We Want You for the Army of Men


When I talk about an “army of men” it sounds like a group that seeks to forward a patriarchal agenda through violence, but we already have a group like that, they’re called ISIS. When it comes down to it an army is about community and service. They’re fraternities that step up for the good of their countries. That’s what I mean by an army of men. We need more men like that, men that value the good of their communities and seek to serve.

The Modern Lack of Service

Some people may take exception to the suggestion that service has disappeared from our world, but that’s not quite what I mean. I mean genuine service has become quite rare. Most “service” these days can be grouped into three categories;

Exploitation

Most employment is some form of exploitation. We serve the rich and they give us disproportionately little compensation. We make huge sacrifices for their benefit but they almost never show their gratitude. Hey just cast us aside when we’re no longer of use to them. That’s not service, it’s slavery.

Marketing

You see it all the time that companies use charitable contributions as a form of marketing. They make donations to get there names on stadiums and performing arts festivals but when you look behind the curtains they’re guilt of some heinous atrocities. Service is selfless. How can it be selfless if they insist on put attaching their name to the benefactor?

Ego Nutrition

It seems people often do so,e sort of service just because it makes them feel good. A lot of this kind of service is only helpful in the short term, even when we could resolve the issue permanently. In some cases, the “service” is a problem itself, like how we deal with poverty. We may feed the poor, but to a very low standard, we may house the homeless, but temporarily and in conditions we’d barely subject animals to, we make poverty unbearable by refusing to provide adequate help.

Dig a “Back Channel” of Service

The only acceptable reason for service to be a “one way street” is if one side lacks the means to serve. If a port only had channels lead away from the docks but not toward them, it would be useless. It would drain the community of all its resources so it can’t even support itself. So why don’t we apply the same logic to service. If you’re going to expect someone to serve you, then you need to be willing to serve others. What you need to remember, paying someone doesn’t satisfy any obligation to serve them. As soon as negotiation and market forces enter the equation, the result can’t be considered service. Only payment above and beyond a fair reward can be considered service, payment below that point is exploitation.

That said, that “back channel” doesn’t need to always lead directly to those who serve you. The more you take from the community, the more you should’ve give back. If you’re living a life of excess in a city with poverty, then the poverty is your fault. If there’s illiteracy you need to help the schools. Conservatives often object to big government and many of their social programs, but they’re only necessary because so many refuse to do their part.

Build Your Community

Unfortunately, most of us are forced into isolation by the anti-community society we now live in. So few of us live in places with parks that moms and kids frequent or pubs where the men get together to commiserate about the work day. Church attendance isn’t even something we can assume anymore. All that means we don’t naturally develop strong communities. We have to seek it out intentionally. Finding likeminded people can be quite difficult and may be spread out all over the area, which will make it harder to build and maintain the relationships that lie at the core of the community.

Community has a lot of benefits. To start with, it allows you to form or join an honour group, to give you a stronger motivation to be a good man. It also gives you a support system you can call on when you need it. Most obviously, it gives you the social life that we crave as humans.

The Recruiting Pitch

How could I use a picture of Uncle Sam and not have a recruiting pitch? We need all the men we can get but we can’t conscript anymore, too many people are against having men be the soldiers of righteousness. That is, after all, what joining the army of men is, becoming a soldier of righteousness. I’m asking you to stand up for what’s right, by whatever means you can.

How can you join? We don’t have recruiting offices but you can join by simply deciding to. Start building your community. You can be one of the first to join my charity and honour society, or find another find another group of honourable men and ladies to join, and build your community off of that.

I’d also advise that you join a medium size church. If a church is too large it tends to lack community, and if it’s too small it’ll lack the resources for effective services, and likely feel closed. If church isn’t the place for you at this point in your life, find another service organization, like your local Rotary Club or Freemason Lodge.

Do some soul searching. Reflect on this. Pray on it. Do whatever you do to consider your decisions. When you’re ready, join the Army of Men and make it a part of who you are. Work to improve yourself and your community. Share this call to service and community, and maybe leave a comment show solidarity with your new “brothers in arms” and your support for the prospective recruits.

Advertisements

The Forms of Patriarchy

When people, especially feminists, talk about patriarchy, they tend to see it as all or nothing. Either men are in charge or we’re not, but when you start to challenge that assumption it starts to crumble quite quickly. After all, when was the last time you heard of a man making a decision without giving even the slightest consideration to his wife’s opinion.

What is Patriarchy?

The simplest and most general definition of patriarchy is leadership by men. Any case in which a man gets any degree of power from his gender is patriarchy, whether as isolated as a date or as widespread and long lasting as the papacy. Patriarchy can be absolute or it can complement democracy or matriarchy.

A man having power isn’t necessarily patriarchy. Sometimes a man gets power from something independent of his gender. A senior military officer is chosen for his skill as a commander, which doesn’t preclude women. A man drives his car on a date because it’s his car. Even on a date, a man’s power usually comes from having planned the date, not from being the man.

Oppressive Patriarchy

As you likely guessed, I’m starting with a form of patriarchy I completely oppose. Fortunately, it’s also been the exception throughout history right up to the present day. Oppressive patriarchy is the entirely misogynistic form of patriarchy. This is where ideas like “women are property” and “all women are weak” can be found. Oppressive patriarchs treat women as servants, ignoring their interests. When women are seen as being of less general worth than men, oppressive patriarchy is at work.

The irony is, feminism is encouraging the type of oppressive patriarchy it claims to be fighting.

Strict Patriarchy

A crucial step removed from oppressive patriarchy, strict patriarchy is the belief that men must never be lead by women. Women are still valued but there are choices that people are denied. In isolated cases it works well but when implemented on a societal scale it tends to become oppressive.

Assumed Patriarchy

Assumed patriarchy is the good form. It really has no down side. When patriarchy is assumed, women can have any power or position when it’s justified, but power goes to men otherwise. There’s no reason that a woman that supports assumed patriarchy couldn’t pursue a career, it just means that deviating from the patriarchal roles would mean she expects to be treated as the exception. This is the philosophy of a good head of household, or any man with a healthy idea of gender for that matter.


This may not be the most actionable of information but it does give you a better understanding of how men and women might interact than what you might learn elsewhere. One last thing to keep in mind; matriarchy could take the same forms but the evidence seems to indicate that matriarchy on a societal level would be disastrous. If you only take one point away from this article, it should be this; patriarchy can be respectful of a woman’s right to choose and can see a woman as having enormous value. So, assume patriarchy, deviate when appropriate, and never look down on those that follow it. 

Is Diversity Good or Bad?

Diversity is one facet of life where people tend to just accept what they’ve been told without examining the situation for themselves. Modern society says diversity is good so people just accept that. But is it good?

To discuss diversity, we must define diversity. Diversity is when there’s more variety within a group than a group that size would inherently have. For example, a group of one hundred white Christian men would have a variety because it’s one hundred individuals, but adding women, Muslims, and Asians would make that group diverse because no group would inherently have that composition.

The Benefit of Diversity 

There is one form of diversity that inevitably flows from all others; diversity of ideas. When we’re presented with a wider variety of ideas, we evaluate them more carefully and come to better decisions. Why does demographic diversity create diversity of ideas? Simple, ideas are formed through the guidance of personal experiences, and everyone’s personal experiences are different. The extent to which personal experience varies proportionally with the difference in demographics. Two rich white men will have very similar experiences and thus ideas, but change even one of those descriptors and their experiences and ideas massively diverge. 

The Problem with Diversity 

Diversity breeds conflict. No matter where a difference comes from, it can give rise to serious conflicts. Wars have been fought over these differences. Conflicts may come from prejudice or reasonable differences of opinion, and they may be rational debates or outright brawls, but conflict is likely to arise in a diverse environment. On the other hand, nobody ever fights because they agree and less diversity means more agreement. 

Natural vs. Artificial Diversity

This is something that seems to rarely come up, why diversity does or does not exist. Natural diversity is diversity that arises because nothing’s preventing it, artificial diversity is when it’s created intentionally. Natural diversity is more likely to bring about a healthy diversity of ideas and less conflict, but artificial diversity is the opposite. 

Conclusion

Is diversity good or bad? Yes. What? It’s not whether or not diversity exists that matters, it’s why. Natural diversity is good and artificial diversity is bad. The same goes for homogeneity. We shouldn’t be actively pursuing diversity but we shouldn’t be fighting it either. When it happens, awesome. When it doesn’t happen, that’s fine too. 

Be a Man, Be a Stoic

Stoicism was a popular philosophy in the Victorian era. It was even the basis for the prevailing honour codes of the time. In the simplest terms, stoicism is soldiering on and maintaining a calm demeanour as much as possible, the quintessential British “stiff upper lip.” Doesn’t that sound manly, facing challenges head on and being ruled by logic rather than emotion? In case that wasn’t enough I’m going to be making some more arguments for embracing stoicism. 

Emotion Feeds Emotion

When one person expresses emotion others react to it. If you yell in anger, others get angry. If you cry, other become sad. Before long everyone becomes extremely emotional. When emotion takes over, a whole plethora of problems appears. 

Emotion Impairs Logic

We’ve all made bad decisions because we were upset. It’s how the human mind works. The more emotional we are, the more important emotions seem to be. Not only that, emotion clouds the mind so nothing shines through and you can only think about whatever inspired the emotion. 

Emotion Blocks Communication

Have you ever been calmly discussing something, until someone starts yelling and suddenly it’s a fight? I’m guessing you have. When emotions boil over, advice becomes demands, observations become insults, and communication breaks down. All you can do anymore is hurt feelings. 

Good Leaders Stay Calm

What’s the most terrifying thing that can happen on a plane? Weird noises from the engines? Turbulence? Smoke in the cabin? No. It’s panicking flight attendants. Why is that so terrifying? The flight attendants only panic when there’s genuine danger. Calm flight attendants means there’s no real danger. Followers always look to their leaders for guidance, stay calm will allow a leader to make wise decisions and make it easier for the followers to stay calm as well.  Virtually all men will eventually become leaders, like when they become husbands and fathers.

Stoicism Can Make Unpleasant Situations Palatable

Sometimes you find yourself in a situation you can’t change, like a hot summer day. If you let your emotions get the better of you, you’ll just make yourself and everyone around you miserable. A mildly unpleasant situation just becomes progressively worse and you’re blind to the good points. If you soldier on it can even become a point of pride that you were able to keep your composure and face the hardship with dignity. I often get headaches on sunny days, but I never hide in a corner and complain, instead I soldier on. 

The Rightful Successor to Children Being “Seen and Not Heard”

Drawing of children reading.Whether we’ve read Anne of Green Gables or we’ve been told about it by our parents or grandparents, we’ve all heard about the old parenting philosophy that children should be seen and not heard. It’s certainly a bit stifling but with the newer ideas we’ve kind of thrown the baby out instead of the bathwater. Like all traditional ideas, it has its merit, even if it’s not the optimal approach.

The Virtues of “Seen and Not Heard”

Whenever you’re considering whether an abandoned idea should be readopted, adapted, or forgotten, you must consider why it was created in the first place. Anyone who’s spent time with children know that they can be quite rambunctious and noisy, which would be very disruptive to the adults who are trying to have a conversation. It’s also easy to become unconcerned with children’s happiness when you have ten of them and there’s a good chance several of them won’t live to adulthood. However its best point is that it teaches boys the stoicism and girls the poise they should have as adults. 

Our Current Ideas

We seem to have adopted the belief that children are some sort of miniature master race. We cater to them and even use disciplinary philosophies that can never be replaced by something more mature, like an honour system. So often parents refuse to punish their children or even deny their wishes. We coddle our children and risk them growing up to believe the world revolves around them, literally and metaphorically. We’ll even reject academic standards to protect their self esteem, something I may have found a solution to. We teach them etiquette that either puts them first or denies them the right to agency, rarely anywhere in between.

The Rightful Successor

So if the old ideas are wrong and the new ideas are wrong, then what should we do? We need to find the balance. We need to adapt adult etiquette to children’s nature. We should teach children to respect the use of all spaces at all times. They can make plenty of noise wherever they’re expected to play but seen and not heard stands where the adults are having a conversation. Every time we’re considering a parenting decision we should ask ourselves “would a child need to reject this lesson to become a healthy adult?” If they will, then it’s the wrong decision. We should adapt but never contradict adult etiquette, and put reality ahead of identity or self esteem. 

Why a Man Can’t Be a “Feminist”

If you’ll recall, when I started this blog I defined a man, but I didn’t really discuss his position on women’s rights. He does support it, but not feminism, because modern feminism couldn’t be further from women’s rights.

Feminists Don’t Argue Logically 

They have a tendency to resort to logical fallacies like straw man arguments. I’ve actually heard of feminists claiming chivalry is sexist because a chivalrous man would open a door for a woman though he’s going a different way and not open a door for a man, when in reality he’d open the door for either when, and only when, he’s going through as well. The only exceptions are when special etiquette applies, such as when he’s on a date. 

In fact, feminists’ arguments are all predicated on their ideology being true, including patriarchy being inherently oppressive and responsible for all violence perpetrated by males against females. 

Feminists Are Misogynists

The feminist ideal is really to turn all women into men, which is the epitome of misogyny. Just take their fashion standards. They encourage women to wear jeans and shorts in place of skirts and pant suits, which should never be worn. They seem to think women shouldn’t even look like women.

Feminists Endorse Unhealthy Gender Dynamics

Without established gender roles couples inevitably struggle to establish the power dynamic of their relationship. The problem is, you can’t have a democracy of two. If you can’t come to unanimous decision you find yourself in a stalemate. That means someone must be in charge. If you don’t establish a leader in advance then whoever cries the loudest or is more Machiavellian ends up in charge. The feminist idea of universal gender equality tries to force democracy in a situation where it can never work. 

Feminists Deny the Relationship Between Rights and Responsibilities

All rights come with some form of responsibilities. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to educate oneself. The right to police protection comes with the responsibility to follow the law. The right to romantic love comes with the responsibility to love one’s significant other. The right to be a mother comes with the responsibility to be a mom. Feminists seem to think they have the right to get married and have kids and then emasculate their husbands and ignore their kids. 

Feminists Oppose Choice

I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard of women hating feminism because it’s been responsible for being a housewife becoming a luxury. Feminists only fight for women to be able to live a man’s life, not to be able to choose the life they want. 

Feminism Causes Collateral Damage

I won’t try to list all the indirect harm feminism has done but it’s been blamed for everything from rising unemployment and falling standards of living to pollution and rising crime rates. Feminism clearly does more harm than good when you consider all its indirect effects. 

Feminism Has Fixed Nothing

None of the changes feminism has brought about have solved any of the world’s problems. Women had a political voice before they could vote, they used to have better options, and they used to have respect. Female feminists tend to play the victim for their own selfish gain, and no man can support that. It’s debatable whether or not any of the problems feminism supposedly addressed ever existed, and if they even would’ve been problems.

Feminists Don’t Understand Consent

Feminists seem to think that every time a woman has sex without explicitly saying yes, she’s been raped. That’s not how consent works. Consent is about deviation from the assumed. Whether it’s an established norm or the natural result of what’s currently happening, consent is required to do otherwise. Rape only occurs when she has the right to say no, which is pretty much always, and is denied the opportunity to or is ignored when she does. 

Feminists Oppose Morality

Feminists were central to the sexual revolution, and the main thing that came out of that is promiscuity. Sexual irresponsibility become acceptable and now STDs and unplanned pregnancy are rampant. It’s even to the point that people are encouraging children to get vaccinated against them, children who are still to young to even be considering sex. Parents are actually being encouraged to assume their children will be sluts. 

Feminism Creates Animosity

There’s no escaping the fact that feminists hate men. They even call manliness “toxic masculinity” and encourage us to be more feminine. They try to convince us that we should feel guilty because we’re justly treated differently because they don’t want to be. Virtually everything they say is about how evil men are and we hate them for it. Everyone who doesn’t agree with them hates them because you can’t love someone who insists on forcing their ideas on you without even putting a moment’s thought into them. Although, we might be more tolerant of them if they didn’t brand their opponents as “sexist,” “misogynistic,” or “chauvinistic” even when they have the utmost respect for women.

Feminists are Hypocrites

Virtually everything they claim to be sexist when it benefits men, they applaud when it benefits women. They say it’s wonderful when a woman’s gender is mentioned in a positive comment and sexist when it’s negative, even when they’re completely objective. They demonise men for refusing a romantic relationship with a physically unattractive woman but see it as a woman’s right to reject a poor man. They nearly always expect women to get their way while men have to fall in line, with the feminist agenda. They only time the don’t fight for women to get preferential treatment is when they don’t want to follow the feminist dogma. 

Equal Rights Are Not Same Rights

Equal rights is the belief that different groups equally deserve rights, same rights is the belief that they deserve the same rights. Equal rights is obviously valid, but same rights for women has no support. Men and women are different in some very significant ways, including physiology and personality, which means differ rights. 

Feminists seem to believe that rights only exist if feminists want them. They don’t even acknowledge that men should have different rights and most women want different rights. Feminists want everything positive  men have, even if they have to take everything away from everyone else.

Feminists Think Sexism Works Like Racism

There are two important differences between race and gender relations; races have fewer differences than genders do, and races don’t need to coexist. I’m by no means opposing the peaceful coexistence of races but no harm would come of it if we didn’t try. The sexes, on their other hand, must coexist. If we don’t, the human race will be extinct within a little more than a century. Coexistence means cooperation, cooperation mean finding our places, finding our places means roles, and roles mean different treatment. The different treatment that feminists brand as “sexism” isn’t in any way. In fact, actual sexism, that is discrimination on the basis of disdain for one sex, has been the almost exclusive domain of feminists and those that seek to avoid angering them. 

Is the Modern Honour Code a Villains’ Code?

Josef Stalin, one of history’s most brutal dictators.


When you look at the world and see how so many seem to be rewriting morality to justify their own wrongdoing you likely wonder what happened to honour. I propose that honour is as strong as ever but the currently prevailing honour code doesn’t enforce virtue but rather encourages villainy. 

What is an Honour Code?

Obviously, I need to be clear on what I mean by “honour code” and that first requires me to define honour. So, what is honour? Honour is a system of enforcing behaviour by praising those who do right and shaming those who do wrong. An honour code is the often unspoken rules that an honour system is trying to enforce. Any rules can be included in an honour code, even requiring evil, but most have been based around genuine virtue. 

The Liberty Movement

I’ve talked about the liberty movement before, and it can be summarised as our transition to a worldview where personal freedom is seen as the ultimate right. The same people who criticise those who call out wrongdoers criticise those who choose to follow tradition. Apparently they support the right to deviate, not the right to choose. 

Tolerance as a Virtue

Tolerance is a good idea but it becomes a problem when it’s elevated to a virtue. First off, tolerance can easily be taken too far. At some point we have to say “who you are or what you do is wrong, so you don’t deserve to be treated like us.” We just need to make sure we reserve that for the evil and legitimately mentally ill. 

Second, those who see themselves as tolerant are usually among the least tolerant. They have no tolerance for difference of opinion. If you disagree with them they label you with what they consider to be the greatest evil imaginable, intolerance. What’s really crazy is that they call it tolerance to force certain beliefs on people but intolerant to even exercise others. 

Slut Shaming

Here’s an example of tolerance gone too far. What is slut shaming? It’s making someone feel bad for being a slut. What’s a slut? She’s  woman who’s promiscuous. What’s promiscuity? It’s excessive sexual activity. Wouldn’t that make slut shaming admirable? Yes it would, but instead a term was invented so they could call it a crime, because it’s wrong to call out someone on their wrongdoings. Oh look, more hypocrisy. Someone seems to be trying to remove all the consequences of sexual irresponsibility, even though that could make healthy sexuality impossible. 

Wage Slavery

If you’ve never heard the term, wage slavery is when an exploitative labour relationship is enforced by the threat of poverty, not unlike the threat of violence that enforced historical slavery. Wage slavery is the norm in the developed world and most people have been brainwashed to believe it’s fair. How could it be? The majority are forced to structure their entire lives around the wishes of a minority, regardless of the sacrifices that requires. On top of that, we’re forced to jump through hoops for the privilege. Whenever someone speaks out against it, their labelled as lazy and told it’s “an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work.” Really, we should live a little more by the Marxist slogan;

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

Opposition to Chivalry

Chivalry developed from the honour codes of medieval knights and encouraged them to keep the best interests of everyone at heart. The elements of those honour codes that have remained relevant have become modern chivalry. 

Some “feminists” now claim that chivalry is sexist. Apparently women deserve to be treated badly, or maybe they’re just bitter and want every woman to feel as worthless as they do. 

Conclusion

So do these elements make the prevalent modern honour code a villain’s code? Let’s review;

  • Freedom as the ultimate right? Villainous
  • Tolerance as a virtue? Villainous
  • Slut shaming seen as wrongdoing? Villainous
  • Wage slavery? Villainous
  • Opposition to chivalry? Villainous

Since every honour code has positive elements in it, the presence of villainous standards makes the whole code villainous. So, reject the prevailing honour code in favour of a more traditionalist code, and be sure to find an honour group that shares it.