to religious teachings when choosing a candidate. Without disparaging religious groups of any faith I will say that this action has to be considered carefully. In earthly matters of government the will of god is a second thought, if one at all. It is paramount for leaders to make hard decisions about public policy, law, and war that may go against religious dogma. For this reason it is imperative that practitioners of religion be able to set aside their convictions at least temporarily.

The separation of Church and State stands as one of the crowning achievements of western philosophy. Theocracies rarely exhibit the degree of advancement and overall quality of life that we have in North America. By contrast, the ISSI caliphate and other degenerate groups highlight the worst possibilities of a sponsored state religion. In order to properly fight these enemies we need to rally around the cause of reason and freedom in our civilized nations. Only secular authorities can destroy rogue Islamic elements without inciting a two-way religious war between faiths with billions of adherents. If we recreated the crusades in modern times our capacity to kill would be unparalleled.

Generally when we consider the statement to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, we think of taxes because that is the context of the story in the Bible. However, taxes are just one form of physical support that a person can lend toward the state. Your vote is infinitely more valuable than your money, because it is votes that ultimately shapes the direction of the nation. Your vote is an act of consent to follow and a command for a leader to navigate a path. By lending your time and energy toward a secular cause you can fulfill your obligation to the state, and pursue your religious aspirations on the inside where it counts. It is far better to afford the earthly powers their measures and to nurture one's soul than it is to be a conscientious objector and endanger the body. Actions taken for religious reasons that undermine the security apparatus of the state ultimately reject one's material obligations and can be regarded as nothing short of treason.


Harnessing Fear

Fear is a natural emotion, an instinct with practical uses that can preserve your life. A lot is said about fear mongering and those who profit off of fear. While it's true that some business models are built around selling preparedness supplies or security systems there's no denying that certain basics are common sense. Public Service Announcements used to make a point of reminding people of the importance of emergency kits for things like earthquakes or floods. In urban areas especially self-sufficiency and sustainability are at constant risk and overall lower than their rural counterparts. The key to utilizing fear is to not give in to panic, but instead to recognize the signals and follow your intuition.

People like to talk about the police state and living in fear, and what that says about their civilization as a whole. There seems to be a strong aversion to the militarization of the police and indications to increase security measures through departments like CSIS. Ironically, the fear of these programs and security measured is perpetrated by fear mongers who make their money by warning people about the big bad government. Logically speaking national security should match the perceived level of threat that the nation faces. As a matter of principle, we must be realistic about the fact that our domestic police forces are already well enough armed to suppress public dissent. If the government intended to oppress the people by way of force they would already have the means to do between the RCMP and the Canadian Forces.

If you consider the fact that our police are already armed well enough to suppress most of the population and we are generally comfortable with their presence, what does a soldier present that goes beyond the pale? I think that just as with guns, it is mainly a matter of familiarity. We just aren't used to seeing soldiers at checkpoints or on the city streets, so their presence can make us nervous. I don't think that many Canadians will say that they're scared of their soldiers, because we regard soldiers as the heroes willing to put their lives on the line to protect us. It seems to me that its mostly a constant bombardment of media that makes us uncomfortable about the supposed "police state".

Another part of it that can't be ignored is our ego. We like the fact that our soldiers are mostly out of sight and out of mind. We like that our government at least pretends to not be intrusive with our online affairs. It makes us feel good about ourselves when we look down on the rest of the world for being so backward and primitive that their security structure is in plain view. We much prefer cleverly hidden means of oversight and military assets that we can pull out or stow away at our convenience. Cameras looking down on us? Soldiers on the streets? Closed borders? Those things are so ugly. They totally ruin the vibe, y'know?

Freedom isn't Free

Let me say straight up that I regard the obsession with freedom as an American trait and not a Canadian one. Canada has traditionally taken a more moderate pace in its separation from the British Empire and its world affairs. If America was the pinnacle of unchecked freedom as much as could be possible in a functioning society, Canada would be the pinnacle of controlled freedom. We enjoy freedom and subscribe to the philosophy that people do better when they are pursuing their goals, but we have also kept a cool head about the realities of mankind and the role of the state. The American Constitution and the Canadian Charter differ in many ways, but the most important factor is the Notwithstanding Clause.

Without getting into too much legal mumbo jumbo, the Charter basically has a tool built into it that allows the government to supersede a number of rights and freedoms. Freedom of Speech for example, one of the most important and cherished aspects of American society, can be infringed upon by government mandate. The most noticeable example of this is in Quebec where it is used to help preserve the French language. The existence and utilization of this language within the Charter shows that our nation at its very core puts the ideals of obedience and authority before personal freedoms. We are a nation of socially conscious individuals who enjoy personal autonomy but recognize our overall responsibilities to the whole.

Our soldiers, both those of today and those of the past, have given their blood sweat and tears in order to preserve our freedom. They have gone above and beyond in order for us to be able to live in peace. However, our freedom is squandered on a daily basis by self-absorbed people who lack any sense of vision or virtue. Our soldiers are expected to put their lives on the line so that we can break the law? So we can ruin the environment? So we can continue to pollute the minds of our youth with self-destructive nihilistic messages about the futility of life?

Perhaps the most audacious element of freedom and security is our eagerness to assume the worst of the people we claim to hold in such high regard. The popular belief that our soldiers can't be trusted to watch over us more closely, and that they can't handle the responsibility that comes with increased power. They are good enough to be blown up in a desert somewhere, or slain in a cowardly attack on our soil, but they aren't good enough to stand guard in our streets. They aren't good enough to review our emails to see if we're corresponding with terrorists. They aren't good enough to maintain a strong border and protect us from outside threats. Our soldiers can give their time and energy for our freedoms, but we can't give them the benefit of the doubt, because seeing them around would be uncomfortable.

Sadly, between the cloistered religious element of our nation and blissfully ignorant youth the appropriate amount of fear toward the downward spiral of our country is unnoticed. Our people continue to stumble through the haze of smoke and superstition avoiding only the most overt cues of trouble, unaware of the blackness creeping into their vision. People are scared of guns and camo, so they ignore druggies shooting up in the street. People are scared of the government reading their internet history, so they ignore the radicalization of Muslims via Facebook or Twitter. People are scared of nationalism, so they happily allow our resources to be pawned off to world to the benefit of a few. People are scared of being called racist, so they bend over backwards to accommodate insane amounts of immigration or unreasonably naive narratives.

There is a real fear killing this country, a slow insidious poison that has you looking for all the wrong symptoms. It is guilt, it is fear of your own nature. It is the idea that you are inherently attached to sins you haven't committed, that you must bleed yourself dry to sate the world. The idea that any effort to arm and defend yourself is not the preservation of that which you love, but an attack on those who justly hate you.

Freedom isn't free. It's time we woke up to our responsibility as the stewards of a great gift bought by the blood of better men and women than ourselves. It is time that we rose to our feet as a nation and accepted the weight of armor and the responsibility of power. We can own the legacy of our forebears and do right by them in the preservation of this country and the Canadian dream. The real dream of the west that with equal parts freedom and restraint the greatest standard of living on earth can be achieved by every honest man and woman, for their children and their children's children.

Attack on Canada

Make no mistake, this is an attack.

A shooting occurred at the center of Canada today, injuring law abiding citizens and spreading fear. Authorities immediately locked down the area and at least one shooter was slain. Heroic actions being undertaken by the people we put in place to protect us, with special recognition going to Sargeant Kevin Vickers who was guarding the area. Another soldier who remains as of yet unnamed died from his wounds.

No one goes and specifically shoots at Parliament unless they're politically motivated. Just a few days ago another soldier was killed by a radicalized muslim. This is the tactic of the muslim extremists - sucker punch terrorist attacks on the innocent. For all those people out there who try to do the mental gymnastics about tasers, the value of life, and other reasons that the police or military shouldn't shoot to kill WAKE UP. This is real life not a movie. Pessimistic citizens are already lamenting how this latest attack might inconvenience them by leading to stricter security measures.

People are going to say that this doesn't have anything to do with ISSI*, and that ISII is a lone wolf group. Let me tell you something, we aren't in a war with "ISSI" or "Al-Qaeda" specifically. We don't need to collect their rosters and sort them off one by one. We're against the very idea they stand for, the dissolution of our countries and their freedom to commit crimes unchecked in their areas. A radicalized muslim who rams his car into someone is part of the greater whole we're at war with whether he has direct affiliation with ISSI or not.

( *Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. Issi, like sissy. Saves those ladies the problem of their name being smeared and calls out these punks for what they really are - people who pick on the defenseless. )

Are we without fault?

This blog isn't here to make you stupid. I'm not here to tell you to put on a swastika and march out into the streets screaming "FOR THE PEOPLE KILL THEM ALL" like some kind of post-war caricature. There have clearly been bad decisions made in Canadian foreign policy. There have also been catastrophic decisions made by the Americans, and we should hold both our politicians and theirs accountable for their decisions. We need to remain level-headed in our handling of the situation, but we need to be angry. We need to hate our enemy with a cold hatred that will systemically scrub them from the face of the earth.

Modern people in Canada have been taught not to hate. They have been taught that hate is dirty, that it's only for bad people. That's completely untrue. Nature has given us hate as a tool to fight back against those things that threaten our loves. We hate it when people hurt the innocent. We hate it when people commit hate crimes. We even hate the people that do these different things. We're supposed to. If you have family in Ottawa minding their own business and contributing to the greatness of this nation, you should hate the gunmen. As a nation we need to stop being scared of the emotional core that has defined us throughout history and gotten us through our greatest challenges. Do you really think that Vimy Ridge was won with a politically correct, sterilized pep-talk and such motivation? We must tap into the font of aggression within us and deliver decisive blows.

Accurate, thorough, discerning, merciless. Justice must be delivered for all Canadians. There is a desperate muffled cry ringing out across Canada. We are tired of being taken advantage of. We are tired of being told that we have to suck it up because of how "civilized" people act. We're sick of being the punching bag of the world and pushed around by politicians and corporations that sell off our resources to multinational corporations. We'll either succumb to the smothering of political correctness and die slowly and quietly, or we'll find our aggressive instincts and throw off the oppressors who wish us spiritually dead.

This is just another drop in the bucket.

This attack is just another headline. The casualties are just another statistic. It's not even a matter of shootings or other violent crimes. It's everything. It's the violent sex offenders being released, and then killing or raping people. It's the repulsive material they put on TV the turns preteens onto the idea of twerking. It's the fact that the economy doesn't serve the average Canadian. We're sitting on more trees than most of the world can imagine and most people can't afford a house. We're sitting on one of the biggest oil deposits and gas is still over a dollar a liter. We've got immigrants pouring in, not only physically, but through our internet as well. How does ISSI reach the extremists in our ranks? Through Twitter? That's like me being able to go and put a commercial on TV telling someone to commit terrorist attacks on Canada. Pretty ridiculous.

We can change it. We can fix the nation. Just spread the word. Tell people how you really feel. Get angry and break free of the political correctness. Feel the liberation of speaking your mind. It can be scary, but you can do it. The future of Canada depends on it.

The New Wild West

Myths of the Internet

The internet is no longer a new tool, in fact it is an everyday thing now. It used to be an esoteric network for nerds and specialists, but that's ancient history. Nowadays pretty much everyone has access to the internet or uses it frequently. It's one of those technologies that is so pervasive that it has reached almost all people, rich and poor, young and old. It's a game changer we've adapted to but not fully adapted to. There are enduring misconceptions about the internet.

The internet isn't "real"
This is one of those weird kinds of myths that hangs around from people who use things without ever learning about how they work. The lack of information is replaced with vague theories. Sometimes you see this with people who don't know how cars work. The internet is of course very real, and a physical thing. Webpages are effectively made of 1s and 0s, all of which take up space. Your hard drive has limited space for all these files. When you connect to a webpage on the internet, the computer on the other end effectively sends you that file. It's a simple way of looking at it, but that's basically how it works. Nonetheless, the different parts of the internet are tangible in various ways.

The internet is supposed to be "free"
As much a myth as a social movement, the idea of an unchecked internet is a lot like the old wild west. There was a time centuries ago where north america had a lot of lawlessness. This wasn't a design of the wild west, it was just a reality of the fledgling government's limited reach. You can see the parallels between the wild west and the internet.

The internet is a place
Part of the emerging internet was the attention of movies and rampant speculation. Imaginations went wild with what the internet was and could be. During the 80s many examples came out of people navigating the internet with virtual reality. Later, the Matrix came out with its concept of an overarching virtual reality that played off the same idea. This formed the enduring image of the internet as a place instead of a network. A type of geographical area of its own that is above and beyond national borders.

Problems of the Wild West

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the wild west. Among the problems of the wild west we can see some parallels with internet issues. Lawlessness, abuse, extortion, and unchecked anonymity are all recurring problems. To use a very relevant internet concern we can look at feminist issues like rampant misogyny.

Opinions on what is misogynistic tend to differ even among feminists. There are feminists that think that prostitution should be a woman's choice and can be empowering, for example. Others think that all prostitution is the exploitation of women and inherently misogynistic. The Wild West featured blatant prostitution, and it could be argued that the internet features it as well. Lawlessness and lack of regulation permitted people to force, coerce, or choose to participate in various misogynistic activities.

Another prevalent problem in the Wild West was unbridled violence. Violence on the internet is a lot rarer than violence throughout history, but it exists. Just as the internet appears to us as a facsimile of the real world, violence on the internet has a similar bent. You wouldn't be able to say "fuk u im gona kill u" to someone in person because you would be held accountable for saying it. Even if you decided to mail a letter like that, you would eventually be held accountable when people looked up who lived at the return address. If you sent the letter or threat anonymously it would only compound the wrongness of the activity. Sending threats to people is illegal activity for obvious reasons.

How were the problems solved?

The problems of lawlessness are solved with laws. Regulating the internet is the key to solving its various problems and encouraging civility on the net. Each country will have different standards and thoughts on what is and isn't acceptable. To that end, we should pursue the nationalization of the internet. Websites are similar to establishments in that they serve the public, with servers sending information to personal computers. Websites should be held accountable for the information they host and the discourse they facilitate.

We have laws against different kinds of behavior. If you ran an establishment that allowed people to break those laws, you'd be held accountable. By connecting internet users and their identity to their ISP we can encourage personal accountability for internet usage. Anonymous postings or comments should be restricted until society is able to act maturely. Forming an "Internet User ID" for internet users would allow us to fight against the evils of the internet and bring meaningful consequences to those who go against our cultural expectations.

Internet User Identification can put an end to anonymous threats, anonymous exploitation, and a lack of sustainable personal accountability. Websites can be made to uphold the standards we expect of them and people in our society as providers of services and as places of communication. We can mandate that ISPs form more reasonable frameworks that take into account user identity, which can stop the epidemic of teens producing and distributing child pornography. There is no good reason that minors should be running unchecked across the internet when we have the capacity to enforce the law.

Fixing the internet and making it a workable part of mainstream society rests with you. Use the power of your vote to support a candidate that supports internet reform.

Gender and Homosexuality

I feel like I should get ahead of the gay train while I still can. ( is there even a gay train??? )

Well, I've stated my position on men and women in general. I've stated my support for the nuclear family and a strong middle class. What about gays and transgendered types? What does fascism think of gays? You might be surprised to learn that contemporary fascism is actually split on many key subjects like sexuality, racism, and the kinds of rules that should exist.

There's obviously a strong emphasis on the family and traits that have been regarded as masculine. Fascists admire power, virility, and healthy competition. It's kind of a man's man type of political ideology. That doesn't leave a lot of room for homosexuals, because gay men tend to exhibit feminine characteristics. Moreover, the last mainstream representation of fascism existed in a time when homosexuality was reviled worldwide due to religious beliefs. For that reason its easy to see fascism's relationship with homosexuality in a tainted light.

Let me be honest, I consider homosexuality to be problematic to some degree.

As someone with an interest in social engineering, homosexuality exists as a sort of hiccup. You want to be able to make consistent and simple, far-reaching decisions or structures for a population when you're building it up. More than that, our bodies are designed by nature to be self-replicating. As Stefan Molyneux tends to say, your toes are there to help you make baby toes. Homosexuality is among many other factors that can disrupt the process of sexual reproduction. As I want every virtuous, law abiding citizen to be able to share in the celebration of life that is having children and continuing their genetic legacy I consider this a fundamental flaw.

Yes, yes, there's adoption and all those other nice alternatives. Without trying to invalidate anyone's relationship, I'll just say what many are loathe to admit - its just not the same. That's not to say its intrinsically worse or anything, it's just different. However, the fact remains that everyone can adopt. That means that a regular couple still has more options for having children than a homosexual couple. That strikes me as a problem.

What about emerging technologies? Technology is a fickle thing, and I relate it toward the adoption concern to some degree. While you can have more genetically authentic children with our advanced technologies, those technologies are very advanced and expensive. This blocks lower income couples from being able to afford to have children where a regular couple would be able to. The same problem exists for people with other reproductive issues. At the risk of sounding a little bit crazy, there's also the fact that civilizations can collapse at the drop of a hat. All it takes is one nuclear war or plague and the next thing you know we might lose a lot of our gains.

What does this mean for gays?

Well, for better or worse as far as I'm concerned it means "not a lot". I regard homosexuality as a social health issue to be resolved by medicine. Homosexuals should be given the right to marry under the same state authority as other couples. You can call it a "civil union" or whatever you want. Religious people can keep marriage if they'd like as a religious institution, because it doesn't really matter. Being married under the sight of god and the state aren't always the same thing. Religiously motivated polygamous marriages for example are marriages to the people in them, but they aren't recognized by the state or afforded the rights and protections of the state.

Homosexuals are definitively born gay, and that is beyond their control. Since they are born gay and it isn't a choice, the state is obligated to extend them special considerations the same way we make concessions for other people with disabilities or difficulties. The answer isn't to deny them the fundamental right to form long term romantic relationships protected by the state. Nor is it to sanctify the concept of homosexuality itself. We should be investing resources in the research of human sexuality so that one day we can isolate the factors that create homosexuality, and phase them out. This would be a gradual process spanning generations, but it would inevitably happen. The dwindling of gays would be a sad farewell to some, but ultimately in the best interest of society. More and more straight people would be born and things would eventually become homogenous.

To be clear, that doesn't mean forced abortions, gulags, executions, or anything like that. I'm simply talking about the capacity to engender desired traits in fetuses. I believe that our capacity for medical breakthroughs makes this an inevitable. The same general concept I think applies to transgendered people. One day we'll know how "gender" and sexuality are formed in the brain, and armed with that knowledge we'll be able to steer people toward the majority state well before they are born.

What about the morality?

Homosexuality and homosexual acts aren't the exact same thing. Homosexuality is the attraction toward members of the same sex. Homosexual acts are sex acts between members of the same sex. You can, however, be "straight" and still perform a homosexual sex act. The morality of different actions is determined on a case to case basis. Cheating on someone is immoral, and raping someone in prison is immoral. Consensual sex between two adults isn't immoral. What dictates the morality of homosexual acts is the motivation behind them. If its an expression of love between two people designed to benefit them both, it's fine.

That's not to say that homosexuality or the "gay agenda" as we know it in this day and age is what I'm advocating. In fact, ideally, the homosexuality of a fascist state would be completely unrecognizable to the average person. It isn't about having raging, garish parades of indecency in city streets. To be fair to gays, I wouldn't support that for straight people either. It's much more preferable that people be quietly gay, and, quietly straight. We can return a sense of decency to our society that reinforces positive relationships and attributes without demonizing people.

The value of men and women

What does a fascist think about women?

It's probably fairly clear that most fascists throw their support behind the middle class and the nuclear family. The traditional view of this is one man, one woman, together in a household with their children. It's a very effective unit and foundational to nationhood. In these units the traditional role of a woman is to have children and raise them while the man provides for the family.

Fascists actually put a great deal of respect and attention toward women, as far as ideology is concerned. The school of thought could be safely regarded as chivalric, or simply socially conservative. Given that fascism is a collection of personal convictions the details vary from person to person. At least generally speaking however, fascism is a meritocratic ideology. For that reason it can advance the thoughts, concerns, and dreams of women.

What makes women so valuable?

The primary value of a woman is her reproductive capability. BOOM. Heads just exploded, but let me explain. It's really quite elementary and something we all understand, but something that has become twisted in modern discussion. A woman is defined by having a vagina and ovaries. A man is defined by having a penis and testicles. The value or main factor of a woman is her reproductive ability, and the value of a man is mainly his reproductive capability.

However, women are obviously more than just their reproductive organs. Women are people, the same way that men are people. What we should really be doing in this discussion is dialing back man and woman to mean their original meaning, which is male and female. Before we had all the fancy scientific talk to come up with male and female it was just common to say man and woman. If you replace a lot of statements indicating woman with female they are a lot less offensive. What is the main value of a female? Her reproductive capability. That seems like a relatively inoffensive thing to say. We all kind of get that.

Personhood

As we all know, women are people. People is just plural for person. A person is essentially in the brain, affected by the body but not particularly defined by it. All people are persons before they are men or women, which is what makes fundamental changes to legal definitions so effective. By changing a legal document from man or woman to persons, you can effectively benefit pretty much everyone. What is the primary value of a person? That's really more of an individual choice, but people will generally agree that a person is valuable when they show virtuous traits. The value of people comes from them helping us, making us feel good, bringing love and joy, that kind of thing.

You're a person first, because of the composition of your brain and your thoughts and feelings. After determining who you are as a person and your personal value, you move down ( from top to bottom, it's easy! ) to your genitals. You're a person first, then you're a man, or a woman. Your reproductive capability then defines your value as a male or female - a man or woman. An easy way to remember this is to go by the handy terms manhood and womanhood. Manhood refers to a man's penis or other predominantly male traits, and womanhood refers to the vagina and predominantly female traits.

Personality and sex aren't usually completely separated, and have some overlap. However, you can make choices in your life or be born with imbalances. It's really up to you, because you have the freedom to be. You're a woman and you choose to be a fighter pilot? That's great! Your value as a person is still top notch, even if your value as a woman is reduced. You aren't going to be able to fly many jets if you're pregnant right? The same thing applies to men. If you want to be a celibate monk for the rest of your life you're still a pretty valuable person, but your value as a man is significantly reduced.

Speaking the same language

I find the biggest obstacle to resolving disputes is miscommunication. There's a lot of talk about men's rights and women's rights these days. A lot of the confusion seems to stem from arguing abstracts or trying to force abstract concepts. Do I think that women should be paid the same amount as men for labor jobs? Of course not. I think all people should be paid the same amount for labor jobs, relative to their ability.

Are men advantaged in specific fields like manual labor? Certainly. Women are advantaged in other fields, and that's completely fine. The sexes are designed by nature to complement one another. That doesn't mean that a woman can't forgo aspects of her womanhood and pursue a labor job. All it means is that she has to stay competitive in that field as a person, making whatever concessions are necessary in other aspects of life. The same thing applies to men. I don't expect a person to retain their fighter pilot job if they choose to indulge their feminine aspect and get pregnant. I don't expect a person to retain their role as a religious leader if they choose to break their vows and start having sex.

***
A note on my illustration, I chose "beauty" and "strength" because they are the most common way of regarding the sexes. Men typically act as resource gathers, and women as caregivers. ( replace men and women with male and female if you want! )

As far as gender is concerned, I consider gender to be a matter of personality and personhood. As we continue to erode the traditional expectations of the sexes and allow people the freedom to act on their personality, gender continues to lose meaning. What is a gender if there are no gender roles? A large part of meritocratic thought is allowing people the opportunity to deft expectations. A fundamental of meritocratic thought is giving people the opportunity to prove themselves. 

Are you evil?

Am I evil? Are you evil?


Growing up I saw a lot of negative depictions of fascism and fascist characters, which at the time I didn't understand were only caricatures. We've all seen the Indiana Jones and other movies or video games with Nazis or Nazi equivalents. They are fallback stock villains that are iconic to Western culture, for good reason. They were after all the most relatable enemy we faced during some of the most formative years of our nation. For their part, the ground-level Nazis were regarded as stalwart combatants and respected as well as feared. It was a matter of fighting a capable enemy. Hated by many surely, but begrudgingly respected as well. This reality rarely made its way to the big screen where Nazis were much more two-dimensional.

The lack of honest information around the Nazis as a young person led me to question myself early on. There were things about their depictions that resonated with me fairly strongly. From the striking uniforms and beautiful blondes to the lack of hesitancy, the confidence, and the efficiency they seemed heroic in their own way. Reconciling the "evil" people with their attractive qualities was at that time impossible for me. As I grew older I started to be exposed to more realistic and mature depictions and expressions of fascism. I started to recognize the truth behind what I had been told. Not only in mainstream movies, but by common people and slanted history.

It wasn't until I was an adult that I got to the top of the pyramid so to speak, in terms of Nazi hierarchy. Inevitably when someone criticizes Nazi ideology they arrive at the leader and inventor himself, Adolf Hitler. Just like everyone else I grew up thinking of the man as synonymous with the devil, or the pinnacle of evilness. A mass murdering psychopath that used fantastic oratory skills to weave some mind controlling magic over the German people and drive them to world war. This is of course an immature view of a person, one that persists almost a century later among adults and mainstream media. Lacking evidence to the contrary and the technology to actually review the life of the person, it's entirely reasonable to think that Hitler could have endured centuries of infamy. How much myth surrounds the man? How much love and hatred? How much fear of ghosts does our society have?

Avatar of Evil

As Hitler was a proponent of propaganda, he would have been proud to see the depth and strength of his legacy. Men and women who have never met him are scared of him. Just as he was seen as a savior to his own people, he has transcended mortality in mainstream society and become regarded as a force of nature. Hitler was never a child, never cried or sucked on a breast! Didn't have parents or siblings, love, lust, pain, fear, or much anything besides a maniacal drive to expunge Jews from the earth. He just came out of the woods one day slinging magic and turned out his Nazism against the world!

I'll make no apologies for the industrial scale of murder that Hitler endorsed. I'm not him, nor do I have any personal crusade against Jews or any other race. I think that his methods and fascination with certain demographics were ineffectual and misplaced. The crimes of the Nazi regime rest with those that committed them and do not reflect upon me or my beliefs. There's a reason that I identify myself as a neo-fascist and not a neo-nazi. As a matter of principle I am not opposed to the industrialization of execution or genocide. The scope of the act does not matter, ranging from a single execution of a guilty party to the extermination of an entire guilty group. The crucial matter is culpability. I do not feel as though looking at the evidence a strong enough claim was made against various demographics.

It's largely a moot point anyway when you stop to think about it. You can't really prove the guilt of that number of people realistically, and executing indiscriminately is profoundly immoral. If in some sci-fi universe we met an alien race that explicitly meant to kill us all I wouldn't be opposed to their total destruction. If every single Jew had been yelling in the streets their desire to kill all Germans, I wouldn't be opposed to them being executed or forcibly expelled from the country. To put it in a modern context, I'm not opposed to the complete destruction of ISIS because they explicitly state their desire to kill us. Killing every single member of ISIS would mean killing thousands of people, but I wouldn't bat an eye at it because I can unflinchingly support the death of those who mean to kill us. The Jews aren't ISIS though, and didn't make those proclamations, which is what makes the Holocaust immoral.

To me, it's important to divorce the actions of individuals from their motivations. If we don't, then we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. For example, if we catch a killer and say that he is evil and killing is evil, we risk losing our capacity to kill. Killing in and of itself isn't "evil". We kill many things, from plants to animals, including people. What's important is the context. The criminal killers we convict are dealt with because their motivations are evil. A murderer who kills someone just for fun is completely different from a police officer killing that same murderer. Both the police officer and the criminal are murderers when you really get down to the nitty gritty of it.

To bring this around to the main point, Hitler wasn't evil because he endorsed killing people. Hitler was evil because he endorsed killing innocent people. Hitler was a racist in times where race was much more important then it is now. He existed in a time when religious and scientific authorities alike could validate many of his claims. Even the USA who fought him used segregated units of black soldiers, showing just how far and wide the thoughts of the day were spread. This isn't a defense of Hitler, because as we know today race is minimally important. This means that he was wrong about his racism and his actions taken to support it or enforce it were wrong. What it does to make this observation is help put the entire situation into context. By recognizing that his views on race were wrong - that he had the wrong motivations - we can see how our own actions can be made ethically.

We aren't evil unless we choose to be.

You aren't an evil person if you support national security at the expense of a few personal freedoms. You aren't evil if you support the death penalty instead of penalizing society as a whole through prison funding. You aren't evil if you support the censorship of crass material. You aren't evil if you support militarization and the appropriate use of force. It is only by choosing to use these things immorally for personal gain at the expense of the people that you become evil. It is only be allowing your personal grudges to guide your use of programs and laws that you give up your organization to evil.

Antisemitism is wrong. It's irrational, weak, and counter-productive. Racism is much the same in the sense that any of the issues underlying race are trivial. We have the inborn capacity to overcome basic biological cues regarding race. Many people with earnest desires to do good for their nation have been misled by the personal misgivings of a few. There are holdovers among neo-Nazis and other authoritarians that have no place in modern society. The concepts have been proven wrong or unnecessary. You're allowed to be uncomfortable with foreign arrangements or people, but you need to draw on your inner strength to overcome this feeling. The concept of an authoritarian society that wants to unite its people under a single banner cannot rely on petty, base discrimination.

For those we wish subjugate, kill, or banish we must make a compelling case. Those we seek to punish must first be convicted with evidence. We must provide an empirical motivation that cannot be regarded as immoral, but instead is both lawful and virtuous. People across the nation and the world over must look upon our motivations and actions and find no discernible fault. Not everyone in the world is going to agree with our way of doing things, but they won't have good reasons to call us evil.

I'm not evil, you're not evil. Let's stand together in the open, in the light, under the scrutiny of moral law and reason. We can do great things for our people and the world if we have the will to do so. We must absolve the nature of our being and overcome our weaknesses. Our cause is not one of suffering and death, it is one of joy and life. Though we may be driven at times to take harsh action against those who would threaten us, we are separate from those attackers because of the purity of our motivation. We are justified in our actions only so long as we stay true to virtue. It is virtue that truly unites us above all other considerations.

One People. One Nation. One Leader.

Money and Power

Disdain for Economics

Money is a tool used by people to represent a set value of wealth. Money serves the same role in general society as chips do at a casino. As a tool, money is meant to supplement life, not be central to it. Things like food, water, and family are all core necessities. Money makes getting these things easier but in and of itself provides no real enduring sustenance. It's important to keep in mind that the economy must exist as a tool to serve the nation, not as the central pursuit of the nation.

The average person can be made to work for free in a variety of ways, or give up resources as necessary. We are familiar with many ubiquitous forms of this idea. Taxes and charity are both examples of people giving up resources for the greater good. Volunteering and community service are more ways that a common person can contribute to the whole outside of money itself. What it common among these things is that they represent a person forgoing the acquisition or hoarding of wealth to the benefit of others. Wealth is simply a collection of resources or assets that an individual owns.

Adolf Hitler once said, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." I find this line of thinking to be particularly well suited to the process of serving a nation and its people as a whole. It's the role of the state to safeguard the general wellbeing and communal wealth of the citizenry. This job requires flexibility and adaptability by its very nature. The most successful economic qualities of an authoritarian state excelling in its role are the capacity to provide a safety harness for the middle class as well as the willingness to cut loose those who would drag the system down. The difference between a safety harness and a safety net is that the harness provides protection to contributing individuals or families, while the net simply catches everything.

Since economics are a tool meant to support the livelihood of the nation no true design can be gained by observing economics alone. Economics alone are meaningless unless compared to the social programs and movements that are also present in the society. Capitalism for example is a rather meaningless designation until you consider the laws ( or lack thereof ) surrounding it.

So the answer is "I don't know." ?

The answer is to take a step back and look at the important question, which is, what purpose will our economy serve? Firstly, any economical considerations taken by the state must ensure that the basic requirements of the citizenry are met. Any economical structure that does not provide food, water, and shelter to every contributing member of society does not meet the standard. Nor do structures that enable or encourage dead weight, rampant corruption, and waste. By showing a bravery and willingness to set aside common conventions we become free to pursue alternative ideas.

Central banking for example, doesn't need to based around concepts of constant inflation like our current method. Excessive interest rates on loans don't need to exist. Just as a minimum wage can exist, so can a salary cap or maximum wage. By introducing a finite unit to represent our wealth we can ensure a limited amount of money to go around, encouraging lean government and national spending. The redistribution of wealth and power is necessary in ways that will unify the nation toward a common goal.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Catchy labels, but inaccurate for fascists.

Most oftentimes that the topic of abortion is brought up, people are divided into two broad camps. The pro-life camp generally advocates for restrictions on abortion. The pro-choice camp predictably supports a woman's choice to have an abortion. As with many other things in our modern democracy it really comes down to a matter of votes and numerical supremacy. Due to this fact both sides are driven away from a nuanced middle ground stance and toward their opposing bases. This succeeds in inflaming opposites and creates a volatile atmosphere in which self-destructive conflict ( for the general population ) is inevitable. What's more, the two camps become increasingly marginalized and fail to adequately serve the middle class which is the heart of the nation.

The attacks and criticisms on each side similarly become points of camp personality, and thus are predictable and ultimately self-serving. A person that is pro-life generally makes attacks in a tribal fashion against pro-choice individuals. These attacks won't serve the middle class as much as they will gratify one's personal convictions or demonize one's enemy. The same is true in reverse by pro-choicers. I'm not going to bother exploring the full nature of militants or extremists on either side because I find them too incendiary. Fascists typically support the beneficial aspects of competition or conflict, but it's always important to avoid being suicidal in the pursuit.

What kinds of arguments, and how is the modern fascist different?

The most common arguments against the pro-life stance seem to be that they are religiously driven, the definition of when human life begins, and contradictions in belief or actions. I'll break a few of these down in the general sense and let you fill in the rest yourself. We're looking at basic framework here.

Religiously Driven
Generally speaking the most vocal people or organizations that rally against abortion are based in religion. This is common both due to geopolitical factors like the prevalence of Christianity in the West and the tendency of mainstream religions to appeal to moral life choices regarding the preservation of life. Fascists tend to regard religion warily where it makes broad statements about what should be done, because it can oppose the interests of the state. For that reason the modern fascist is much more likely to look to secular answers. For the common person who is agnostic, atheist, or not deeply committed to organized religion they can see a reason to abandon the cause for fear of being counted as a member of that religion.

Where Human Life Begins
People who oppose the pro life movement tend to claim that human life doesn't really count until late in the pregnancy. Pro-lifers disagree with their own variety of dates and guidelines as to what counts as a human life. In order to find the real answer it's better to take a step back and look at the whole picture with our scientific understanding. There is a strong state interest in preserving the lives of would-be citizens even at the expense or inconvenience of a mother. Human fetuses aren't inhuman, they are an early stage part of the human life cycle. The notion that a human being is only a human once it exits the womb is antiquated and relies mainly on discredited superstitions.

Contradictory Behaviors
A commonly used observation against the pro-life camp is an inconsistency around the idea of supporting life. One example is someone who is supposedly "pro-life" but also supports the death penalty. Another example is a person who is "pro-life" but doesn't support social programs that add value to life. Here the main problem is labels, and a widespread assumption that every person opposed to widespread abortion is some kind of religious zealot. "Pro-Life" is a label, and as I've pointed out inadequately serves the average person. To use myself as an example, and fascists in general, I'm typically an opponent of abortion but a proponent of the death penalty. This is a nuanced approach toward measuring the value of human life.


The other side, the Pro-Choicers, essentially face inversions of the above arguments by their polar opposite. An assertion that Pro-Choicers lack morality, that human life is spiritually sacred, and that abortion is ultimately selfish are a few common arguments.

Pro-Choice is Morally Bankrupt
This argument tends to come from the religious base of the Pro-Life camp. It comes either in the form of self-gratifying statements of superiority, or accusations. A Christian might claim that their religion makes them a moral authority, or someone might simply say that abortion constitutes murder. The morality of abortion is important to fascists but not the deciding factor. Fascists are preoccupied with pragmatic approaches to moral issues like abortion. If you lack an adequate population to serve the state's needs, then abortion is largely counterproductive. If you live in an overpopulated area and need to enact policies such as the One Child Policy to benefit the whole, then that type of approach should be pursued.

Human Life is Spiritually Sacred
A concept relied on by the Pro-Life camp is that human life is ultimately sacred. This can be used to state that human life begins at conception, or to say that all abortions are inherently immoral regardless of circumstances. It serves to disarm the practical reasons that one might pursue an abortion, such as in instances of rape or incest, and by lacking nuance punishes the average person. Spirituality is very complex and lacks scientific basis, so assertions of the overall value of all human life is completely arbitrary.

Abortion is Selfish
Pro-Choice supporters broadly speaking defend women's rights, individuality, and choice. Detractors choose to paint this in the light of selfishness. Rights and freedoms, personal responsibility, and free will speak to a variety of other extended topics. Is it ultimately selfish though? Each case is completely different, so saying the decision is inherently selfish is bound to be wrong a certain number of times. As a modern fascist I prefer to reconcile the matter by dialing back the clock to look at the initial choice. I am a pro-choice individual, in that I respect and hold a woman accountable for her choice to have consensual sex aware of the risks and repercussions.


Well that was a bit of reading, so what's the right answer?

I'm not going to give you the world-spanning definitive answer on the subject of abortion, which is quite complex and faceted. What I will do is make a general guideline that I feel is appropriate. As one of few open neo-fascists I feel comfortable dictating this as what should be followed as the baseline for neo-fascism moving forward. This guideline assumes that sexual activity has occurred between two consenting adults and makes specific notes as necessary.

-Permitted in cases of non-consensual sexual activity ( including statutory rape/coercion )
-Permitted in cases of incest
-Permitted in cases of high risk to the mother's life
-Permitted in cases of extreme development issues that would be reasonably assumed to permanently impoverish the parents or encumber the state
-Permitted in cases of  extreme drought, famine, etc.

Furthermore, in addition to outlining the appropriate uses of abortion and restrictions on it, the government has responsibilities. If these responsibilities aren't being fulfilled a citizen can reasonably assume that the state has failed to uphold its role, and the restrictions are thus void.

-The state must provide robust prenatal and medical care
-The state must provide adequate education for the child
-The state must provide reasonable economic opportunity for the mother
-The state must provide alternative parenting options ( e.g state orphanage )


Women, just as men, need to be held accountable for their actions and choices. Many of the issues faced by couples can be minimized by restoring the prominence of the nuclear family. Sexism exists on both sides of the debate on reproductive rights, and the actions between two consenting adults should include both of them. Any system that places the power and decision making solely in the hands of one party disrupts the other. By elevating the state and its sanctions above the individual, pairs are able to work together to a mutually beneficial outcome. Every state-endorsed pregnancy should be recognized as the result of a choice between two consenting individuals.

We can ensure the choice to have sex, even to plan pregnancy. We can also ensure that prospective citizens aren't prematurely destroyed. We can ensure that the decision to have a child isn't the end of a person's ambitions. We can ensure that middle class families have the opportunity to grow our nation. We can ensure that a life of state parenthood is competitive and healthy.

Men, Women, and Tragedy

The dust has settled.

It has been awhile since the last misogynistic killing spree, at least in terms of the mainstream consciousness. Violence against women exists everywhere and in myriad forms, which is supported only by an extreme and ostracized minority. I want to focus on the underlying issue between MRAs and Feminists when it comes to the role of each sex in society and the domestic tension regarding youth relationships.

It is my belief that fundamentally, men and women have always had differing views on the issue of sex due simply to the engineering of our bodies reproductively speaking. To be blunt, men reproduce as a side effect of experiencing pleasure, and women experience pleasure as a side effect of reproduction. If you take a man and a woman out of the context of a stabilized society with the technology of contraception sex is more of a risk for the female. It is only by introducing factors like the birth control pill or condom that we can bring sexual equality between men and women further from their root form and closer to a synthesized middle ground. It is no coincidence in my mind that the primary methods of contraception used play into both of these. Condoms mitigate a man's pleasure and the pill mitigates a woman's reproduction.

Armed with that idea we can safely say that the concept of mutually beneficial sex is not only possible, but preferable. Nature affords this on an irregular basis in and of itself. You CAN get pregnant pretty much any time you have sex, but you won't always. We avoid teaching this fact because the absence of repercussions can encourage risky behavior that we want to dissuade, and the topic of sexuality is most often relegated to youth issues. Not many people feel as though grown adults need comprehensive sex education despite the fact that clearly individuals are falling through the cracks. By circling around to the point of the irregularity ( but inevitability, barring medical conditions ) of sex we can see that contraceptives aren't actively working against nature. Rather, contraceptives are an artificial way of creating a scenario that is already naturally occurring, which is ideal. It's only the fact that we need to use tools to rig the game in our favor that causes the experience to be something less than its naturally occurring form - much the same way that you can engineer a relationship that somehow pales in comparison to a spontaneous one.

What does reproduction have to do with MRAs and Feminists?

Speaking from the perspective of a man, I can sympathize to some degree with young men who are feeling neglected or bitter. There were times when I was younger that I felt much the same way, due to my own overwhelming ignorance of female sexuality. The idea that women choose the "asshole" instead of the "nice guy" used to grate on me the same way it grates on many young men, sometimes disastrously. My ignorance didn't stem from a place of willfulness or hatred, I just simply didn't know. In that desert of self-doubt and anger I remember an important moment, an oasis of knowledge.

It was simple, almost silly really looking back on it. I was in a math class and somehow we'd gotten onto the topic of men and women, though as a teenager it was really more a conversation of boys and girls. At one point I lamented the fact that women didn't seem interested in guy's that would actually take care of them. My teacher told me I was wrong, that eventually women would come around to what they really wanted. That was a typical thing that an adult would say and was less impacting than what one woman in the class said. Despite her being our peer age-wise, she spoke confidently on the subject with rare maturity. She said with a matter-of-fact attitude that she didn't care about guys who showed off and that she wanted to find someone who could help her as a partner.

At that time, what I had just experienced went over my head. It wasn't until well later that I had an epiphany, one that took that puzzle piece from my memory and put it all together. The issue of "nice guys" and "assholes" isn't a sexuality issue, it's a maturity issue! Immature women want immature men, and bitter "nice guys" aren't really mature men, they're actually even more immature than assholes. A mature woman wants a man that will care for her, care for her children, and help her grow as a person in the journey of life. An immature woman wants a guy that shows off, one that is full of bravado, one that is almost a bully of sorts. The man she is after needs to be on or above her level in the general totem pole, and has to show it. Men by contrast are always trying to prove and upgrade, wanting someone either at their level or above it. This is the nature of choosers vs provers.

A bitter nice guy who can't step up to the plate shows his immaturity by lacking the confidence to engage in the challenges of youthful competition. Either due to inability or unwillingness this individual immaturely criticizes the natural process. Common among these types of men is the fact that although they do not commit to the process of measurement and hierarchy, they retain a sense of expectancy toward women. Just because a boy doesn't acknowledge his place in the totem pole doesn't mean he's about to settle for a girl lower than him on it. This is a volatile combination, as girls will be selecting for people with characteristics the individual doesn't possess. What's more is an even more important point, mature women will be selecting from individuals who have completed this process, not those who have avoided it.

Wait, what does that statement mean?

The difference between a bitter nice guy that feminists complain about and a genuinely nice guy is one of maturity, both sexually and as a person. A genuinely nice guy doesn't expect sex from a woman, but is subtly aware of its potential. Just because if you were placed in a romantic situation with your friend and you would share chemistry doesn't mean that if you aren't romantically involved the friendship is pointless. A true man can at once be aware of a woman's body and be friends with her. This is because the genuine nice guy has healthy self esteem and confidence, and thus doesn't feel the pressing need to inject sex into the relationship. The genuine nice guy is open and aware of sexual opportunity, but doesn't actively seek to make it happen.

The much maligned "nice guy" lacks this self esteem and confidence. For this type of person, measurements of self-worth are made at the expense of women as a whole. By not taking part in the process at the appropriate time ( generally high school ) this individual becomes a bitter, somewhat dangerous and caustic element of adulthood. By avoiding the learning and maturing process this individual has failed to build the foundation that women require. Now, this person has a pressing and invasive need to prove themselves and actively seeks out sexual activity in relationships that otherwise would have been passive. The reason that the alleged "nice guy" hates the friend zone is because it represents a perceived sexually sterile atmosphere where they can't get what they desperately crave. To call this misogynistic is a bit of an understatement, but it's important to understand that this kind of misogyny stems from lack of self-worth and overall self-hatred, not a genuine hatred of women. Though it can turn into a pathological hated toward women as agents or representatives of that failure the fault will always be on that individual, not women.

What can we do?

The good news is that as far as healthy mature people go, not a lot. Despite what a lot of people say the average man and woman are actually pretty good to each other, whether sex is involved or not. The bad news is that for the immature or unhealthy, there aren't any quick fixes. People with low self esteem or confidence need to get professional help. Communities need to ensure common-sense sex education, either from public education or at home. Not only in the rudimentary tools our bodies use to reproduce, but the socio-economic and personal realities of romantic relationships. Not everyone matures at the same rate, so we need to make sure we remain available and committed toward healthy relationships in our personal lives.

Hey you, yes, YOU!

If you are one of those men who is too scared to commit and you're reading this, I want to tell you, don't do anything drastic! You hear it a lot that there's a light at the end of the tunnel. You have your whole life ahead of you. Well, all of that stuff is true. Do you know how many of the most successful actors in the world with amazing women had a terrible time with girls when they were younger? Do you know how many of the people you want to emulate are actually shy or bashful in person? The glamorized, polished scenes you see on TV or in the movies are most often well practiced interactions between people who have gotten comfortable with each other. The smooth pickup lines and flawless sex acts are generally the result of practice, and more importantly, fantasy.

Here's my advice, as a man. Go out there and get your ass kicked. Just suck it up and feel comfortable with failure. There's going to be an immature guy who feels like he has to push you around to show he's strong. Fight back, not to win or to hurt anyone, but just to make the test genuine and to defend yourself. Try out for the local sports teams and either score big or get smashed. Take a test and ace it or fail it. I guarantee you you'll immediately start seeing a difference in the way the women around you look at you. Women are choosers, observers, designed to be keenly aware of the social order. If you commit to the process of selection you might be a 1, a 5, or a 10. You're going to attract the attention of 1s, 5s, and 10s respectively.

Set your ego aside with your immature, unproven, absolutely unacceptable expectations and man up. If you're reading this and you're feeling angry or ashamed, good. That means you aren't lost to us yet. You aren't that guy who is so deep in his own egocentric fantasy that he shrugs off all criticisms. Those are the guys who in the world of sexual attraction claim to be undefeated, because they've never actually tried before. Those are the black holes that are going to self-destruct and hurt other people in the process. Don't be like that. Don't look at women like you deserve to pick and choose them just because you want to inflate your ego. Women pick and choose you. That's life, that's reality, and you're better served by embracing it. Give them a reason to choose you. Lose a fight? Go learn some boxing or something, so next time someone tries to mug you and your girlfriend you knock him out. Get tackled? Practice until you're the best, and the cheerleaders can't keep their hands off you. Fail a test? Study until you've got the highest scores and those girls with the glasses are somehow suddenly interested in you.

Don't fake being better. Don't wish you were better. Don't settle for less and develop a grudge against someone. Be better. Respect yourself, and respect women as a result.

Outrage and our manipulative corporate overlords.

Artificial shortage.


Man, it sure is delicious. That feeling of having something rare and the anger toward its rarity. That bittersweet combination that compels you to BUY BUY BUY. What am I talking about? Duh, it's eggnog season! Every year this time comes around when you can get your hands on this delicious beverage, but only for a limited time! It just has to be done, my rampant unchecked consumerism will settle for nothing less.

I've heard you can actually get it year-round or something like that. Not sure who these wizards are or what secret labs they find this magical concoction in, but I automatically regard the claim with suspicion. There's no way the merciless dairy tyrants would allow their scheme to be undermined. I've also heard about people who literally put it in the freezer or whatever and drink it in the middle of summer. Freaky and unnatural if you ask me!

Man this stuff is terrible.

It's so good it's bad. Or so bad it's good. I can't tell which to be 100% honest. All I know is that I wait for it every year and then pour a super tall glass of it. I'd say around 2-3 gulps in I start feeling like I've made a terrible mistake and eye the rest of the glass like "DEAR GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?". You keep drinking it though because its delicious and you don't want to waste it. By the end you feel queasy but satisfied and stow away the carton... where it hides silently, haunting your thoughts. You really want more at some point but the lingering taste reminds you of how truly gross it was in its own way.

Just looking at the glass, it's impossible not to feel the film on your tongue. Why do you have to swallow about 3-4 times before your mouth is normal again? Egg nog is awesome but I dislike having to rinse my glass immediately every time I'm done having a swig. You can't even just relax and put it down until you go to the kitchen later. The torture continues.

Speaking of torture, what's the deal with eggnog based drinks? There's always that one person that suggests the good ol' rum + eggnog combo. I say "good ol'" in the same sense as I talk about drinking gin. People say its awesome and I want to like it but... it's just so gross. Just look at the way the rum and the eggnog immediately separate as if to say "no why what are you doing". Then you're expected to drink that and let it curdle in your stomach. And you will, because everyone is doing it, and it's part of the gauntlet of fall/winter culinary experiences you're going to subject yourself to. Just like soggy bread ( stuffing ) and gelatinous fruit ( cue the fight to the death over what kinds of cranberries to have ).

...

Really why do you have to have two bowls of the exact same food, but with different textures? Isn't that weird?

This seems pretty off-topic for this blog.

Hey! Not every fight for the fabric of society and virtue is to the death. Sometimes you've just got to grapple with the small things in life. There's hundreds of little things that gang up on people during the holiday seasons. Eggnog is just another delicious, delicious enemy. Don't forget that your fellow citizens from all walks of life are going to be having the same family arguments, bills, socks for christmas, family out of town, etc. Give to the food bank if you can, do something nice, don't squabble too much at Thanksgiving. Let politics watch from the sidelines or at the very least, be solely productive.

Oh, and go get eggnog while you still can! It'll all be gone before you know it!