Rational Man VS the Warrior Society

            I bought in completely, swallowed the whole story of Man’s rational world, of the long progress of mankind, maybe even with the idea that we were leaving our animal selves behind us.


            Circumstances being what they were and what they are, I didn’t really see through it until just these last few years, in my mid-fifties, and the process by which I did cost me wife and daughters, and my house - and just to make it a clean sweep I’m throwing my job on the fire too – so, with nothing left to lose, I’m doubling down. This rationality thing isn’t really catching on, but that is the world I require to be happy, so I am going to spend the remaining days of my throwaway life trying to create it. Maybe if I get a glimpse, I can have a little happiness – there’s plenty a slip ‘twixt a cup and a lip, right? I may have been killed, but I ain’t dead yet.


It’s not a social pursuit, and it’s not good for you, but you know, I’m already done for. With my dying dream, I’m going to try to market my asocial condition, use this disinterested perspective to describe humanity from a more omniscient place. Here’s the not so cheerful upshot: not that I think we are anything specific at any given moment, but because that’s the way we talk: we are that war machine, the ape that rules the world by violence. Insofar as we aspire to inhabit the rational, civilized world we like to talk about, human societies are warrior societies, and that is by far the best way to understand our behaviour (a sure to be controversial example - https://abusewithanexcuse.com/2017/02/23/ast-and-child-sexual-abuse/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true ).


A shorter version of the same idea came to me on Twitter this morning. I spend a lot of time with Christian original sin. I even bought and read the book of the same name, by one Alan Jacobs. I don’t think the canonized version is why, but it seems like a good way to refer to what maybe in another context is our nurture assumption: some reason why we all think we owe our kids the consequences, the discipline. What I hadn’t considered until today’s lesson was which exact sin was supposed be the one we’re all born with, and sure enough, it’s sex, the sex that spawned us: we are all sinners because we are all conceived in sin – conception is a sin, sex is a sin. * This is the attitude professed to me, I think, by an American Christian, so a citizen of a globe-spanning military empire: sex is the number one sin, the first. This is how a warrior-citizen feels, in a world of war and violence. Makes sense, right? I mean, sure, it’s a world of sex and breeding too – but if sex is your number one sin, your society is not a sex cult, is it?


In the very same way, Freud also erred hugely, by the Dark Matter ratio of one in ten, by his focus on sexual matters, by imagining the very basis of our biological life to be the problem and declaring our warrior life to be an extension of it. His vision mirrors genetics, relationship and conflict theory, sure, but it’s all within the visible ten percent. He knew about the Dark Matter, but the meme still worked on him, the behaviour’s protection remained in place: he too thought the sex was the Dark stuff. He too spoke about our nasty natures and didn’t see how the true human nastiness is in that our nature is not nasty enough for our needs and we have found a way to change it. Freud had a scientific mind to some degree, and so, as biology does today, viewed humanity as passive, as subject to drives and circumstances and not so much as a self-actualized creature. It’s the scientific version of the idea that we are all born sinners, the legacy of the brute we were, the unconscious beast within, but still with the warrior society bias: the ‘beast’ within us wants to destroy the world with rampant and ofttimes incestuous sex! It’s an afterthought that sometimes a club is just a bludgeon.


In a very real and military way, Ignorance really is Strength, and Yellowbeard was right, you really “can’t get any killin’ done if you go around thinking all the time.” This is another way to state game theory, perhaps, but the reasons we are the war ape, this ‘deep roots of war’ creature, the things we do as such, these are things we all do, things humans do. We do not live in the state of war so much of the time because of the way some humans are or the way some people behave. War is the logical outcome of what most, if not all humans are, of what most, if not all people do. I’m not happy about it, I’m not trying to sell us the “fact” of the ‘deep roots of war’ to minimize it and promote war, as I so often assume of other authors myself when I read the phrase: I’m exposing that version of us as something it is in our power to change, mostly because we have created it ourselves in the first place. The point there was that it’s things we all do, in fact most of what we all do. For illustration, try doing things that might hurt the war effort, see what happens. Get on Facebook, tell the world that you refuse to beat your children and watch your comments. Suggest we stop giving terrorists things to avenge and watch the comments. ** Sorry to tell you.


If the warrior society notices you pulling in the wrong direction, you are in some kind of trouble, be it “only social” or literally anything else. This includes not bringing the discipline to your kids, it includes fighting bigotry and it includes eschewing religion. Some largish portion of your society is not going to like it, and upon analysis, it will come back to security, to the warrior society. This is utterly pervasive, we all need to understand this, or we will always be doing it, always subject to the whims of warlords and never understanding why the bad guys always win.


OK, that sounded like an introduction to my usual rap, the stock ending of one of my usual beginnings, but that’s not it. This beginning is just getting started.


I am alone, which as every scientist, doctor and Facebook user will tell you isn’t good for you. I’m at risk. I’ve got a few good friends and two sisters, but they’re all in other places, other towns. Basically, I don’t fit in. I had a family, a wife and two daughters and I wanted to raise them differently, so I sort of checked out of the “normal” world of parents and my family were sort of my only friends . . . I had all my social eggs in one basket, guess what happened - wait, beginnings. The first thing that happened, I guess, was that I found myself in a role I could no longer play: quiet, compliant, never complaining, never angry husband and father. Next, I had a drug reaction, a manic and then depressive breakdown from a new biologic medication I tried for my psoriasis. Sad and compromising to say, but I have seen something about humanity, something I wasn’t maybe supposed to see, I’ve seen the man behind the curtain and I can’t ever be the same.


It’s part and parcel of my increased asociality: “social” things for me have gone from being some combination of pleasant, uncomfortable and largely irrelevant to being the problem in the world. We need social connections – I need social connections – but I now see us as a warrior society that will not see itself and I am faced with a choice, my social connections or my morals. I don’t know how to un-see it, or more to the point, I have no path to wanting to un-see it. I can’t help but dramatize my struggle: find some social connections, strengthen the ones I still have, try to join the social world that gives what comfort it can to folks in the in-group – or follow my truth. Again, I’ve already lost pretty much everything to my truth, so I’m going with that – with, of course, the hope that someone out there will still want some connection with me as I follow my own path. Having said that, my own path is at very real odds with the interests of the in-group: I don’t expect to find my social connections among social people, in fact those are hurting me more than helping me these days. I want to connect with asocials like myself.


“Asocial” is not only a Nazi term, but I’m afraid I hear that in it myself. I think I first saw it in “Fatherland,” the novel by Robert Harris, spoken by a Nazi indoctrinated character, so that is one of my main associations with the word – but we can’t start deleting words and their concepts just because some swine used it to bad ends, can we? The Nazi connection I will leverage here also: being an “asocial” was a crime in that novel, and now I think that Nazism is hugely “social:” we’re all pulling in the same direction, right? Nazism is fascism and no kind of “socialism” in the cooperative sense, meaning conformity may be an aspect of the goal, but in Nazism it’s forced upon the people, in a top-down authoritarian way, with the inequality built in, integral to authority. Socialism, in it’s dream form, is a community of asocials, all working together from a more self-motivated stance. Perhaps all political ideologies’ labels are necessarily backwards. More likely it’s me that has flipped: it just all looks backwards to me now. But “social” and “smart” appear to be opposites.


When we’re fighting City Hall, we all like to say that “a committee is a creature with six or more legs and no brain,” but everything is contextual: four extra legs makes brains disappear, but thousands or millions of extra legs doesn’t? I mean, three people have no brain but the entire society is supposed to be smart?


What about this? What about Rich Harris’ children’s group? Are we smarter as a society than a fifth grader?




Sorry, friends and family, you have plenty of social support, I have nothing for you on that personal level, I don’t agree with you about anything . . . I mean if I manage to rise above our differences and love you despite our differences, despite living on opposite sides of the curtain, or you do and find a way to love me, that is still only in the realm of rational things and the social benefits aren’t forthcoming anyways. I’m still sorry, because the good folks are, but I’ve gotten a do-over and I work for humanity now; our social priorities, our biological needs are the problem, not the answer. Follow me to this empty, unsatisfying world of rational things or have a nice life. On a very personal level, I feel this is exactly where my family and I have parted, they’re social. I mean, my girls are young adults, one still technically a teen – talk about pressure, of course they have to try to conform. I’m ready to admit that trying to make a huge change with them wasn’t fair to them, but I didn’t have as much choice as you might imagine. Once I began to look at punishing, once I started to see it as optional, I couldn’t un-see it, so there was no passive choice for me, it was “beat them or don’t” for me, I’d lost the ability to be unconscious about it. I don’t think of all the people out there who have wound up “spanking” their kids, anybody made a conscious decision to “beat” them, the choice is never presented nakedly like that, but for reasons of my mutation or something, it was for me. I have regrets, but it doesn’t mean I could make the opposite choice if I had it to do again.


How many readers, I wonder, saw the messiah complex before the “follow me” bit? No matter – that really is it, I’m not trying to hide it. When I can manage to turn this antisocialization theory business into a readable book, then the idea is to create a new paradigm that takes over the world, that’s a messianic dream. And the religious parallels don’t end there, either, because ‘a new paradigm’ isn’t exactly right, although it’s something like equal and opposite. I want to reveal a current paradigm – that’s revelation, in religious terms or discovery in scientific ones, I suppose -  but I’m not sure what the replacement will be. The existing paradigm to which I refer is a bad habit: if we try to stop, and stop a little, every time we don’t engage in it, that’s good for us. What we will do with the time we are accustomed to spending at it, I don’t know, but we can make healthier choices.


Carrying on with the Dark Matter analogy, if we measure social modes – prosocial, antisocial – against society, then we can clarify many confusing ‘social issues’ by considering human ‘society’ as ninety percent ‘warrior society.’ With this find/replace function, we can say that it is prosocial to support the troops (pro-warrior-social to socially support our society’s warriors) or say that it is antisocial to be an active member of a small minority that protests the war the troops are engaged in (anti-warrior-social, denying support to our society’s warriors). It seems that the size of our moral inclusion circles can be viewed as our definition of ‘society’ when we ponder moral issues. If ‘society’ means our nation, our culture, then anti-war is antisocial, against everyone in ‘society.’ If ‘society’ means something closer to humankind, then it is the warriors who are positioned against it, the warriors and their supporters who are antisocial – and my own moral circle has certainly grown beyond my borders, because ‘supporting the troops’ is clearly and obviously antisocial to me, war is antisocial, that is a no-brainer, self evident, and there is surely some Latin way to say it as well, that the conclusion is included in the premise or some crap, when the association is in the definition of the word.


It’s not open for discussion, though. Warrior society, I mean.


I want it to be, and this is step one, certainly not the first time or one of the first thousand times, but it’s not a debatable topic, not yet. It’s what I am calling in my ignorance, believing I must coin the term myself, a protected behaviour. We don’t know what we’re doing, we don’t know how it works, so we’re in no danger of stopping it. I’ve been writing my evolution on this topic (I can’t think unless I’m talking) and I’ve coined another one, the consequences ‘mimic meme’ to describe the two-sided aspect of our child-rearing behaviour, the discipline.


Carrying on further with this Dark Matter analogy, the consequences meme being the visible ten percent of the social practice of child-rearing, has us regrettably employing punishments to teach our children how to treat people right, how to be a normal member of the society. This is our conscious effort at understanding this behaviour, and all the parenting discussions I’ve ever been involved in happen in this arena. The Dark Matter part, the ninety percent of this behaviour that is protected – this is where we do not so regrettably abuse our children to ensure that they treat those other people “right.”  I’ve spent pages on the mimic meme elsewhere, suffice it to say here that we all too often wind up “spanking” to conclude what started as a “moral” lesson, and we hope that our intended lesson is what the child remembers, and we hope that the unintended violence will be forgotten. This is the power of the meme, of the protection in place, that we hope this against all the evidence.


It looks like it works; the child is ‘socialized,’ warrior-socialized. If we can be at war perpetually and still tell ourselves we are a peaceful society, well then if our children can too, then we have socialized them as ourselves, just as we hoped – except, mimic meme, protected behaviour, we forgot what it was we hoped for. What we hope for, warrior society, is that we be strong and fierce and that our enemies fear us. What I’m getting at is, that is exactly the sort of man that starts a war if he’s powerful or winds up in prison or at least in anger management counselling if he’s not. We spend ninety percent of our time and energy creating soldiers and jailing the ones that we don’t send into an official war.


This is a chestnut, but it’s one of those problems we will never solve if we can’t even see it. We need to be strong, I mean unless every society on Earth makes a move towards pacifism all at once, but if we’re ever going to solve things for the folks at home, the ones not on the battlefield, we need to understand that we have set them up for their “antisocial” diagnosis.


Hey – you know the way we’re stuck in our aboriginal mindset, smallish troops, 100, 160 members tops and the rest are the out-group and how that affects us today in bigger ways, apparently driving us to war? Well, it’s never occurred to me before to wonder whether the actual wars we drive ourselves to never “work out” for the same reason, that the wars themselves are maladapted behaviours that only ever worked out in our aboriginal situation. Like we go to war thinking, “yeah, we’ll kill those guys, and live on their land, happily ever after,” or “we’ll kill those guys and there won’t be that threat on our border anymore,” and maybe that was actually a possible result back in that day. Maybe genocide was a doable thing at that smaller scale and today we foolishly go to war thinking we’ve got to kill a village and we’re done! One thing to say we have that tendency, and one more to suggest somebody knows it and sells their wars that way, as simple, straightforward, and doable, of but of course that’s the worry. Someone with a better grasp of human nature than we ourselves have is sure to be a director of, rather than only a player in this little production called human life.


Personally, I’m tired of listening to people fumbling about, trying to understand why the violence, to a few good-hearted folks trying to fix it, paddling against the current of everyone else putting their weight into the warrior society. Personally, I would peel the protection off this thing, we own it after all, I would have us all understand the warrior social nature of the human being and how it works and let’s all decide, is this really where we want to be, playing out this ‘sins of the father’ crap for the rest of eternity. I want to know that the United Nation Rights of the Child Committee understands all of this, they should probably be the organization that might oversee that we all learn this about ourselves. The point there being – the generals already know it, it’s the good folks that don’t. We’re grownups – I mean, not as a group, but one at a time we are - and we can handle this knowledge, this knowledge, which, by the way, is probably the knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil that got us tossed out of the garden in the first place. That’s my pet version, it’s not just ‘the knowledge of,’ it means ‘the technology of’ good and evil, meaning, how to make the stuff, or how to make one of them from the other, an alchemical recipe. Here’s the kicker, though. It’s not the original sin because it’s knowing how to convert evil to good, how is that a sin? Isn’t that religion’s mission statement, double literally?


No, it’s this. It’s how to convert a live and let live sort of ape into the ‘deep roots of war’ ape that we at least think we need to be.


Wow, full circle, solved the entire mystery. It’s a grand unifying theory, and not only does it reconcile social and biological science, but even Genesis! And we were alive when this singularity came together, you and I, this Canada Day weekend, year of our Lord, two thousand and seventeen! Hmmm . . .

 . . . maybe a little grandiose, maybe a little manic. I’d better medicate, I mean celebrate.




July 1st., 2017

Happy Thank God, We’re Not Quite America Day.




* There is a kernel of generic, or biological truth in this, perhaps where the flavour of universal truth comes from. To live is to eat, and we can’t eat inorganic things, life lives by consuming life, mostly, and so to live is to harm, our selfish genes and bellies grinding on, preferring our own lives continue than others’ lives, whom we would advise to keep their gloves up and protect themselves at all times. This is the biological core of original sin, the self-evident part; the rest is a value judgment – not a small thing either though, and an important clue.



** I’m referring to actual comments from human beings who may or may not know they are supporting the warrior society’s values, although the disingenuous comments from the trolling section are probably an even more rabid and bloodthirsty version of the same. I think it’s safe to say, the current trolling attacks on America aren’t aiming for peace and understanding.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (7)

  1. infinite_ronin

    I’m going to admit a couple of things before really placing my actual comment on this:

    1. The mood I’m in made a lot of this difficult to follow cause it went into a lot of varying subjects that

    2. Carried a lot of terms I’m not 100% sure I am interpreting correctly in the manner you meant them so I imagine my sense of holistic context for it might be broken, but there are a couple of key things that stand out to me when reading it.

    What you refer to as warrior society/mentalities and the like… well, as I think you said, they’re built on animal behaviors. And I think you referred to those behaviors, or instincts or whatever, as the problem.

    See, this in itself is a classic mistake most people have made, albeit on the other side of the spectrum most of the time. Nevertheless, its a mistake anyway.

    The fact of the matter is, as I think you said in your own words using “Warrior” in place of “animal”, these instincts are a part of us. Territory and sex might be the two big animal components that every variable expression comes back to, even a desire to dominate others including children for “misbehavior’s”.

    I haven’t commented much for my own reasons, but I figure I’ve made it quite clear that I’m not a fan of most common child disciplinary methods and the arguments people bring up to support them when challenged. However, there’s a key issue to consider whenever bringing up change or just a new idea and its something many simply that try to do so on both aren’t careful with:

    Bringing forth a new idea or practice requires you not eliminate that which creates the practice seeking to be made obsolete, but instead replace all that pushes the person to do it to begin with.

    So for example, when it comes to the desire to stop child beatings in the name of discipline, even up to and including spanking, well, you’re not only asking/demanding people change something they’ve been used to all their lives on a level they don’t entirely understand, but you need to consider how to most efficiently help the disciplinarian deal with the temptation to revert to the thing they do most commonly and not expect them to switch off the desire to be violent just because they have the power of choice. Emotion compels one to feel like they have no choice or that they just don’t want to make that better choice despite the superior logic. So the practice must be built on layers to help the “adult” for themselves as well as the child.

    Treating the inevitable fact that humans are animals with instincts, however unique we might be compared to others, is a massive error. Always has been. When you look at our instincts and drives as problematic, you automatically increase the temptation to look at anyone and anything that exhibits them with incredible disgust instead of at least a sense of understanding.

    There are many things out there that I personally find extremely morally reprehensible. Yet, at the same time, I try to also see it with a sense of understanding and usually succeed in doing so. I feel this allows myself, and others that do this, to at least be capable of seeing things with an open mind and definitely see things as little as possible as an extreme to be dealt with extremely.

    Take children for instance. Children only know how to act like crazy banshees in so many scenarios. Yet, there are reasons they do so. Even if they need to be pulled back, the degree and how you do so can be greatly dependent upon the reason for which they’re doing what they’re doing. Yet, if you look at their behavior’s as reprehensible because they seem so out of control like a wild animal, then you’ll be tempted to deal with them as such.

    Keeping an understanding for things helps tame your own desire to be brutal onto something that neither necessitates it and in the long run with will usually make things worse as there is so much that simply cannot be controlled, only managed.

    The other thing to really remember is to not get overwhelmed by the seeming continuous madness out there that seem to speak the lack of success in your efforts and philosophy. This is a matter that has existed for most of human existence and the practice of even thinking of children as having rights alone isn’t that old. The very fact that its even illegal to abuse kids at all should be looked at as a big achievement in my mind, however imperfect it might be.

    The other thing to keep in mind about the animal connection is that human animals have energy to burn and emotions about security and self worth we all tend to crave. Not to mention just feeling like we can relax when we desire to at some point. Unwind and all.

    But in this great age of convenience we tend to live in, we don’t generally do well to take care of all aspects of things that can aggravate us and help improve our own self esteem to decrease the desire to be grumpy and abusive onto others. We barely raise and nurture each other in how to properly like ourselves despite many messages frequently pushing that kind of concept. There are so many things that could be done that we typically don’t do because they’re just not seen as being valuable or easily available be it through time or money, etc.

    See, in my mind, warrior societies are what we should be striving for BUT not in the way they typically have been.

    The big thing about warrior societies is that they’ve pretty much always been for the service of the group or state involved. And this made sense once upon a time when it was more necessary just from a survival standpoint and we didn’t have much reason to know any better. But now… now we not only have a lot of history behind us, but we have a lot of internet too. We should know war is not the way and I think generally most people know war is not the way intellectually.

    But emotionally…?

    Emotionally we kind of know. War, for the most part, is horrifying to most. Yet, we’re still animals that believe in security and protection and we bark at each other when aggravated or threatened like most animals and we beat our chests (figuratively mostly) and we respond at base the way most others do in social situations.

    Yet, again generally, we don’t as a people practice much philosophically or physically in order to help regulate and train our minds and emotions to use and deal with these feelings appropriately because most don’t even want to believe they’re there to begin with.

    But there’s a reason many like to play sports and/or watch sports. Its the same kind of thing many other animals do with each other to train for hunting and defending themselves. Its also just an adrenaline rush!

    But we tend to push each other away from that for fear of getting hurt or because it just looks barbaric and dumb.

    The reason I said what I did about warrior cultures really being needed, though, is that it is, but it needs to be focused on nurturing the individual instead of pushing them to conform themselves to a group or the state. We live in an age now where this is probably more possible than ever. Most MA schools, I think, tend to push when its right not to fight and when to do so. Also has a high record of increasing self esteem and self security. Helps people burn off energy while also gaining more and just helps people learn to be more constructive with themselves.

    As its said, people tend to learn how to fight in things like MA so they don’t have to.

    But we don’t do things like this very well from a society point of view or just things like it and worse, we still push that being an animal or being like one is dead wrong. Morally reprehensible.

    I say we need to embrace it because it IS a part of us and there’s no changing it. It shouldn’t be looked at as an enemy that needs to be stamped out. It needs to be looked at as something that needs to be properly managed and it needs to be managed and adapted with many people of many potential temperaments over the course of a long long period of time.

    Cause, the thing is that you can’t just bring in a new idea. You have to prove that it works and then other people will start getting interested and it’ll slowly but surely grow. When it comes to people and training them to do something new, you also have to consider the method in doing so for a small number of people vs a large number of people.

    Sooooo many factors. Sooooo many things that’ll slow you down or flat out stop you. Method and patience is SUPER key and when it comes to this subject, the adults might as well just be children and one needs to keep their patience and speak to them in a way that appeals to them much like kids in order to win their favor. Otherwise, one just risks making enemies and creating unneeded resistance that, with unshakable diplomacy, will have better chances of winning out completely in the end.

    Check out Jordan Peterson’s lectures sometime if you haven’t already. He might have things to say about child rearing in some of them that you’d appreciate

    Soo… that was long and again, I’m sorry if I accidentally went off to talking about something else entirely. I think I was just trying to focus on one or two things and keep it general with what I thought I understood.

    July 03, 2017
    1. Neighsayer

      sorry, it was a ramble, a catch-all kind of thing, disorganized as fuck. I didn’t mean to publish, but my wordpress blog has had no activity at all, so I cranked something out.


      let me stop you at the start of 2.

      I really wasn’t saying it all develops out of animal behaviours, sort of the opposite. I tire of that talk too. I think we have discovered that beating our kids makes us meaner and more aggressive, and that’s the driver of our aggression, it’s self created. We have suppressed our animal prosociality in favour of this self-made antisociality, the warrior way.


      Hmmm . . . seems like that miscommunication accounts for a lot of your answer . . .


      there’s a romantic, nostalgia thing going on about the warrior way as though it’s an individual thing, like an earlier version of the american dream, an independence thing, but that’s not it. Warriors are group creatures, the warrior society means conformity, not the other way around.


      don’t agree we need to embrace it, but we certainly need to stop denying it, that’s for sure.


      there are hard topics, we shouldn’t expect the conversations to be neat and tidy, no problem.

      Cool to hear from you!


      July 03, 2017
      1. infinite_ronin

        Well… yes and no to the warrior thing.

        Warriors need not be group things and yes, people have often thought of them individually before they inevitably fall into the group trap. But thats because the ideal of individual warriorism tends to be predicated on group warrior methodology.

        Lemme put it this way:

        Take The Samurai, arguably the most famous warrior culture. They’re the ones I used to gravitate most towards myself. Even visually, their armor tends to be more individualized than what we tend to see in the media compared to, say, Spartans, Romans, and even European Knights.

        And yet, after a while, I realized that The Samurai were nothing more than soldiers for their country. If anything, they abhorred individualism. Thats why Ronin were looked down upon, among other reasons.

        Samurai that weren’t in service to a lord was looked at as dishonorable and Ronin as vagabonds, even though ironically some of the most famous swordsman in Japanese history were Ronin!

        But thats beside the real point. The real point is that like most warrior cultures that carried a group set-up like most did, the nature of that group set up didn’t allow much in the way of individual expressionism as a warrior because it would have made them a less efficient fighting force. There were many codes amongst many warrior cultures. The Samurai having Bushido, the European Knights having codes and concepts involving things like virtue and chivalry, and I’m sure the Romans and Spartans had their own thing.

        But all these codes were built for the sake of the group and state. So when people aspire to be like them, they unknowingly will start fostering the same conforming practices that made such groups what they were. It is because they don’t make individual warriorism a priority.

        I liken it a lot to a lot of fresh atheists I see newly out of religion. And I know this is potentially opening a different can of worms, but bear with me a sec. What I often see is a people that fall out of the group thought for one reason or another, in this case religion, and then don’t know what to believe in its place. They know more what NOT to believe in instead of creating something holistically correct for themselves. This often leads to a lot of angry people that are lost, yet they pretend to know exactly what they’re doing because they have something to fight against. And in the long run, many just fall into the same practices they accuse the other side of doing, but they do it on their side and call it justified because they believe the other side fired first.

        Slight differences in the sense of the metaphor, but overall, what is similar is that people that get involved with constructive warrior mentalities don’t actually seek to change anything, but instead just kind of copy the codes and practices the old ways had as much as the law will allow them to do. Thus, nothing really changes because nobody really sought to change it to begin with. They didn’t make individualism a priority when in fact it could be so long as its constructed appropriately for it, namely, if you’re going to be a group of some kind, always make it a priority that no one controls another and that no one will be allowed to control to. Make liberty the first big rule to be upheld in such a setup. For liberty is shared freedom, not just freedom itself.

        To support it, anything that is taught is more seen as a suggestion, even if a strong one, but at the same time allow others to form their own styles and voice their own ideas so long as they can be proven to work. You can make many new conditions or rules for yourself or the group you’re involved in so long as each new one doesn’t contradict the first or second, much like the Amendments of the US Constitution, no?

        As for embracing the animal in one, just in case that seems a bit… extreme, know that I don’t mean that as some kinda wild boy thing. I mean recognize that its a natural part of you and certain emotions and preferences are not going to be caged any more than a wild cheetah would be satisfied in being so. And even if it stops pacing and growling, its not healthy for it to remain so caged either way. Does bad things to the body and mind.

        What I’m suggesting is embracing it to both understand it so it can be molded and directed as a kind of tool and released constructively so its itches are well scratched, its hungers are well fed, but without doing any damage in the process. “Constructive Chaos” I rather like to think of it. But just turn it all loose without a leash? Yeah… no. Not where I was going with that.

        July 04, 2017
        1. Neighsayer

          well, I can’t escape the idea that I’ve failed to express myself, or that you simply disagree. I think what I’m hearing is your own version of the normal thinking on the subject, people subject to drives, etc., and that some sort of individuality is a normal state and that the conformity of the warrior society is an abberation or something. We want to think that the ‘warrior path’ is some individual self-discovery trip, but I’m trying to lay down that it’s not. The human group isn’t strong and safe because of a few individuals, it’s strong because any one of them will bring them all down on you. Just like the Hell’s Angels’ policy, or the police’s.


          Governments love TV and especially sports for that, for a pressure valve for their male population’s extra energy – but that’s against the general trend, which is putting the pressure on us, to make sure we’re ready to snap and go berzerker at any moment when the group needs us to.


          So this is not about our ‘animal natures,’ quite the opposite. We rather unnaturally make ourselves meaner and more deadly than any animal on the planet. Our nastiness is greater than animal nastiness, we have left those pussies behind, is what I’m saying.

          July 04, 2017
    2. Neighsayer

      putting up a new one that may clarify

      July 03, 2017
  2. 12SunOryx

    All I can say is, a warrior with power alone is no warrior. It also requires disciple. That is why honor is vital for every warrior society. Just like the code of chivalry among the Knight’s Templar: http://www.knightstemplarorder.org/chivalry/
    Or more famously, Bushido for the Samurai.

    July 12, 2017
    1. 12SunOryx


      July 12, 2017