Where does political division come from?


Or, why are there so many countries? Why aren’t we all unified under a single government yet?

Looking at American politics, it is clear that we have reached a stable state. There are two sides to the political spectrum. People just don’t cross from one side to the other in any large numbers. And there is simply no compromise between the two sides. Neither can budge nor can we find any common ground.

How did we get here? Are we repeating history itself?

I believe we are.

Societies go through a process of change, evolution if you will. Evolution, in this case, doesn’t always lead to bigger and better. Often it means things get significantly worse.

Societies divide, I believe, into two groups of people. There are those who simply want to mind their own business and tend to their own affairs, and those who want to meddle in other people’s business. The latter group comes from many backgrounds and excuses, from the noble (I care so much, I have to get involved!) to the ignoble (I want to enslave you to make my life better.)

It doesn’t matter what their motivations are, the results are always the same.

The problem with meddling with other people’s lives is that you will never understand their life as well as they understand their own. Only in the most extreme circumstances (such as mental retardation and similar diseases) can we begin to agree that meddling in their life will improve their life, but there is absolutely no reason why a semi-rational person should be interfered with in any way, as long as they keep to themselves.

Interestingly, even though societies divide along these lines, that isn’t the line that causes the division. See, one group, the non-meddlers, can exist with each other in infinite numbers. I can see how the world could have a one-world government, if everyone in the world simply agreed to leave each other alone. The division comes, instead, from the meddlers.

The meddlers inevitably clash with each other, and soon, they attempt to gain power over each other. In a political arms race, soon they are resorting to ever more extreme tactics to gain the upper hand, and eventually, blood is shed and you have war. This is how the Civil War in the United States was started. It wasn’t until you had the pro-slavery people and the anti-slavery people at each other’s throats and blood being spilled that war become obvious and even necessary.

We are in such an age where a group of meddlers has been disempowered, and they are resorting to ever more increasingly desperate measures to obtain power again.

How do we stop it? It’s pretty easy, actually. You stop the meddling by forbidding it. Imagine if, tomorrow, all the laws governing discrimination and segregation and such were repealed. No longer did the governments care about what a person’s skin color was, or their income level, and instead, they were left to their own devices to survive in the harsh reality of the world. What would the meddlers do if they didn’t have government to back up their meddling?

Before the Civil War, without the federal government to continue to support slavery, the Southern Democrats realized that the end was nigh, and so they fired the first shots in secession and war. It would be interested to see what the modern leftists would do if faced with a similar crisis!

Our goal should be the complete disenfranchisement of any aspect of government involved in meddling. No more welfare. No more discrimination lawsuits. No nothing. As long as no one is being murdered or robbed, then the government doesn’t are what happens. If the leftists want to continue their insanity, they are free to do so, but with their own money and their own power, not the money and power of the government.

This is the only way to preserve the union.

Go back in history, and you’ll see political divisions always arise from the elite. Anytime the non-meddlers try to distance themselves from government or political entities, they are unsuccessful. It is only when they meddle in the government, when they disempower them, that unity can be achieved.

European history might have looked a lot different had their kings and emperors concerned themselves only with securing the individual rights of the people, and leaving everything else alone. Alas, for whatever reason, they did not, and that’s why they are still divided to this day.


12 Responses to “Where does political division come from?”

  1. Jason Gardner Says:

    You are thinking in terms of Marxist ideology. Almost everyone does. We assume that what is important to us now, in the 21st century, is and was important to everyone across all time.

    As an example, we assume that people have always fought for resources to fuel industrial factories. Or that most historical conflicts were based on politics or the distribution of resources.

    This is not true. Humans, historically, have fought over land and women. Mostly women. Almost never have people fought over political ideology. Religion? Yes. Ascension of a king? Sure. The rights and duty of a leader? Not really.

    Read the following book. It’ll help illuminate.


    People, in fact, demanded in most cases that the government deliver the goods. For example, a Viking Jarl, kept his job by delivering the booty from summer raiding. If the booty stopped coming in the Jarl was gone.

    Similarly, if a King couldn’t protect his people he was usually gone as well. Or dead.

    People bonded into ever bigger groups to attack other weaker groups for booty and women or, conversely, to prevent other bigger groups from coming and taking their booty and women. Thus the rise of the nation state.

    We now see the result of these super states, and the resultant peace. No entity is strong enough to come into the USA and take our booty and women. You simply do not worry about Mongolian hordes, Viking raiders or Apache Indians.

    However, in the lack of an external threat we do what we’ve always done. Fracture. There is not reason to bond together so we naturally go back to our sub clans, where we feel most comfortable.

    If this process continues long enough the nation-state breaks up and the sub-clans go at it. (Looking at you Yugoslavia!)

    This is the root of the historical cycle. Hard men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. Repeat.

    “European history might have looked a lot different had their kings and emperors concerned themselves only with securing the individual rights of the people, and leaving everything else alone. Alas, for whatever reason, they did not, and that’s why they are still divided to this day.”

    Hint: They didn’t because Vikings showed up and started hitting them in the head with axes.

    As soon as the states or kingdom appeared weak, they were a target for invasion by a strong neighbor. A bunch of soy-boy libertarians with pot bellies, weak resolve and untold riches would have lasted some 5-6 seconds historically. Everyone would have invaded. Soy boys dead, their women now sex slaves.

    The reason you wife is not a sex slave and you are not dead is that there are some very tough, tough men (like Jocko Willink) who protect you. If their protection goes away you will be invaded and pillaged.

    Hell, I still want to invade weaker countries. Must be the Viking in me.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Had the Europeans been chiefly concerned with fending off Viking raids, there would have been no reason to fragment. The fragmentation of Europe was caused by people trying to exceed the protection of basic rights (such as the right not to be raped and pillaged by Vikings) and instead pursued other things, either selfish wealth or power or some kind of project meant to elevate the people to a higher spiritual purpose, such as the restoration of Rome or whatnot.

      Europe’s problem is that they never come together when it is obvious they should. When Muslims or Vikings invade, the people in the lands 2 days walk away can’t be bothered to rally to protect their brothers, and if they are, then they feel it is their duty to impose their will upon the people they defend. I think back on the HRE and how it could’ve and should’ve been the center of the world, an empire reaching even greater heights than the Roman Empire, but petty squabbles kept it from ever achieving its potential. Had they unified in expelling the Muslim hordes from Byzantium lands, or defending any of her neighbors from the Muslims, they could’ve easily re-established an empire that not only spanned the Mediterranean but deep into Asia as well.

      English history is entirely different, I believe, for this reason: They focused almost exclusively on defending themselves from one invader after another. Aside from a few jaunts in French lands across the channel, most of their military history reads as “Repelled invasion from X, Y, and Z, then stopped for a delightful tea.” Notice that over time England began to incorporate the other political entities into their own, first Wales and later Scotland and Ireland. Rather than divided into fragmented political structures, they unified into the greatest power the world had seen (before America, of course.)

  2. Jason Gardner Says:

    That is the natural friction. We give up some of our rights to protect ourselves from outside threats or become someone else’s outside threat.

    The English weren’t English really for a thousand years after the Romans left. They had Westphalia, Northumbria, Mercia, the Danelaw, Wessex, etc. It wasn’t till the Normal invasion (Norman = North Men, i.e. Descendants of Rollo the Viking) that England was formed.

    In fact, the English weren’t the original English. That would be the Celts and Picts. The “English” we have now are really Germanic invaders that picked apart what the Romans left. (See being weak, etc.)

    So they weren’t defending from invasion THEY WERE THE INVADERS. Britain was weak after the Romans moved out and the Germans moved in. In doing so they extinguished the Celts and Picts, who were weak.

    In short, the history of Britain is the history of a group of strong people fighting over the carcass that was Britain after Rome left. Once the strong men Romans left, anarchy ensued and another group of strong moved in, took the women and the land and, viola, we have England.

    After England was unified it started looking outward and formed an Empire but that was much later. The empire started once the figured out that if they could work together they could pillage the world. They realized that the world was ripe for plundering and they went at it with gusto. (Hey, can’t get rid of the old Viking urges I guess.) That is the British Empire.

    I know it’s fun to romanticize history. But even jolly old England has a history of incredible violence between incredibly violent men. Sure, there is a veneer of nobility and civility but don’t let it fool you. Violence is the name of the game.

    To the victor goes the spoils.

    As to why didn’t the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) unite the world? The technology just wasn’t there perhaps but more likely and the people were too German in spirit. Too independent. Why should I, as a Dane, bend the knee to a Frank? Why should I worship his God? Why should I abide by his customs? The answer of “well there is these guys called the Muslims a thousand miles away….” likely wouldn’t be persuasive to a Dane. The Dane, being a man to the bone, would be sure that if this “Muslim” came up to Daneland there would be an axe waiting for his Muslim skull. (Probably true. Bjorn Ironsides had a good time in the Mediterranean slapping around Muslims.)

    Why would any Dane submit to a Frankish king? Honest question. Why would I give up my independence to a foreigner. Why would you give up your independence to a foreigner?

    Manly virtue dictates that you cannot.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Yes, the English were the only ones capable of defending the island, more or less, from invaders. Fragmented, they could not. Something changed when the Anglo-Saxons arrived, maybe it was race, maybe it was culture, regardless, the behavior of these new people as compared to the old changed the history of that island.

      True, Great Britain did turn to exploiting the world. No one can deny that. Who knows what the original motivation was? Perhaps they needed to take India and setup the colonies to prevent Spain from gaining the upper hand, or prevent the Portuguese from shifting the balance of power in Europe and expose the British Isles. Or perhaps they were just greedy.

      Of note, once the British did get their world-wide empire, they ruled it as justly as can be expected of any nation, perhaps the noblest of any empire, almost completely devoid of the baser instincts. I credit capitalism, the system of economics that has all but virtually eliminated poverty wherever it is applied, as an English invention, only possible thanks to the extent of the British Empire. Many of their colonies and territories, to this day, insist on English rule. Entire modern countries such as Canada and Australia, still hail the monarch of England as their monarch, and in places like the Bahamas, they want English citizens to be their judges.

      It’s true that the victor gains the spoils. But what do they do with it?

      Can anyone argue that the modern American system of granting independence and a certain level of autonomy as wrong? It is what the Romans ended up doing: Conquer a nation, insist that they recognize the Roman emperor and Roman law, render their tribute, but otherwise leave them to their own devices, adopting the noblest and most capable and willing as their own citizens. We have records of the different methods Romans have tried throughout the millennia, and that seems to be what they settled on as the most effective way to ensure peace and plenty for their citizens. So do we, today, insist on our conquered enemies joining our worldwide trade alliance, obeying international law, and maintain the maximum degree of autonomy — within limits.

      The HRE had the manpower. They had the technology. They had the resources. They had strong warriors ready to fight. They had the leadership. They had the cultural and religious unity. Everything pointed to them being able to easily conquer the Western world, and yet all they did was give us a rich tradition of how *not* to build federations.

      I would give up my independence for the same reason any other person would: Finding my government incapable of protecting me and securing my rights, I would look for another government. If that’s a Dane or a Swede or an African or Chinese, I wouldn’t care. If governments cannot protect the rights of their people, they don’t deserve to rule the people, and should be altered or abolished, until we get a government that does. Obviously, no one but the Europeans even understand this concept, so I would be especially suspicious of anyone not from that cultural background. The English have the best traditions, but even there, I find them suspect. Americans seem to be the only people left on this planet that even understands these concepts in practice.

  3. Jason Gardner Says:

    Correct. The English did great things with their strength. But first, they had to have strength.

    To be a virtuous ruler like England was you first need to be a strong conqueror. Virtue follows strength it doesn’t lead it. Strength leads mercy. Without strength there can be no mercy.

    Another example, wealth.

    Wealth is the result of a number of higher virtues. We do get wealthy based on the free market but the free market rests on a foundation of protestant values and the protestant work ethic. (Not modern day feel good churchianity but the type of Christianity that an Amish man would recognize.)

    The protestant work ethic rests on higher virtues like strength, physical courage, discipline, honor, honesty and commitment to a life of service to one’s own kind.

    The problem in society now is people don’t have their values, virtues and morals in order. We like to focus on the results of manly virtue but want to avoid at all costs the difficult life of virtue. We avoid hard work, self discipline, working to develop physical courage, etc. It’s much easier to just virtue signal how much we like the results of those values while totally avoiding the foundation on which those values rest.

    I believe if you read what true conservative values from all the sources available (Old Testament, Rome, the Greeks, American Indians and the British for example) you can see a pattern emerge.

    1) Make you life long and in the service of your people.
    2) Live a life of honor. Defend your honor when questioned.
    3) Practice self discipline.
    4) Have physical courage.
    5) Accept death without fear. i.e. “Live your life so that the fear of death can never enter your heart.”
    6) Live modestly.

    A quick shorthand is the quote “Discipline equals freedom.” Sums it up pretty well I think.

    Modern conservatives are off track because they’ve been sold a bum steer as far as what it means to be conservative. Honor has been replaced with sports cars physical courage replaced by office promotions.

    We are degrading as a people because we have accepted the false gods of shekles and trinkets and forgotten the values of our fathers. This will not end well for us.

    Read the Old Testament again. It has a great warning. God commanded the Jews to live by the old code. A VERY strict code. If they did God promised to reward them. If they didn’t God would punish them. (Seriously, read Deuteronomy 7 to get an idea of what God had in mind…)

    This is the message of the Old Testament and as true today as it was 5,000 years ago.

    Develop manly virtue and live life by a manly code or suffer the consequence.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

      I love the idea that you can’t be merciful if you don’t have the power to be vengeful. Mercy due to weakness is not mercy, it is just weakness.

      Deut. 7 is often mocked because it shows a God who demands his people be strong conquerors. It shows a God that doesn’t tolerate disobedience or weakness. Jesus didn’t come to the earth to make us weak, but to show us the path to strength, to overcome, not to become complacent about, our vices and weaknesses.

  4. Jason Gardner Says:

    When I was a kid I associated (as many young men do) muscles with toughness. I went to the gym and pumped myself up to be a tough guy. However, like most young men I didn’t have it right. I was backwards. I’ll show you why.

    Imagine a guy that goes through SeAL training, or Ranger training, or some similar hard work that results in toughness. They will have muscles as a RESULT of the training. They made themselves tough and have the resultant muscles.

    A young man looking at the tough man sees the muscles and thinks that the muscles are the CAUSE of the toughness. Only later does the young man grow to a full man and realize that he had it backwards.

    Wealth is a result of manly virtue. If you practice manly virtues such as ruthless self examination, physical courage and discipline you will likely be materially comfortable. Wealth is not, however, a manly virtue. No great thinker or moralist worships a man with shekels and trinkets. They worship the character of the man and note that wealth followed.

    A great tragedy is the man who gets wealth without manly virtue. Often these men will kill themselves, get addicted to drugs or similar. They thought the money would make them happy but, alas, that isn’t how that works. (See all trust fund kids and celebrities such as Chris Cornell.) Happiness can only achieved through a life of manly virtue. (As we humans have known for thousands and thousands of years.)

    Free markets work, yes. In a society of people with manly virtue. If you have a society without manly virtue then people will be selling crap food to kids, getting teen girls addicted to facebook, selling porn to young men and selling horrible processed foods to adults. The people will be fat, lazy, intellectually vacuous and morally bankrupt. Or, basically, you have modern America.

    We see that this lack of societal manly virtue in the worship of the Khardashians, gansta rap, obesity, adult diabetes, drug addiction etc. The only cure is to spread true conservative values. (NOT free market values or weird moral posturing values) Only when we have adopted the true conservative values of our fathers will society correct itself.

    The elites know this. This is why they ruthlessly mock actual conservative values and force feed you pseudo-conservative values. Loyalty to your people and a life of austerity and hard work? What a degenerate loser/racist/bigot/redneck/ignorant freak! Letting corporations do whatever they want without restraint? Wow, how very intellectual you are! Good boy!

    I hope you see the coincidence that “conservative icons” such as Ayn Rand, Ben Shapiro, William Kristol, Milton Friedman, etc all belong to a tribe. And it isn’t your tribe. They teach false conservative values. They talk long about how people (particularly their people) should be able to make money unhindered but are short when it comes to true virtues like loyalty to your people, austerity, discipline, strength of body and mind. Don’t be fooled by them. Find, learn and develop true virtue. Manly virtue. Teach your sons manly virtue. Teach your daughters to find a man with manly virtues.

    If we don’t restore actual conservative values, the values of our fathers from time immemorial… Well the Old Testament and history makes it clear what will happen. We will lose God’s favor and disappear from the earth. Period. Full stop. Non-negotiable.

    In short, if we want limited government we need manly virtue. If we want free markets, we need manly virtue. If we want any of the higher conservative values you espouse, we need manly virtue.

  5. Jason Gardner Says:

    I have a concept I’d like to run by you…

    The theory is that if you cannot be bad, you cannot be good. In other words, if you aren’t in part evil, you have no capacity for good.

    An example: Imagine your youngest son came up to you and said “Dad, I’m not going to have sex with supermodels this weekend.” You’d likely chuckle a bit because you know that he has no capacity whatsoever to have sex with supermodels this weekend.

    Tom Brady, on the other hand, does. The fact that he doesn’t have sex with supermodels means something because he easily could. Tom Brady is moral because can but he doesn’t, your kid is not bad nor good because he cannot be immoral.

    So you cannot be a good person unless you have the capacity (or at least recognize your capacity) to be evil. You have to know evil and choose good to be moral. If you cannot be evil (you are an infant, retarded, schizophrenic, etc.) then it means nothing to be good. You are simply a moral zero. The chihuahua of the moral world.

    Now, non-whites talk constantly of white privilege, only whites can be racist, etc. Pretty common stuff on campus among the libs.

    Initially, I dismissed this as just BS. But in the frame of morality I presented it makes sense.

    Europeans have a overwhelming tremendous capacity for good (flight, space flight, modern medicine, etc) and an absolutely frightening capacity for evil (Hiroshima, conquering the world, killing the native Americans, Nazis, Vikings, Romans, etc.)

    Historically, it was never good to run into us. Especially if we were in conquer mode.

    If all the white males in the world decided tomorrow to kill ever non-white they could do it. Not a problem at all.

    This makes us scary to others, as we are the only people on the planet who have true moral agency.

    For example, consider the Maasai. Can they be bad? Sure, I guess. I suppose they could invade a neighboring tribe. Do they have nuclear weapons? Haha, no. Can they be good? Not really, they have zero influence on the world. Their choices don’t really matter.

    In this framework it makes sense that we males of European (German) persuasion are so vilified. We are terrifying. We can be infinitely good (and we are most of the time) or we can make drones that are invisible, fly for hours at a time and evaporate whole families when we feel like it. The go for coffee, come back and do it again.

    In other words, we have repeatedly proven that we can be infinitely productive or infinitely destructive. No other group can make such a claim.

    Our morals matter more than any other groups.

    I think that is why there is such a concerted effort to destroy “whiteness.” To some it is worth killing the good in order to render the bad part impotent.

    I also think that people, subliminally at least, know this. Non-whites don’t really understand our culture but they do know, from a long history of interaction, how absolutely terrifying we can be.

    Remember, you are where you are because your ancestors got on a boat, surprised someone then put an ax in their head and took their land. You come from a long line of extremely violent, and civilized, people. Violence that can erupt spontaneously and with a fury unmatched by any other set of people.

    Easy to see why non-European people don’t like that. They are constantly sleeping next to a lion.

    The effort to render us impotent seems logical in this light…

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      It is true — without the opportunity, the capacity, the temptation to sin, you cannot choose to be good. This is a fundamental teaching in pretty much every religion in the world. (Except maybe Islam.)

      People like the Massai, whose worst crime is probably murdering two or three of their tribesmen out of selfishness or spite, simply can’t compare to White europeans, who have the capacity to wipe entire nations off the earth with the press of a button. At the same token, the Massai are never going to cure cancer or build an economy that can sustain their entire tribe, plus the rest of the world, at the same time.

      At the end of the day, I don’t think Whites had a “conquer” or “build” mode. We were always in survival mode. Even today, in my cush job with my retirement practically secure, I stay up at night wondering how it will all fall apart, and what I must do to secure my future. We are perpetually paranoid, and we act like scared rabbits. We’re only really comfortable in the struggle to survive, when we know things are bad. It’s when things are good that we go insane.

      The Vikings, as terrible as they were, are perfectly rational to us. We understand them, we even sympathize with them, and sometimes we want to do what they did. I don’t think the rest of the world even comprehends that mindset, let alone sympathizes with it. One thing to note is that the Vikings didn’t raid their countrymen’s villages — they went to foreign shores.

      There is a rumor that the tribe of Ephraim was hot-blooded. In the Bible, one time Judah was under attack and called on Ephraim along with the rest of the tribes to war. Ephraim was the farthest away, but they dawdled and showed up after the fighting was over and the loot partitioned. Ephraim demanded their share, Judah denied them, and then Ephraim attacked Judah. Judah beat back Ephraim and ordered them all slaughtered, so they set up guards along a path in the mountains back to Ephraim and had the men say “Shibboleth”. If they pronounced it like an Ephraimite, they were slaughtered.

      I have suspicions that the German people are really the Ephraimites. The similarities are too many. Note that the Northern Tribes did not practice religion the way the Southern Tribes did. If that is the case, then our blood is hot and we are probably some of the most violent people on planet earth. We understand and accept it in a way other races of men can’t comprehend.

  6. Jason Gardner Says:

    “We’re only really comfortable in the struggle to survive, when we know things are bad. It’s when things are good that we go insane.
    I agree. I think there is a dual nature in life. I also think that we are far, far, far off to one side on our own nature.” — Pretty much sums up a whole bunch of our current problems. I believe we are warriors by nature, innovators and conquerors. Our Germanic spirit needs new lands to explore, new great monuments to build and new people to subdue. Without it we get listless and depressed.

    I’d like to propose another idea.

    The idea that ability to sin leads to the possibility of morality is analogous to the idea I have that danger and competence in men are closely associated.

    I’ll give you an example: People with a weird view of masculinity can’t quite put their finger around what it means to be a man. They typically confuse competence with tyrannical power.

    The two are not the same but they can seem to be the same to a set of eyes that cannot suss out the difference. Hierarchies based on competence (who’s a better quarterback) vs. hierarchies based on oppression often looks the same but have different fundamental DNA.

    An ignorant outsider looks at a hierarchy of competence and sees oppression or “white privilege.” European American’s went to the moon based on a massive amount of technical competence. If you don’t understand how hard it was (i.e. a college student who doesn’t know anything) it is easy to just see an exclusively white male club based on a bunch of racist misogynists keeping you out.

    These people can’t see the difference between a “bunch of racist whites” and highly competent white engineers because their own level of understanding of the problem is so low.

    I think that feminists in particular have a hard time with telling the two hierarchies apart. I noticed years ago that feminists either didn’t have men in their lives (fine, whatever) or they have incompetent men in their lives.

    I think it comes down to their lack of trust in their own femininity (one aspect is means the ability control men successfully). Think about a guy like our brother Jared. He’s extremely competent. But he is also extremely dangerous. He could, at any time he chooses, simply walk over and kill his wife. He is more than strong enough and more than violent enough to do whatever he wants to her.

    Buuuuut…. He can also build a house, fix engine, lift heavy objects and is certainly able to defend his wife an children from a random attacker.

    Now, his wife took a bit of a risk marrying him. To have this extremely competent and powerful man in his life, a very useful man indeed, she has to trust her ability to tame his potential for brutality and trust herself to make a good judgement of his character.

    She has to wisely differentiate between a highly competent man who can be violent, a truly violent man (criminal) and a incompetent man with no capacity for violence.

    If she can select for the first kind of man and can properly (and she obviously is) tame him then she gets the benefit of an extremely useful man in her life. But his is a gamble that requires that a woman trust her abilities. If she plays her cards right she gets a man very high on the competence hierarchy. A win for her.

    Picture a woman who doesn’t trust her own femininity or ability to properly judge men. She will often choose men who are useless. Physically weak, can’t change a tire, won’t stand up to anybody, listless in life. Now, she does this because her soy-boy husband/boyfriend is useless and harmless, including lacking he ability to harm her but he reward is, well, he’s useless.

    Or, worse, she will choose an incompetent man who is violent. The guy who abuses her then lives off her because he can’t keep a job or keep his own finances in order. The reason being that she can’t tell the capacity for violence (which is a feature of a competent man) from a purely violent man.

    Of course, she’ll eventually resent having a useless/violent man in her life. Then blame all men. Viola. A feminist.

    But the key confusion is her not being able to tell a competence hierarchy apart from power hierarchy.

    White males, as a group, have a high degree of competence with the associated ability to be unbelievably violent. We generally operate in societies that reward a competence hierarchy. Our leaders are generally the most competent vs. the most violent. (Imagine the CEO of your company being the most aggressive and violent. Almost comical to think about.)

    This is not the same as groups that are useless and harmless or groups that are useless and violent. (Insert racial, ethic stereo types here…)

    Not the same at all.

    So when people say “What you’re saying is masculinity is just running around kicking peoples asses” you know they don’t understand the principle above.

    Comfort with violence, physical courage and physical strength are all a part of a man being useful. However, to be purely violent and useless in other aspects of life is not the habit of a man. Neither is the neutered existence of a weak and useless man who is afraid of his own shadow.

    We as a society have gone a bit insane in that we forget that a key part of manhood is the ability to be violent and have physical courage. (Imagine a King Arthur that didn’t know how to use a sword or ran away at the first sight of battle.)

    I propose that as a society, we mistake the ability to use violence as being violent. In doing so we make violence pathological and then render ourselves impotent. Sad state of affairs.

  7. Jason Gardner Says:

    Think about the long historical game. After *Rome collapsed, the Goths (out of Sweden) went conquering and ended up on the Iberian peninsula. The Germans and Scandinavian Germans then set out to invade and colonize Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes, and the Shetlands. They also went east and south, creating Russia (Rus was the Slavic word for viking), moved into France and northern Italy. They raided north Africa and served as bodyguards to the Byzantine rulers.

    They next went to the new world (English, French and Spanish = Viking, Frank and Goth) where they conquered and colonized North and South America. Not satisfied they went around the globe from east to west, north pole to south pole, exploring, conquering and colonizing.

    Not satisfied with that they went to the damn moon. Now the Germans (that’s you and I) are sending probes to Mars and the far planets.

    Says something about us. We just can’t stop exploring, conquering, colonizing.

    We’ve created this amazing legacy.. I don’t understand the modern day rush to throw it away, or be ashamed of it. We created the modern world and the modern world will not exist if we leave.

    *Rome itself was likely founded by Germans. Read about what is called the bronze age collapse. It happened around 1200 BC. The earth got cold and barbarians (called by the Egyptians “Sea People”) came from somewhere (my huge bet is on the north of Europe) and wiped almost every civilization off the map.

    The world went into a dark age that lasted from 300-700 years. People forgot how to write! That’s how bad it was.

    When the veil was lifted there were city states of people who were incredibly violent and yet interspersed with natives. An example would be the Romans, who lived among the Etruscan, but were way, way more savage and of a different ethnic breed. Similarly, the Dorian Greeks (Spartans) were “Greek” but they were well recognized as being from a totally different cloth. Far more violent and far more Nordic looking. (Described as taller and more fair than Greeks, very suspicious.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: