Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Do Not Adjust Your Set

Due to family and work commitments, things have been very quiet over here at Reach. Posts will be infrequent (well... more so, anyway) over the next couple of weeks as I'm due to take a couple of trips to various places. Tales of wine, women, and song will surely follow. Thanks for stopping by, if you have comments or questions then be assured that I will address them as time permits.

Wednesday, 24 July 2013

Women + Front-Line Service = Disaster

I realise that I've written on this subject before, but now might not be a bad time to revisit it. It should be plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that lifting restrictions on women serving in front-line combat is a spectacularly stupid idea. It's not like this should surprise anyone:
For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan* believed that women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didn't matter if you were a man or a woman—there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work. The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched resentment build until it undermined the unit's morale.
She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis." Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let alone being combat-effective."
While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of disruptions ensued."
Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career to speak your mind publicly about these things."
The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief simply refused to carry her tools, which weighted 60 to 80 pounds.
"The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."
Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them situation."
While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in combat units.
In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to institute tests to match a soldier's physical strength to a specific "military occupation specialty," or MOS. Then it was discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65 percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped.
(h/t everyone's favourite curmudgeon, Fred Reed)

Anyone ever seen a movie called G.I. Jane? It's apparently about what happens when a woman tries to become a Navy SEAL and was made back when Demi Moore was pretty, sane, and unmedicated. (Ah, to be young and stupid[er] again...) From what little I remember of what I think was a pretty terrible movie, I recall that the idea of a woman taking on the kind of hellish, mind-breaking training that a SEAL goes through during the BUD/S course to be more than a little absurd. I've written before about how women in my Krav Maga classes are both slower and weaker than I am, and as a result do not pose a serious challenge or training foil for me.

This harsh reality is made even more stark when one puts women in situations for which they are simply not physically suited. Say what you will about the one-size-fits-all mentality of any modern, effective, and cohesive military- the rules for combat units are the same regardless of age, weight, or health. If one cannot meet the requirements of front-line service just like every other trooper, the morale and cohesion of the entire unit takes a hit, and that unit's effectiveness in battle decreases.

I have never enlisted in any military, and I almost certainly never will, so it is fair to say that I cannot judge members of the military by the standards that I judge others. All I can do is point out what basic logic and empirical evidence tell me is true. It is a simple and obvious truth that men and women are physically and mentally very different. Physical trials that men can endure without significant damage would break a woman very quickly, and attempting to deny this is nothing short of stupid.

Now, I have no idea how well a mixed-gender unit will hold up in combat. I have no idea whether women will break and run with any greater frequency than men; I have no idea if women will stand their ground, fight and die for their fellows, any more than men will. All I can do is point to literally millennia worth of evidence showing what a brutal and hellish business war truly is, and ask whether anyone in his right mind truly believes that it is right or even necessary to expose women to that kind of insanity.

Sunday, 21 July 2013

On Striking Women

Vox's recent post, included in my linkage for the week, regarding the rather thorny question of whether it is permissible to strike women who attack you, makes for some thought-provoking reading:
First of all, there is nothing more intrinsically wrong about using physical violence against women than against men. This white-knighting gamma knows nothing about the genuine warrior ethic; by his reckoning, the greatest warriors of history were not warriors at all because they slaughtered men, women, and children with equal abandon. Warrior's codes teach respect for all, which in martial terms means taking even the most seemingly overmatched opponent seriously and dispatching her without needless humiliation. 
The outmoded code of the gentleman to which Funktacular is implicitly referring is European and is based on a post-martial chivalric ideal that primarily relates to the transition of the medieval aristocracy from a warrior elite to a post-warrior social elite. As such, it is the exact opposite of a warrior ethic. Joseph Schumpeter addresses this in some detail in Imperialism and Social Classes. The warrior ethic is focused on the defeat of the enemy, and the defeat of the enemy requires the destruction of his women from whom the future enemy combatants will come in as the destruction of the current generation of combatants. 
Were the Romans less than manly because they destroyed Carthage? Was Genghis Khan a coward because he spared neither women nor children, neither dog or rat, when he stacked skulls outside the shattered walls of the city where one of his sons died? Was Shalmeneser III defining manhood downwards when, on his annual summer vacation, he crossed the Euphrates, threw down the walls of one city or another, and burned it with fire? 
As for misogyny, one need not hate women to refuse to subject oneself to physical assaults by women. Shall we similarly conclude that the man who defends himself against attacks by men is a misanthrope? The logic is wholly specious.
To be honest, I really can't add much to this. I particularly like Vox's point that the code of martial honour requires respect for ALL opponents, regardless of size or strength; this does indeed logically mean that even a female opponent must be taken seriously and dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The only thing I can add to this is the perspective I gained from tag-fighting in my Krav Maga classes with girls. (This might seem like a pointless side trip at first, so bear with me.) I need to state this very plainly: I HATE training with women. In Krav Maga, one of the most important lessons that you learn is that you NEVER fight strength against strength. The point of the art is to go from defence to offence in the shortest time possible. This means that when you pair off in a class to practice releases and blocks against various forms of chokes and attacks, you need to be fully committed to defending yourself, and your partner must be fully committed to attacking you. In order for those attacks to be effective when training, though, you need to be up against someone who is roughly at the same level of training and physical strength as you are.

I'm a reasonably big guy- I stand nearly 180cm tall and I weigh close to 80kg. I'm also very, very strong for a guy my size and age- actually, objectively speaking, I am very strong, full stop. And it is fair to say that I am in pretty damn good shape, especially these days. This means that when I'm practicing various chokes and grabs, in order to get the most that I can out of the lesson, I need to be up against someone at least as tall and strong and fit as I am. It goes without saying that 99% of women will completely fail to meet these criteria. Most of the women in the white-belt classes also don't know what the hell they're doing, mostly because they aren't half as committed to the art as I am, which means that I constantly have to hold back for fear of harming them in a way that I never have to worry about with male sparring partners who are about as big and as strong as I am. There is much to be said for sparring with people who know what they are doing, and therefore know how to test you to your limits. This means that I simply won't get very much out of the class when facing off against women- and for that matter, neither will the women that I spar with. This is to their detriment as well as mine.

How does this tie into the question of whether it is ever right to hit a woman, you may ask? Well, that's simple. I agree with Vox here- any attacker, regardless of gender, is a threat that must be neutralised. Now, how you neutralise such a threat is up to you, and depends on circumstances; as my Krav Maga instructors keep telling us, if someone taps you on the shoulder, that is certainly not a call for you to poke his eye out, but if he punches you or kicks you, you bloody well kick his head in and then hit him with a bar stool for good measure. In the same way, if you are attacked by a woman, then she has broken with the Non-Aggression Principle and must be treated as a hostile enemy. By attacking you, by throwing the first punch, she has committed aggression against you; how you choose to respond to that aggression depends on circumstances, relative strength, and your willingness to engage in physical combat. I, for instance, do not have any particular problem with most women throwing the first punch- mostly because I know damn well that most of them can't really punch worth a damn, and more importantly, that a single punch or kick from me will simply flatten them. Does that mean that I would give all potential enemies the right to attack first? Of course not, especially if I'm up against someone as big and strong as Dwayne Johnson, for instance- I'm focused on survival, and the first thing that you learn in Krav Maga, as you will in any form of combat training, is that in a real war, there are no rules other than those that you choose to restrict yourself with. (Make no mistake, that is what rules of engagement are- restrictions.)

Anyone who says that it is always and everywhere wrong to hit a woman simply hasn't thought it through. I completely agree that hitting a woman just because she says something annoying is beyond the pale- there is no call for that sort of behaviour against someone who is weaker than you, it breaks with every basic tenet of the libertarian creed. There is no honour in initiating aggression against someone who is weaker than you without just cause. Equally, however, there is no honour whatsoever in allowing yourself to be beaten by a weaker enemy. If you are attacked, you respond to neutralise the threat. It's just that simple.

As Vox points out in his closing arguments, the right to self-defence is absolute and complete. It does not depend upon time, place, or the gender of the attacker. Unfortunately, the society we live in- not to mention most White Knight Gammas and feminists- simply will not see things this way and will attempt to argue with Vox's impenetrable logic using specious and false emotional arguments instead.

Book Review: Breakfast with the Dirt Cult by Samuel Finlay

So I woke up one morning and saw an email from a rather interesting-sounding chap named Samuel Finlay sitting in my mailbox, expressing appreciation for my writing and asking if I might be interested in reviewing a book that he had written. I was, of course, only too happy to oblige; I am greatly honoured that men like Sam read my work and enjoy it, and it is an honour and a pleasure to return the favour when I can. Sam sent me a free copy of his book via Amazon's gift program and I got on with reading it.

First things first: this book is written by a man with military experience, and it is apparently at least semi-autobiographical in nature. This means that the story it tells feels intensely personal, and the characters and events described therein really do come to life in a way that those who have not served in the military (like, say, me) would be extremely hard-pressed to duplicate.

Breakfast with the Dirt Cult concerns the (mis)adventures of one Private Tom Walton, a young man- more like a boy, really, who grows up damn fast- from rural Oklahoma deployed into live-fire zones in some of the ugliest places that the American military can send people. The book opens with Tom spending some downtime in a strip club in Toronto after a stint as part of the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. It is there that he meets Amy, and his whole life changes completely, irrevocably, from that moment onward.

Some of us are lucky enough to meet one woman in our entire lives who are utterly intoxicating. Every moment spent in their presence is magical, lasting an eternity and yet going by in an instant. These women fulfill us on every possible level- physically, intellectually, and spiritually. They seem as ephemeral as mirages in the desert, and the time spent with them seems to have an almost dreamlike quality to it. Amy, a book-loving stripper of jaw-dropping good looks, is that woman for Tom. The first chapter of this book actually seems completely surreal because Finlay spends quite a lot of time and effort in making Amy seem almost too good to be true. It's a good thing that he does an excellent job, because otherwise it would be impossible to believe that a horny young soldier on leave in Canada, which has rather more liberal attitudes about sex and drugs than America does, would sit across from a stunningly beautiful and completely naked stripper and talk to her about books and travelling. It sounds ridiculous when I write it, but trust me on this, Finlay manages to pull it off.

From there, we see Tom's journey through his deployment to Afghanistan, with his promise to Amy to come back to her and engage in a passionate affair binding them to each other. We see the war through his eyes, and we learn what it is like to be a grunt on the ground, fighting "Haji", as the troops call the enemy. We begin to understand and appreciate just how difficult it is to win a war against an enemy that doesn't understand indoor plumbing and has barely moved beyond the technology of the wheel, and yet possesses an otherworldly patience and a deep, cold, calculating nature that American troops simply cannot match. We experience the gut-wrenching fear of combat, the boredom of long night watches, the fatigue of long marches in the stupefying heat, the dangers of freezing to death in the harsh Afghani winter, and the ugly nature of an in-your-face war that is nothing like the sanitised, made-for-television clips that we get shown via America's lying MSM.

The life of a soldier, as described in this book, is given to you in raw, unvarnished detail. This means that there is an awful lot of swearing and talk about graphic sex. There is a lot of discussion about what spouses and girlfriends will do when their men are far away, fighting in distant lands. There are lots of blokey pranks, there are descriptions of bodily functions that will turn your stomach, there are stories of surgical procedures that should be sombre and sad and yet will make you damn near fall off your seat laughing because of the sheer absurdity of some of the things that go on in the military. I warn you now, if you read this book and you are of a sensitive nature, you WILL be offended by what you read. If you're like me, however, and you're not particularly bothered by that sort of thing as long as the story is interesting, then you're probably going to enjoy this book.

There are two problems that I have with this book, though, and they are serious ones. First, although this book is quite easy to read, it is damn near impossible to construct a coherent timeline. When reading it, I had no sense whatsoever of the passage of time. Events simply seemed to meld into one another, so that one moment, Tom is marching on a dirt road with his platoon to engage some insurgents, and then on the very next page he's riding in a Chinook back to base while mulling over the philosophy of our present society. This lack of a coherent story is extremely jarring, and it makes for a very uneven read. This is where it becomes clear that this is probably Finlay's first attempt at writing fiction. Other books of this type- I'm thinking Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero, for instance- are far more coherent and far more readable precisely because they stick to a timeline that makes some sort of sense. There is some sense of the passage of time that creates a flow and a rhythm that the reader can follow. In this book, that is almost completely absent, and that is its great flaw.

The second problem has to do with the book's extensive ruminating upon the decline of American society. Now I want to make it perfectly clear that when Tom goes on one of his mental woolgathering trips regarding feminism, political correctness, the stupidity of the chattering classes, the insidious rot eating away at American society, the questions of the nature of war that every soldier inevitably asks himself, and so on, I find myself in complete agreement with what Tom- which is to say, Finlay- has to say. There is nothing in his tirades about the stupidity and absurdity of feminism or the uselessness of women in the military for me to object to, at all. Indeed, in his email, Sam indicated that one of the things that came out of his experiences was his belief that America has been led down completely the wrong path, for decades now, by elites who couldn't give a toss about right or wrong and only care about more wealth, more power, and more control, and to hell with the principles of the Republic that they nominally swore to defend in the process. Again, NOTHING about this is news to me, and I agree completely with this point of view- I've been saying very similar things on this blog for months now.

That said, I shouldn't have to go through a battle scene and then listen to a lot of philosophising on the ride back to base about it. Leave that sort of thing to Russian writers like Dostoevsky, there's a reason why Crime and Punishment is simultaneously one of the greatest and one of the most annoying books ever written. I think Matt Forney put it best when reviewing one of Frost's books, in which Frost was writing a book that was literally the Red Pill Manual rewritten in fictional form: "show me, don't tell me". It's all too easy to lecture someone on how stupid and evil socialism is; it's far too easy to go on a longwinded ramble about what a terrible idea it is to have female soldiers in the field; and it's certainly not difficult to paint politicians as hypocrites and liars out to serve only their own interests. I don't need to be told these things- I want to be shown them. And that is where this book falls very far short of its admittedly rather ambitious goals.

Despite these flaws, I do like this book, quite a lot. There is nothing sappy or maudlin about it. The truth of Tom Walton's existence is laid bare in the most brutal possible terms. He is shot, severely wounded, and spends considerable time in convalescence, and finally does get around to consummating his hitherto strictly mental and platonic relationship with the beautiful and bewitching Amy. The ending, though, will surprise and probably even shock you. I'm not going to give it away other than to say that it's absolutely not what you expected. Tom Walton's views dovetail well with my own, even though his background is completely different from mine, and that reinforces one of the most remarkable things about the Manosphere and the authors within it: though we are diverse and different in so many ways, we are united in one critical aspect- we are servants and seekers of primordial and eternal Truth. And I have nothing but respect and admiration for an author like Samuel Finlay who seeks to tell his own story of the search for that Truth.

If this is indeed Sam Finlay's first book, then I want to congratulate him on writing a genuinely interesting piece of work, and I'd also like him to take note of the points made above. This book could have gone from being a merely good semi-autobiographical soldier's tale to a genuinely outstanding memoir of the hell of war with just a bit more careful editing and some semblance of a plot or timeline to it. I do hope to read more of his writing in the future, as I think that men like him have been severely shortchanged by their society and deserve to have far more of a voice in it than they do at present. One interesting thing about this book is that it certainly reinforced my longstanding conviction that the sacred covenant between the military and the society that it serves has been broken; the troops that are wounded and killed are increasingly fighting for a society that does not want to acknowledge their existence, and sooner or later, many of them are going to ask themselves why they are fighting at all, just like Tom does in this book.

Didact's Verdict: 3/5, a fine story which asks some very deep and very important questions, let down by poor editing and an extremely haphazard plotline. Still definitely worth reading, though.

Buy Breakfast with the Dirt Cult here.

Weekend Linkage

* Calling this particular twerp a "boy" might be stretching things a little
** I understand that The Observer is currently out job-hunting; I wish him great success and the best of luck, this guy is one of the very few Singaporean men who gets it.
*** Saw them play live on Wednesday. KOBRA AND THE LOTUS opened for them, and they were awesome. AMARANTHE weren't 'arf bad either, but believe me when I say that you will need a three-album AMON AMARTH bender to get your balls back after listening to their songs.

Monday, 15 July 2013

I Believe...

  • ... that it makes no sense that a dog can eat your mother's meat loaf, as well as its own poop, and feel fine, and yet will keel over and die if you feed it a chocolate bar
  • ... that the idea that chocolate kills dogs is a malicious rumour started by cats
  • ... that an armed society is a polite society
  • ... that nothing reinforces politeness and civic duty quite as effectively as the barrel of a loaded shotgun, with perhaps the exception of a 9MM
  • ... that the best possible home protection program available to you today comes to you courtesy of Smith & Wesson (or Colt, Luger, Sig Sauer, or any of a hundred different arms manufacturers)
  • ... that "self-defence" is simply a euphemism for "learning how to hurt people"
  • ... that "he needed killin'" is very probably a valid legal defence in certain parts of the Deep South
  • ... that the only appropriate penalty for curling in the squat rack is for someone to throw you out of the gym and onto the concrete, face-first
  • ... that inexperience is temporary- it can always be beaten out of you
  • ... that stupidity is pretty much permanent- there is no cure for certain kinds of stupid
  • ... that the epic douchenozzles who do half-squats at the gym are living, breathing proof that the gene pool desperately needs a permanently on-duty lifeguard
  • ... that there is such a thing as terminal stupidity- it's called "feminism" (or "socialism", depending on which particular avatar of stupidity you're dealing with at any given time)
  • ... that pain is merely weakness leaving the body (and sometimes the soul goes along for the ride)
  • ... that women were deliberately engineered to make no damn sense whatsoever, otherwise they'd come with on-off switches and a self-repair kit that wouldn't require multiple shopping trips for spare parts and lube
  • ... that it IS possible to discover the Manual of Operations for women, it's just that most blokes can't be bothered to RTFM
  • ... that a woman who marries a man hoping that he'll change, is incurably stupid
  • ... that a man who marries a woman hoping that she won't change, is terminally stupid
  • ... that any man who does not know how to use at least one kind of weapon with reasonable proficiency, is a deadweight loss to society
  • ... that blowing the heads off of cute innocent woodland creatures, gutting them, skinning them, and eating them or mounting their heads in your living room, is a perfectly acceptable pastime
  • ... that golf is not
  • ... that modern American liberty is the perfect demonstration of how inflation works- the price keeps going up, yet the quality keeps going down
  • ... that Congress exists to protect the status quo long after the quo has lost its status
  • ... that HALO is the greatest FPS series of all time, and anyone who disagrees needs to be hit with a Gravity Hammer upside the head
  • ... that Top Gear (the original British version, thank you very much) is the greatest television show of all time, and anyone who disagrees has no sense of humour, or is a giant vagina
  • ... that Roger Federer is, quite simply, The Man
  • ... that every man should know how to drive stick
  • ... that the jacked guys who walk into the gym with 17-inch biceps with toothpicks for legs, are not necessarily the people you want to be emulating
  • ... that girls who train and powerlift properly are waaaaaay hotter than the annoying chubby cardio bunnies that clog up the place
  • ... that girls who lecture guys on how to squat almost never know what they're talking about
  • ... that the Smith Machine is a Commie plot designed by the evil masterminds of places like Planet Princess to systematically destroy people's backs, shoulders, and knees
  • ... that comparing feminists to Nazis is actually a bit of an insult to the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany; feminists have proven to be far more lethal
  • ... that it is every parent's civic duty and obligation to raise strong and upstanding young men, and nurturing and feminine young women
  • ... that teaching your kids how to hunt, how to shoot, how to fish, and how to enjoy the outdoors is going to be vastly more valuable and influential than anything that they will ever learn in school
  • ... that roughly 80-90% of what you learn in school is wrong anyway, so why bother?
  • ... that you'll gain a far better education from reading the works of men thousands of years dead than you will from paying exorbitant amounts of money to go to university
  • ... that hipsters are a sign that the Lord probably has it in for us at some point
  • ... that the existence of Australian wine, single-malt Scotch, and Polish women is incontrovertible proof that God exists, and that He loves us very much
  • ... that some things about Japan are so damn weird, even the Japanese don't understand them
  • ... that calling Communism a "mistake" is a bit like calling an intentional rape a "first date"
  • ... that Communists are proof positive that no matter how idiot-proof you make something, the world will always come up with a better class of idiot
  • ... that liberals are more interested in feeling good than in doing good
  • ... that conservatives are just liberals that got punched in the head by reality a few too many times
  • ... that a lot of libertarians are really just in it for the free weed (just kindly smoke it downwind from me)
  • ... that vegetarians are God's way of telling us that evolution doesn't always lead to better outcomes
  • ... that Vegans are God's way of telling us that eating that apple really wasn't a good idea
  • ... that a real man produces something of real value for society, f***s like a beast, and is not afraid of what others think of him
  • ... that meeting 72 houris (doe-eyed female beauties, virgins, etc.) in Paradise sounds like a hell of a lot of work in exchange for going boom
  • ... that HEAVY METAL IS THE LAW!
  • ... that IRON MAIDEN is the greatest band of all time, and anyone who disagrees can kindly turn around and head for the exits, because it's time to play some old-school MAIDEN at MAX VOLUME!

Sunday, 14 July 2013

Presumed Guilty?

I've not been following the Zimmerman/Martin case closely. Actually I've hardly been following it at all. However, I will say this about it: the "Not Guilty" verdict does not surprise me. And if there were any sense left in this country, people would be willing to leave it at that and move on.

The prosecution's case began to fall apart from the moment that they put what appeared to be a completely illiterate and frankly not very intelligent "star witness" on the stand to testify. As far as I can tell- from limited knowledge, and that mostly from the usual nullwitted "progressive" media sources which broadcast closed-caption news bulletins in the gym while I'm working out- the prosecution, despite having the full weight of "correct-thinking" liberal opinion on its side, as well as the entire black community's dogmatic refusal even to contemplate the idea that one of their own might have committed a serious crime against a non-black defendant, completely failed to make their case.

There was a time when a man defending himself with lethal force against an intruder with hostile intentions would not be questioned for doing what is right. As with so many things in this country, though, the moment you introduce race into the mix, things get weird very quickly. The moment someone lobs an allegation of racism your way, you have lost the war- if you fight by the conventional rules that society has forced upon itself, that is.

As far as I can tell, this case should never have gone to trial. The prosecution basically had no case. They had no way to turn justifiable killing in self-defence into premeditated murder. Their witnesses weren't just unreliable, they were appalling examples of Authentic Black Run America (to borrow a phrase from Stuff Black People Don't Like). The defence didn't just show that the prosecution didn't have a case- they basically showed that George Zimmerman was not guilty.

That, of course, will simply not be enough for the race hustlers who run so much of this country- starting with President Jackass himself. It really doesn't help that George Zimmerman is more Hispanic than he is white and Jewish; it doesn't matter to those who would like to pretend that somehow black people are owed something by the rest of us into perpetuity because of the unquestionable and undeniable horrors that the abomination of slavery inflicted upon their ancestors. What matters is that Someone White Killed a Black Guy. In such situations, it seems as though the defendant is simply presumed guilty, and no matter what the circumstances, no matter how strong and compelling the evidence in his favour, no matter how obvious the holes in the prosecution's case, he will be judged guilty regardless.

As whites become an ever-smaller minority in this country, and as more of this country descends into barbarism and savagery, I wonder whether future generations will look back and dimly remember when things were not always so. Will they ever understand what it means to have anything like an impartial legal system? I seriously doubt it. The Zimmerman/Martin case sets a deeply disturbing precedent- one in a long chain of precedents, actually- that toss out due process and trial by jury in favour of trial by mob.

We have seen how that turned out. I am not alone in predicting that it will happen again. Pay heed to the warning, and understand this: if the facts conflict with what the government wants you to think, then you will find yourself fighting the full power, the full evil, of the State and every last ounce of malice that it can bring to bear against you.

Studies in Sigma: Jack Reacher

"Tom Cruise" and "deep characterisation" are not phrases that sit easily in the same sentence. Truth be told, I've always had a tough time shaking that mental image of Tom Cruise as the cocky, brash, extroverted ace fighter pilot that he played in Top Gun. (Chaps, keep this in mind: that movie is one of the greatest ever made in terms of cheesy lines and great action sequences; it's also the gayest non-gay movie of all time, so keep that in mind the next time you "feel the need for speed".) Yet, somehow he managed to pull off quite a feat in his last "serious" film, Jack Reacher.

I finished watching it yesterday, and my word, I'm quite surprised at what I saw. I was expecting yet another big dumb brainless action movie, of the kind that Cruise/Wagner Productions specialises in sending our way. What I got, instead, was a very well thought-out and very intriguing film that also serves as one of the most concrete demonstrations of the real-world Sigma archetype that you will ever see.

The movie defies expectations from the very beginning. You watch as a brutal crime is committed, in which 5 seemingly random and senseless murders are committed by a hidden sniper. Due to seeming sloppiness on the sniper's part- depositing a coin in the parking meter of the garage from which he takes the shots, leaving a spent brass casing at the scene, and letting himself be filmed while driving away- the police quickly find and arrest a borderline psychotic ex-Army sniper. His only response after 16 hours of questioning: "GET JACK REACHER". What follows is a twisting, turning, completely unexpected and actually highly intelligent thriller of a movie in which the title character's wits, strength, and stamina are tested up to and in some cases beyond the breaking point as he slowly unravels a case in which nothing is as it seems on the surface, and a serious conspiracy brews that threatens to put an innocent man on death row.

When Vox defined his Sigma archetype- of which he is unquestionably a member- he defined the Sigma male as someone who will actively resist any attempt to infringe upon his independence of thought and action, someone who is extremely intelligent and extremely competent, and someone who views the rest of the world with something between mild contempt and amused disdain. Sigma males tend to be quiet, methodical, pragmatic, ruthless, and calculating. They have no patience for nonsense, and their greatest loyalty is not to any person or group, but to a concept: Truth.

I don't know if the screenwriters for this film are regular readers of Vox Popoli, but they might as well be. Jack Reacher as a character completely defies all expectations. Classic example: he's in a motel room, going over evidence relating to the case with a very attractive attorney sitting on his bed, played ably by Rosamund Pike, he's got his shirt off to show that he does indeed keep in very good shape, and he simply walks up to this woman, says, "I need to sleep. You do too." She tries to protest that she's not that kind of girl, and he just picks up her car keys and puts them in her hand, smiles, and tells her effectively to get lost. That is nothing if not a completely dominant, completely cocksure move. His complete dominance and yet complete rejection of her clearly sends the attorney into a bit of a spin, as she has no idea what he's going to do next.

Tom Cruise's Reacher is quiet, unassuming, and preternaturally aware of the actions of people around him. He is observant to an almost scary degree. And he has the ability to disappear whenever he chooses- simply going off the grid, not letting anyone find him unless he wants to be found. Above all, he seems simply to want to be left alone.

Without reading too much into what is otherwise just a damn good movie, I will simply say this: if you want to begin to understand the Sigma archetype in real life, Jack Reacher, the film, would not be a bad place to start.

Saturday, 13 July 2013

"We Can't Fix You"

At a Krav Maga class a few weeks back, the Master Instructor seemed to be having a rather bad day and got a bit snappish at several of us for making the same mistake over and over again. He stopped us all and proceeded to give us a short lecture, and I'll never forget what he said to us:
One of my instructors said something the other day, it was so wise. He said, "we cannot fix you, we can only show you what not to do". He's right. People come up to me and say, "fix me", and all I can say is [shrugs], "I can't. You have to fix yourself." It's up to you whether you decide to do what I tell you and fix yourself. If you do, great. If you don't, fine. But don't come up to me afterwards and say, "fix me". I can't.
What he told us applies to every aspect of life. There are plenty of guys out there- I would say the vast majority of them, actually- who are not getting out of life what they wanted or expected, for whatever reason. Many of them will become studies in human tragedy, because they will never fulfill their true potential as human beings. And the reason they will never do this is because they will never see the root cause of their problems: themselves.

They will never understand that:
  • They, and they alone, must manage their finances intelligently; government can't do it for them
  • Women will never be attracted to them for "being themselves", unless they are already interesting and powerful men to begin with
  • The advice that they have been given throughout their lives is usually bad and often dangerous
  • Society today is virtually engineered to see that they fail
  • Their futures have been traded away for the follies of the present, and only they can take it back
I remember reading somewhere, probably on RoK, that we Manospherians are a small and possibly dwindling bunch of anti-authoritarians who are vastly outnumbered by the somnambulant hordes of sheeple around us. Whoever it was, wherever I read it, this is absolutely true.

Fixing yourself is hard. You have to have the humility to accept that you are flawed. You have to be willing to change. The process of changing is often painful- and if you're of an introverted cast of mind, the prospect of change holds two terrifying possibilities: the possibility of public scorn and ridicule, and the possibility of abandoning everything that you like and respect about yourself. That is why most people never change- they're so comfortable with what is and they never want to abandon that.

Lord knows, I've got lots of work to do here myself. I've made some serious progress over the last 2 years since I discovered and accepted the Truth of the pill. I've changed my workout routines, my diet, my reading habits, what I watch, how I spend my free time. I've learned how to shoot (but am still a lousy shot), and I've taken up a martial art (and despite being able to punch and kick pretty well, and break chokeholds with reasonable proficiency, I'm still very much a novice). The one thing I haven't done is apply what I've learned from the game to cold approaches. I haven't changed the way I spend my nights alone- partly because, to be honest, I like being alone. Solitude offers a clarity and a perspective that most people will never find. But that solitude is also comfortable, so it's very easy to get stuck in a rut, which is precisely what I've gone and done for more than 10 years now. At some point, this has to end- and it's getting to the point where I know it has to end soon.

You can't be fixed by others. You can only fix yourself. Doing so requires courage, commitment, and sacrifice. I'm not going to claim that the rewards are always worth it; sometimes the changes you introduce are so painful and so difficult that you have to be willing to admit that you made a mistake and retrace your steps. But the first step to fixing yourself lies in admitting that something in your life is not satisfactory, and then taking action to address the problem.

No one can do this for you. In that respect, we are all well and truly alone. The good news is, with the Manosphere, there is no end to the wisdom and worldly advice that will set you on the right track.

How the Game Changes Your Thinking

Captain Capitalism's recent post on not having to game really hot women who happen to be friends jived very well with an interesting experience I had one night this week, out drinking with a few co-workers to see off a fellow co-worker who had left the firm under, shall we just say, inauspicious circumstances. It wasn't so much what the Captain was saying about his annoyances with his female companions, it had more to do with the way he simply didn't "connect" with these women physically. And that got me thinking about what happened this week in a very different perspective.

There's a bit of background to this story that is worth knowing. There's a woman at my office who works there as a temp; she used to work there full-time and left well before I ever got there, then came back because she needed a job and apparently had the right people's attention. Now, let me make this very clear: this girl is a hard 9.5. Easily. She has an amazing rack, a great face, great hair, knows how to dress well, stays in great shape, and her ass is mesmerising. Her genetics are virtually perfect, given her mix of Latin American and Western heritage- apparently she's at least half Cuban, or something like that. She is, in short, just about every straight man's wet dream, the kind of woman that reduces most men to drooling imbeciles within moments of their catching sight of her. I've seen this personally with guys I work with; every time she walks by, their attention is instantly diverted as they all covertly check out her impressive assets. My direct manager thinks she's amazing and constantly makes cringe-worthy Beta jokes about how hot she is.

There's just one problem: I can't stand this woman.

Certainly, she is physically very attractive. But somehow she just doesn't do anything for me. I don't find myself fantasising about her the way I have other women of my immediate acquaintance. The moment she opens her mouth, she annoys me- and I've actually gotten into arguments with a fellow red-pill-aware co-worker with whom she works, who dislikes it intensely when I bluntly state things like that. She is, in a word, vapid. And that is the sort of woman that I simply cannot stand being around. (This woman does have a reputation for, shall we say, engaging in extracurricular activities within the organisation. I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of these rumours, so all I can say is that this has no effect on my opinion of her either way.) For whatever reason, I am simply not attracted to very hot but very vapid women; I find them irritating in the same way that most men find uppity pseudo-intellectual hipster chicks annoying. It also doesn't help that she has a bit of a reputation (and this CAN be verified as fact) for messing things up, and that I simply cannot tolerate- incompetence and vapidity combined are faults that I cannot forgive.

When I went out for drinks with several of my colleagues that evening, she showed up eventually and naturally was the centre of attention- for everyone except me. And I proceeded to completely ignore her until she actually started talking to me. Even when she did, I was still involved in conversations with the others and didn't address her directly. Interestingly, this didn't stop her from trying to talk to me. When I finally did end up talking to her, the subject matter was something along the lines of women's proper place in society. This, I will readily admit, is a highly controversial subject, and I didn't help matters by taking a staunchly old-school line of masculine authority, making it perfectly clear that I thought (and think) that feminism is a huge mistake and that the best women are those that are pleasant to be around because they are feminine. Interestingly, she took exception to this.

That led up to the single most amusing moment of the evening. (Other than when someone even bigger and far stronger than me lost to a girl at a beer-chugging contest. Twice. Another story for another time.) She looked me in the eye and said, "you know, you're kind of a d***." My response: "True. So?"

That is page 1, Chapter 1, Verse 1 of the Asshole's Game Bible. And it wasn't even consciously done.

Gamma and Omega males would find this sort of response to be appalling, and would immediately think, "what an asshole, she's never going to talk to him now". Strangely, that is the exact opposite of what happened. What followed can only be described as living proof that Roosh, Roissy, and Rollo are indeed the Dark Gods that we think they are. Rather than retreating and staying the hell away from me, this woman was in my personal space the entire evening- pushing up against me, touching me, trying to talk to me, etc. I studiously ignored all of it (and this is where the Alphas and Sigmas are going to say that I was being a total idiot, and they will have a point), because I have one iron rule that I NEVER break: never flirt or sleep with a co-worker, it's just not worth the hassle. Instead I simply carried on talking to my male colleagues and friends, kept my drinking to a minimum, and generally did my own thing. I simply found her attentions irritating and closed up until she got the hint and moved on. Watching a woman as hot as that gyrate to (loud and bad) trip-hop is fun; having to deal with her grating voice and annoying laugh, not so much.

There was a time when I would never even have dreamed of doing things like this. I was raised by solidly old-school parents who always taught me to be respectful towards women. Unfortunately, they were trying to prepare me for a world that simply no longer exists- the world in which men were men and women were women, and the old rules still applied. That is not our world today.

When a man takes the red pill and starts to learn game, there is a very real danger that he will sour on the entire female gender. This is inevitable, but there's no getting around the fact that once the pedestal shatters, it can never be put back together. Once you begin to understand how female hypergamy works, once you understand how empty and shallow most American women are, and once you peel back the layers of feminine mystique and discover just how little there really is underneath it all, you begin to realise that Bill Powell, YouSoWould, and Tempest truly have got it right: AWALT, but SWABTO.

You can't prevent the consequences of the red pill. You can try to wish it away, as one of my colleagues did the last time I went out for drinks with him. What you're going to discover is that there is no going back. And once you realise that the road before you is the one that you must follow, for better or worse, the only thing you can do is to carry on walking.

Weekend Linkage

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Bro Science!

How is it possible that I had never seen these until yesterday?!?

Game Lesson: Lead or Follow, There Is No Middle Ground

Leadership skills are generally not associated with deep introverts, and rightly so. However, the special subset of introverts known as INTJs, or Sigmas, or whatever you want to call them, have the ability to become very good leaders- the odd thing is, though, that generally speaking, we don't want to. INTJs dislike being drafted into anything that compromises our independence of thought and action, and will generally refuse to take a leadership role until and unless it becomes very clear that either there is no leadership at all (in which case we simply have no choice), or the current leadership is completely incompetent and needs to be replaced. One of the defining characteristics of an INTJ, after all, is our adherence to extremely exacting standards- first and foremost to ourselves, and then to others and to the things that others do.

This can cause dilemmas in certain situations- like the one I find myself in at present. You see, I joined my current firm about 20 months ago, and within three months of my joining, my team, and the wider business, looked like it had been hit by a nuke. Turnover was sky-high, morale was at rock bottom, our systems simply couldn't handle the loads we were putting on them, and our clients were getting downright ornery. There was a complete leadership vacuum in my team- mostly because my manager at the time decided that he would simply rather not show up to work. So there I was, three months in, and suddenly I had to figure out how to run daily risk, P&L, and operations for two businesses.

It was... educational, to say the least. And it required me to step up and take charge, which I have done for over a year now. It is entirely fair to say that, barring a few issues, I've done a damn good job. But now, a new guy has been appointed to lead the team, and I am perfectly content to let him take over- if only he would step up and do it...

When a new leader is designated by the hierarchy of the Powers That Be, a previously dominant Sigma is usually perfectly happy to step aside and let the new guy take over- it allows them to get back to more important things, like figuring out how to take over the world, or finding memory leaks in 10,000+ lines of JavaScript. However, if the new leader turns out to be weak, or indecisive, or is constantly asking the Sigma for his opinion on how to do things that he should know how to do himself, the immediate and palpable reaction from any such Sigma will be open contempt.

This is exactly what is happening right now in my workplace. The guy I work for is a good bloke, and I respect him, for now- but he is also a complete Beta, and it shows. Every time a decision has to be made, I am asked. Every time an issue comes up, I have to decide what to do. This is a dangerous situation, because other members of the team are not oblivious to the fact that their designated leader is not up to the task. It breeds insecurity, complacency, and poor discipline- all of which leads to further problems down the line.

The lesson here applies to game, and therefore to life: if you will not lead, then you must follow. But know this: if you are in a position that says that you are the leader, and yet you act like a follower, the immediate reaction from those who are supposed to follow you will be subtle and eventually open contempt. It does not matter whether we are talking about your family, your friends, your colleagues, or your lovers. Do not try to be one or the other- make a choice, and stick to it.

There was a time when being a man meant taking charge- it was automatically assumed that this was our place in life. These days, of course, such traditions are traduced and scorned at every turn, and more than 40 years of feminist "thinking" has left us with an oversupply of Deltas and Gammas and far too few high Betas and low Alphas to take charge.

If you want those you work with to respect you, then there is only one way to do this: know your place, and if you don't like it, then work to improve the qualities that hold you back. If you are a follower, fine, get on with following and do not usurp the chain of command until and unless it becomes blatantly obvious that your leader has no clue. If you are a leader, fine, get on with the job of leading by taking into account what your followers are saying and then coming to your own independent judgement of the best course of action. But do not vacillate between the two. The moment you do this, you instantly begin to lose the respect and therefore the cooperation of those you seek to influence. This applies to your education, your career, your love life- you name it, this is relevant.

Lead, or follow, but get the hell out of the way.

Saturday, 6 July 2013

Book Review: Men on Strike by Dr. Helen Smith

Vox's review of Dr. Helen's new, rather short, book was enough to get me interested in reading the same; after all, anyone worthy of Vox's respect is generally someone worth reading. So I downloaded it and got to reading it, and immediately thought to myself, "here, at last, is a woman who Gets It".

Dr. Helen is essentially trying to understand the conundrum that modern men find themselves facing in today's world: the rules that we were taught as children, the rules that said that we should work hard, marry, raise children, and stay faithful to our wives, are the very rules that are being used against us. The world we face today is absolutely and utterly hostile to male interests. What Dr. Helen attempts to do in this book is to outline those challenges and force the world to confront them. She does this in a fairly logical sequence: first, by presenting many horror stories, anecdotes, polls, and facts from various sources; second, by outlining the misandrist nature of the system we face in considerable and fairly well-researched detail; and third, by suggesting solutions that require men to take action instead of simply "going Galt".

Dr. Helen attempts to answer the question: why are men going on strike? What she means by this is that men are simply retreating from the world around them in truly unprecedented numbers, and are doing so willingly and without regret. More and more of us are refusing to "man up" and take on the responsibilities of steady, long-term employment, of supporting a wife and children, and of becoming the kinds of "pillars of society" that we once were. More of us than ever are simply retreating into a virtual world of online entertainment, video games, and instantly available high-quality porn instead of engaging with the world around us. Like most social commentators who understand that men are, in fact, a bit of a necessity to a functioning society, Dr. Helen thinks this is a Really Serious Problem. Unlike most of her fellow social commentators, though, Dr. Helen isn't trying to convince us to "man up"; instead, she's trying to convince society as a whole that a gigantic mistake has been made and that it's time to reverse course.

An interesting aspect of Dr. Helen's book is the fact that she does borrow some of her source material from the likes of us scruffy, unwashed Manospherians. One Manospherian in particular- the esteemed Vox Day himself- gets a solid mention early on in the book. Perhaps Vox's greatest contribution among many to the Red Pill world is his definition of the socio-sexual hierarchy, which expands and refines the concept of the sexual Alpha-Beta-Gamma-Omega hierarchy that Roissy created and applies it to a finer set of grades that more completely encompass the archetypes we actually encounter on a daily basis. Dr. Helen references this in the book early on, and uses aspects of that socio-sexual hierarchy to point out some important home truths.

To be honest, nothing that Dr. Helen has written will come as real news to longtime denizens of this particular corner of teh Interwebz. Dr. Helen's tales of horror in the divorce courts, the workplace, the schools, and the dating scene are not the least bit surprising to those of us who took the Red Pill or are in the process of swallowing it. What might surprise you is the depth to which modern Western society has descended in its antipathy towards men. One particularly shocking story related in Dr. Helen's book came from the tale of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with his adult teacher; she was impregnated during the encounter, and the boy was required to pay child support for the baby born from this deeply sinful union.

I write again- the boy was fifteen years old.

Moreover, if you didn't think particularly highly of most women and especially of feminists before, your opinion of what they have wrought will hit rock-bottom after you read this book. Lest you think Bill Powell is a bit extreme when he says that all women are a bit crazy, this book will definitely change your mind- and in fact the stories in there about women intentionally digging used condoms out of the trash or the toilet in order to impregnate themselves will disgust or amuse you to no end (given my somewhat twisted sense of humour, I was more amused than anything else).

The interesting thing about this book is that Dr. Helen does not attempt to speak on behalf of men. She really doesn't. She's not patronising or demeaning men in any way, unlike other authors like, say, Kay Hymowitz, who have written on the same subject in recent years. Instead, she is one of the very few Red Pill-aware women who is genuinely trying to roll back the unstoppable tide that is coming at us right now. She is pushing for sexual and social equality for both men and women, in a way that very few women can even begin to understand. She devotes the last chapter of the book to telling men exactly how and when they can begin to fight back against the tide of legal and social oppression that is driving so many of us away from the responsibilities that we once assumed without question or hesitation.

And this is where I take some issue with her writing and her work. While I applaud Dr. Helen's willingness to take a stand where so many other women would refuse, I simply do not agree with her that there is anything worth saving. By pushing for equality, I think Dr. Helen is making the exact same mistake that every other Men's Rights Activist makes. Equality was never the cornerstone of a successful masculine society. Equality was instead such a society's greatest weakness. In this I completely disagree with both Dr. Helen and the MRA movement, for although they, like me, are on Team Civilisation, they want something far less worthy and far less important than what I want.

What we should be aiming for is male supremacy- male dominance. That is what built civilisation in the first place- men, willing to make hard choices, willing to take on terrible ordeals, willing to offer up supreme sacrifices, in order to protect themselves and their loved ones from the savagery of the world around them. Women did not have the vision and the drive to build the Great Wall of China, a (probably mad and definitely rather paranoid) man did. Women did not build first the Roman Republic and then the Roman Empire; men, by the eternal and glorious names of Scipio and Caesar and Flavius Aetius, did. Women did not propel Mankind towards the heavens; men did. Even the most egalitarian of the great ancient empires were male-dominated. Take Sparta, for instance- a nation in which free married women had significant legal power and rights far in excess of what any woman from any other Greek polis could even dream of. Even in Sparta, the society was forged and protected by men. Only in a world where men lead can there truly be the kind of forward progress- however error-strewn and bloody it might be- that saw mankind march from the swamps to the stars in just under half a millennium.

What we should be aiming for instead is the model that has proven the truest and most successful for the last ten millennia- male dominance, drive, determination, and aggression to build civilisation, balanced out by female nurturing, fecundity, and love to maintain it.

A world in which the laws of society seek to bring men down to the level of women, or seek to elevate women up to the level of men, is a world that cannot be sustained, and no man should countenance supporting such a world if he can avoid it.

Indeed, more and more men are choosing to do just that- avoid the responsibilities that we were taught all our lives were ours to assume. Instead of supporting a world that offers us no rewards for our sacrifices, that denigrates and mocks our beliefs, that seeks to tear us down at every turn, we choose instead to retreat, to abandon them to their madness. And why shouldn't we, when there is literally no point to following the rules of the game given that the game is rigged against us?

Dr. Helen's book is an important battle in the long-term war for civilisation. But it is a flawed one even so, for while it identifies the problem perfectly, and mauls the architects of this insanity masterfully, it falls far short in its attempts to find solutions. Despite its flaws, I would still strongly recommend that you read it, for there aren't many Red Pill women out there who truly get it. Dr. Helen really does.

Didact's Verdict: 3/5, the first two-thirds are outstanding but then the last third just sort of goes all limp-wristed. Definitely recommended if you want some ammunition to take on feminists and other lower primates.

Republican, Democrat, Same F***ing Thing

President #43's take on the stupidity that's come back to bite President #44 in the ass:
Snowden leaked details about U.S. communications surveillance programs to The Guardian newspaper and is currently holed up in the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow awaiting news of his request for asylum in Ecuador. 
The comments from Bush, who put the controversial programs in place, marked a rare moment of accordance with the man who succeeded him. 
“I put the program in place to protect the country and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed,” he said. “I think there needs to be balance and as the President explained, there is a proper balance.”
It is no secret that I have next to zero respect for President Jackass. I actually do have some for his predecessor, but not much. There are two things about President Dubya's reaction to the Snowden revelations that I find very telling.

First, he seems to think that there is somehow some sort of "balance" between civil liberties and security. There just isn't. Either your people are free to do what they please within the bounds of civilised behaviour and the Non-Aggression Principle, under laws that they themselves have chosen, or your people are enslaved by their governments and told what to do, what to think, and how to act. I'd dearly like to see what happens to this country when- not if, but when- the government decides to render the Second Amendment completely ineffective. After all, the other nine parts of the Bill of Rights plainly don't mean anything to them anymore.

Second, this is the man who authorised these wire-tapping programs. The desecration of America's most cherished freedoms happened under his aegis. Yet it is his successor who gets to take the heat. I can't say I regret this very much, given my well-known and well-established deep dislike of him, but if the MSM had any intelligence whatsoever, it would realise that blaming just the current occupant of the Oval Office is not sufficient.

All you have to do to understand America's dark and dismal future is to read Dubya's comments above. Once you do, you will quickly realise that there is no point in pretending that America can salvage this situation. The Republican and Democrat wings of the One Party will simply carry on pretending that the people matter, and the people will simply carry on pretending that they have a real choice.