Lots of men are anxiously waiting around for some great leader to arise and lead others in their fight for rights. And, lots of men have now waited for decades for "Spartacus" to appear.
But he never will.
There are a variety of reasons for this, of which I will not go into great detail here, but let's just say that there are aspects of the male psyche which make such a scenario highly unlikely.
A philosophy, however, with contributors to it – men could follow that! A philosophy based upon Truth (with a capital T) could be a unifier. All people like to adhere to “Truth.” And between Christians and non-Christians, there is no conflict in “seeking Truth.” Seculars value “Truth.” And, in the Bible, whenever God refers to himself it is usually in a riddle:
- “I am who I am”
- “I am the beginning and the end/the Alpha and the Omega”
- “I am THE TRUTH!”
Every riddle God gives in the Bible to his “identity” is also synonymous with “Absolute Truth.”
“God” is Absolute Truth.
Absolute Truth existed before we were here, and it will exist after we are gone. The Absolute Truth just “is” – It is what it is – (I am who I am) – the Absolute Truth doesn’t need to explain nor justify – it just IS. The Absolute Truth exists on a different plane than we do – whether we figure out the true nature of Absolute Truth or not, does not in anyway refute the existence of said Truth.
If there is one principle to unify us, it must be Absolute Truth. It is something both seculars and Christians can agree are of the utmost importance in seeking. A unifying principle, based upon seeking Truth.
The idea of a “leading philosophy” rather than a human-leader has enormous advantages. One must keep in mind the “two pictures” (small and big) of everyday life (fighting for our immediate rights and quality of life) vs. the philosophy of life/guiding principles upon which the justification for our demands lie.
You can’t really have one without the other. That’s why we have to go back to guiding principles. I like the “pyramid of Truth” idea of John Locke/Founding Fathers:
1 – God’s Law/Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law/Apparent/Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law/Relative/Subjective Truth
It works like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls, where the one fits inside of the other, in order to contain the wild malleability of the human mind (we can justify anything if we really want to, ie. Relative Truth – Jail is full of innocent people). If a Civil Law/Relative Truth contradicts a Natural Law/Apparent Truth, then the Civil Law/Relative Truth is a false one, and so forth. In this way, the “lower truths” are contained by the “higher truths,” and thus we are provided with a philosophical framework that anchors us to reality.
Now, some things that were true yesterday are no longer true today. Changes to medicine and technology can indeed change what is True. (200 years ago, I would have said it is absolutely true that man does not have the ability to fly, let alone propel himself faster than the speed of sound… but today, the Truth is different – the Truth evolved). Also, sometimes things we assumed were true (earth is flat) are also illustrated to have been false. We need something “higher” than apparent truth.
Absolute Truth is purity. It controls all other truths. It is without fault. It is never wrong. It is enduring, it never changes. It couldn’t give a rip if we understand it or not. It is eternal, and it exists on an entirely different plane than us, and often, our understanding. That we thought the earth was flat had no affect on the physics that ruled the earth and the solar system. On that level, our understanding is irrelevant. Absolute Truth trumps all, no matter what we conjure up in our brains.
I think, after a while of studying this whole malaise we are in, eventually one gets exposed to the changing “philosophies” of mankind – such as how a change of thinking about fraternity and equality arose out of the French Revolution and this led to a philosophical change in the way society in general viewed reality. It is often pointed out that this philosophical change is what led to the birth of Marxism and feminism (Relative Truth Uber Alles).
Therefore, if one stands back and looks at the “big picture,” I think that there has to be an underlying philosophy that has to win out over the other. We need a new philosophy. We need a new change in philosophical thought. A new “Age of Reason;” a new “Renaissance of Thought;” we need to philosophically defeat the ideology which has gripped our society to our detriment.
And dammit, why the hell shouldn’t it be us that sparks its creation?
I am pleased to see more and more men starting to put the pieces together and understand how civilization works as a “machine,” that there is cause and effect; that certain things need to be in place in order for other things to occur. I think many men are beginning to understand that there are some unpleasant Truths (and pretty lies), but the unpleasant Truth rules over the pretty lies. This in itself is a turn back to the Absolute Truth. Lying/Ideology doesn’t change the way the world actually is. When confronted with a higher truth, lower truths must be adjusted to accommodate it.
A way to think of building a philosophy is to think of something like the Martial Arts. There really isn’t a “leader,” but there is a “right way” and a “wrong way,” even though sometimes there are variations upon “the right way.” And, the Martial Arts acknowledges certain Truths (both physical and philosophical), and puts them together into a discipline, or a framework, that over-all creates something very powerful and useful.
We should forget about a “leader” and rather look for “leading principles,” of which it is of the utmost importance that Absolute Truth be the base of it all. Our ultimate goal should be to seek Absolute Truth, for it trumps all else. (Even ***gasp*** equality is trumped!)
Once we have philosophical principles, then we can “build.”
I like building stuff, don’t you?
We should build ourselves a philosophical ladder, so men can get themselves out of this sewer. Just like we understand how “marriage puts sex to work” by harnessing the sex drive of men and attaching it to children through women, if we look at the mechanics of these things and understand the Truths of them, we can identify the base elements of what keeps that machine running and cut off the unnecessary riff-raff.
We have to have philosophical principles underlying us, otherwise “right and wrong” will be forever malleable – and that is just continuing to live in the wicked grip of Feminism and Marxism. No thanks!
Many things can be integrated into such a “philosophical machine.”
For example: Many things in the Bible can be shown to have a mechanical purpose – like how its laws and morals have resulted in a “civilization creator” by the way it structures society. These are truths that exist both within, and outside of the religion itself. There is quite an easy over-lap here.
I also suspect that Buddhist thought might be able to integrate in, for it also seeks Truth, and just as how we can recognize the Christian model for creating civilization, I believe there are certain Truths that can be illustrated through Buddhism’s disciplines which do the same. An example of what I mean is how both religions offer a path to personal peace through either meditation or prayer, and further, how both meditation and prayer can be explained psychologically/scientifically without the aspect of religion in it. All three of these things are about mentally acknowledging the limit of being able to control everything about you, and submitting to a higher power so you don’t go cuckoo. In no way does acknowledging these “mecahnical truths” discredit the idea of God, but it doesn’t demand you believe in God either. And, it also allows that both Buddhists and Biblical Wisdom tap into the Absolute Mechanical Truths that make up the Universe.
In this way, the Truth has not been compromised, nor the religious beliefs of Buddhists, Christians, Seculars, or even Jedi Knights such as myself. Christians, Buddhists and Seculars can all three hold black-belts in the same martial art without compromising their religious beliefs, can’t they?
Anyway, this line of thought comes because I’ve been dialing it back, and dialing it back aaaaaand dialing it back to see at what point there is a common-denominator where all of us can co-operate together on something. When I realized that even as internet writers who use words as weapons, we cannot even convince 15 or 30 writers to make an agreement to start introducing simple words and phrases within their articles, so that over time we may start to manipulate the English language to our advantage in the same way that others have done in the recent past (like when the name of husband or wife was changed to the uni-sexual "partner" to allow for the integration of the gay marriage debate into society)… Lol! Well, that is something pretty simple, I think. But… it is just not achievable… in that way. So, until such a simple thing can be accomplished, all construction on the Tower of Babel should cease and desist!
This is why I keep thinking that perhaps the only thing we can truly “build” is a “philosophy” to pass on to other men – and since men won’t co-operate on a damn thing, any philosophy has to start on a personal basis. It has to serve the individual on a personal level first. It can build itself further from there if it so chooses, I don’t know. But I have come to the conclusion that the only thing we can “build” is a philosophy to help ourselves first to navigate this world.
For example – There is a maxim that seems to run all the way from the personal/micro-level, right to the macro-level, which is that promiscuity leads to clashing with the law. The more sexually “loose” you are, directly increases the amount of exposure to the steel fist of the law.
I wish I had kept it, but I once seen a comparison between “sexual freedom” vs. “all other freedom.” And it was quite amazing. If one practices sexual restraint, hosts of other freedoms become possible. However, the more sexual, the more laws are needed to keep things going. Highly sexual people vastly expose themselves to risks of totalitarianism, and all the way to the top, a highly sexual society necessarily becomes totalitarian to survive.(Divorce Laws, Child-support, Welfare, etc.)
However, if you limit your exposure to these dangers, even on a personal level, our society still provides a pretty good and “free” place to live in. Government can’t come after you for child support if you have no kids. (Sex). And on it goes – Alimony, TRO bullshit, DV Charges, VAWA/IMBRA… on and on it goes… but the one thing that is a constant – they all ultimately derive from sex. Limit your exposure, and all of those things are not really much of a problem for you.
It seems like a “truism” to me – a “principle.” That doesn’t mean a philosophy based upon that truism has to demand 100% sexual restraint – but it could demand that one acknowledges the Truth of it, and therefore is not blind to it, and thus becomes responsible for his own actions. (Which is surviving in this world, rather than just being tossed about by it).
I suspect that this is the only thing we will truly be able to “build.” Philosophies to help guide men through life with truisms such as these, but they have to start on the personal level first – to provide that benefit to each man directly at the outset. Maybe after that, the “collective consciousness” of like-minded men will slowly retake the culture.
“MGTOW – Taking the Personal Out of The Political”
Previous Index Next
MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way
Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests