Tag Archives: Mission

The Bookshelf: 10 Laws and What is Neoreaction

Today, we’ll look at two tracts created by people from the masculine reactosphere, the 10 Laws of Finding Your Mission by LaidNYC and What is Reaction? by Bryce Laliberte. Both works are rather short, respectively 14 and 59 pages, so one post should cover an overview of both. We’ll start out with the 10 Laws because I read it first because it’s shorter (I’m pragmatic that way).

****

The 10 laws of Finding Your Mission

The 10 Laws has the unbeatable price of free, but Laid is asking for donations to help his puppy. Dogs are awesome, so help him out.

The first thing I noticed was that there were actually 11 laws, because there were 2 Law #3’s. So, you actually get more for your moochery than advertised. Despite this minor mistake, there are relatively few typos or grammar errors; it’s well-edited for a free online book.

The book essentially reads like an extended series of blog posts combined into a single document. Each law takes about a page and is mainly independent from the rest. The writing is mostly straightforward and competent with the occasional bit of humour. It’s functional.

But that’s not why you care, you’re reading this for the laws, not the writing style. In that the book is good. He outlines why you should have a mission and gives you some hints on how to go about finding your mission. He is both optimistic and realistic at the same time, which is a nice combination to have.

The book gives an excellent amount of value for the price of free, At the very least, I suggest giving it give it a skim; the page headers make it very easy to do so.

Recommendation:

If you are trying to find your mission, I would recommend the 10 Laws; it won’t take much time and could be very useful. I would especially recommend it for younger men who may not even know they are looking for a mission. If you are still in high school or college, make sure to read this; it could save you a lot of stumbling and regret later in life. It’s good value for money; if you like it, send LaidNYC a donation.

*****

What is Reaction?

Bryce Laliberte at Anarcho-Papist came onto my radar in July after writing a lot of insightful posts in a short period. It took effort to keep up, but keeping up was worth it. He’s since slowed down, and in a period of blog downtime he wrote a tract with the academic-sounding title of “Ideology, Social-Historical Evolution, and the Phenomena of Civilization Or What is Neoreaction?” as overview to neoreaction. He asked me to review and I was looking forward to reading the essay since reading the teaser, so I agreed and here it is.

At first, I thought this would be an introduction to neoreaction, but it is not, it is more an overview and is probably not for the beginner to neoreaction. As well, this is written at a very high level; it is mostly high theory and is written in very academic language. Do not be fooled by the short length; this is not a simple read.

In the essay, Laliberte examines starts with some examination of what ideology is and what is required for an ideology to succeed. He outlines the difference between the occult motivations of and the vagaries/superstructure of an ideology. He posits the reactionary occult motivation as order (protestantism/liberalism’s being equality), while the various manifestations of neoreaction (capitalism, nationalism,futurism, monarchism, anarchism, etc.) are vagaries of this motivation.

He then examines the main concepts of reactionary philosophy: the ascendance of modern spiritual egalitarianism (the Puritan/Protestant hypothesis), hierarchy and stability, the social determinism of biology, the importance of time preference, patriarchialism, anti-modernism, futurism and the effects of technology on man, hedonism, race, capitalism, monarchism, nationalism,and tradition.

I’m not going to critique the analysis of the essay, as most of it is not particularly novel; if you’ve read a fair amount of neoreactionary blogging you’re probably familiar with most of the concepts. But his explanations of the concepts are good ones; as just one example, I’ve read about the benefits of patriarchy many times already, but I still very much liked his explication of the issue and his explicit linking of it to societal time preference.

There are some smaller quibbles I could make; for example, he seems to implicitly posit nazism as a virulent form of reaction, when I see it more as more of a demotist movement, but for the most part his analysis of neoreaction seems sound upon first reading.

My one problem with this essay is the academic-style writing. I’ve always hated the self-important bloviating and purposeful obfuscation of the academy and this essay seems to drop into it at times. I understand that complex topics may require complex terminology and writing and mostly Laliberte sticks within these reasonable bounds, but, especially closer to the beginning of the essay, it seems he is being unnecessarily complex and obfuscating in that particular way academics are. On the other hand, writing in the academic style might be necessary to push neoreactionary ideas into mainstream academia, so this might not necessarily be a bad thing. (When the restoration comes, I hope one of the things we do is destroy the idea in the liberal arts that writing should be complex for complexity’s sake).

I think this is a good encapsulation of neoreactionary ideology. If you are new to neoreaction, I’d suggest reading Moldbug first, this is not something that will convince you. On the other hand, if you are an outsider want an academic look at neoreaction, this is probably a better analysis than Moldbug’s work, which tends more towards argument for than analysis of.

If you are already a reactionary, this is worth the read. It’s priced affordably and solid value for money.

Recommendation

If you’re a neoreactionary or knowledgeable of neoreaction and looking to explore it more academically, I’d drop the $3 and get What is Neoreaction? If you’re new to neoreaction, read Moldbug first.

If you’re an academic outsider researching this new neoreactionary ideology, this essay would be an excellent place to start.

If you don’t care about neoreaction, this would quite obviously be a waste of time and if you hate academic-style writing, you may find the essay annoying to get into at first.

Advertisements

Go Big or Go Home

In my last post, I gave my thoughts on long-term relationships and came down against them. I started writing the piece last week, then left it for a few days, and because of this it became somewhat disorganized, and I couldn’t get it quite right before I posted it. Since posting and reading some of the responses, I realized that this was because I was only writing about the end conclusions of my reflections, while glossing over the premises.

So, I’m going to expand a bit on the post here. The purpose of the post was not to dismiss long-term relationships, in and of themselves. It was to dismiss purposelessness and mediocrity in relationships, which are exemplified by the trends of increased shacking-up and LTR’s.

I’ve noted on here before that a man should have a mission to live for (vaguely hypocritical, in that I am kinda lacking a mission myself, but this blog is somewhat aspirational). Relationships with women should be an augmentation in your life to best help you reach your purpose in life.

Therefore, when pursuing relationships, you should have a clear goal of what you want out of the relationship and how it will help you achieve your mission. Plan out what you want.

If your goal is a family and a committed relationship, then find the right girl, seal the deal, and get married. Do it purposefully; do it right. Don’t fall into a long-term relationship half accidently, then move in together and/or get married after a few years because that’s how things go. Plan it out.

If your goal is hedonism and avoiding commitment, do it right; be a player, start gaming, and have the wildest ride you can. Don’t limit your hedonism to a “safe”, mediocre LTR.

My problem with LTR’s is that they are not succeeding at serving any particular mission all that well. It is a mediocre half-solution that seems to simply try to fill a gap in life without any particular greater purpose behind it.

Essentially go big or go home.

****

Smoothreentry also commented on this piece.

I would accept most of his qualifications, with the following caveats.

He is right that the sex for the PUA is not about fulfillment, it’s about hedonism; pleasure. It will often leave a man unfulfilled, as anybody who’s been reading Roosh these last few months can easily see for themselves. It looks like he’s about to try something new, but I doubt he will find the fulfilment he seeks in this new plan.

For fulfillment though, the LTR would not be an answer either. It may feel somewhat more fulfilling in the moment, but tt builds nothing of long-term value. Only the stability of a marriage provides the leverage necessary to build a meaningful home and family. A meaningful life can be built outside of sexual relationships, but in that case it will be apart from sexual relationships, which will be a distraction or at best a simple sideshow.

In today’s modern sexual marketplace, the LTR as a transitional phase towards that of wife is almost always necessary. It should not be the end goal though. As well, it should be carefully watched that these transitions do not “just happen”. You should be transitioning purposefully with a plan. If you start walking without a map you may find yourself in a place you don’t want to be and don’t know how to leave.

****
Sarah’s Daughter asked:

I understand you’re saying (as a Christian) you aren’t advocating for one situation or another. I wonder, however, if you would agree that it is equivalent to an analysis on which abortion clinic/procedure is the most appropriate for the non Christian.

It would be equivalent to saying that an abortion by a doctor would be less painful than doing it yourself with a vacuum cleaner. Which I would not hesitate to say, as it is simple reasoned conclusion that does nothing to further an abortion.

I would avoid, say, actively researching which clinics were the best price, or what doctor had the best bedside manner, as these are all actively helping further someone along the path to an abortion. In the same vein, I wouldn’t actively give out tips on which club was the best to find easy chicks or who’s the best value hooker in the area, as these are actively furthering someone along the path to sexual sin.

It can be  a fine line at times, I know, but I think there’s a difference between a simple reasoned observation and an analysis which pushes a person farther towards sin.

****

As a final note: The primary purpose of this blog is for me to work out my thoughts on life in relation to finding my purpose in life. I try to keep the blog either analytical or positive and aspirational. I try to with Christian charity. I do try to avoid being overly negative, bitter, or unChristian. Despite this, I am but fallen man, my thoughts are not always Christian or charitable.

I’m naturally cynical and pessimistic. In addition, I am struggling with being unsuccessful in finding a wife while still trying to maintain Christian sexual standards. For a man in his late 20’s, this can, at times, lead to loneliness and sexual frustration. Finally, I have always been a rather pro-civilization type and seeing the civilization I love crumbling around me can be frustrating.

The combination of these factors can sometimes lead to bitterness and unrighteous anger welling-up in my soul, to my discredit, which may occasionally creep into this blog. On top of this, the temptations of nihilistic hedonism are very enticing; thoughts of simply embracing apathy and going poolside while it all burns are not uncommon. This flirtation with nihilism may also creep into my writings.

So, forgive me if occasionally I give into temptation and be somewhat unChristian in word or tone.


Die When You’re Done

Roosh posted Denying Death, arguing that’s it’s better to live for now than suffer now to live a few more miserable years. Danger & Play responded, arguing that being healthy is not for living longer, but for living younger while you live. Captain Capitalism has riffed on the same topic before, arguing not to save for now, but rather to prepare the Smith & Wesson retirement plan.

You should also definitely read this piece on how doctors choose to die.

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will be cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the intensive care unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly: “Promise me that if you find me like this you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

Now, as for me, family history wise, I should be long-lived and healthy. Both of my grandfathers are in their 80s, mobile, healthy for their age, and more or less independent, despite the fact that one of them smoked most of his life, but even so, eventually I will reach the point where my body will break down.

I find the thought of living hooked to a machine or living as a adult toddler horrifying. When I come to die, I plan to do so in my bed, surrounded by family, or possibly, go alone into the woods to feed the wolves. I do not plan to fight it, bu to embrace it.

****

Now, the arguments of both Roosh and D&P both centered around health. Do you suffer now by denying yourself foods you enjoy, undergoing painful workouts, and starving yourself? Or do you live in the moment, and die when you die.

For this we will go to my favourite book of the Bible for wisdom:

In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
the righteous perishing in their righteousness,  and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.
(Ecclesiastes 7:15-18)

Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, the advice here applies to everything, avoid all extremes.

“Moderation in all things, including moderation.” – Petronius

Be moderate: take care of your health, but only insofar as you need to. Worshiping your health is no better than living a life of gluttony and sloth.

The point is not to deny yourself, not to suffer. Suffering is extreme and unnecessary. The point is not gluttony, that’s just leads to future suffering. Both of those are unnecessary, counter-productive extremes.

The point is to structure your life so you can eat healthy, while not suffering.

That’s why I eat a modified primal diet: the Paleo Fuck You diet, as it were.

****

What?

My base diet is healthy. I generally either don’t eat breakfast, or have a couple eggs. For lunch, a bacon/chicken salad and for supper, some meat. Some fruits for energy when engaged in physical activity and some almonds, berries, and dark chocolate for snacking. I drink water. That’s describes the majority of what I eat.

But, if I’m with friends, I’m going to enjoy myself: pass me another slice and top up my coke. If I really crave a milkshake, I’ll stop by DQ. If I’m in a rush, I’ll pick up something off the value menu. I’m eating ice cream as I’m typing this: I haven’t had ice cream for months, but really craved it on the way home, so I bought some.

I never feel deprived, because I never deprive myself. If I really want something, fuck-it, I’ll eat it.

Yet, I still maintain my diet. I’ve lost 30 lbs (about 15% of my pre-primal weight) since April, while adding some muscle mass. I have more energy and endurance than I’ve had since I was a child. I’m healthier than I’ve ever been.

How?

Read the book Willpower (I mean it, best book I’ve read this year [well, technically tied for best with the Way of Man, read that too]).

Willpower does not matter for dieting. You can not willpower your way to good health or good diet; it doesn’t work. In fact, “dieting” leads directly to weight gain. There are powerful bio-evolutionary forces at work in you that will stop you from “starving” yourself, and there is no way to overcome them.

So what matters?

Habit and environment.

Start good habits and structure your environment to eat right.

I let my natural laziness do the work for me. I shop each week and I only buy enough fresh meat for the next week or two, some eggs, fruit, salad supplies, and a few condiments/spices as needed. I make a giant salad for the week, to split into portions each day for lunch. I do not buy unhealthy food, my fridge is mostly bare except the previous. So the choice is, either eat what’s there, or get to my car, drive to the market/fast-food joint, purchase stuff, and drive home. My laziness wins, so I eat my pork chops happily (with some Bull’s-Eye, because hey, it makes it that much better).

I have some stuff in the cupboard from my pre-primal days and some Coke and what not in my alcohol fridge for when I have friends over. But it takes more time and effort to cook something in my cupboard than to fry up some sausages. I have coke, but if I want one I have to go downstairs to my alcohol fridge and get it, while water is right there: I almost never drink Coke on my own simply because the 20 seconds it takes to go downstairs makes it too much of a hassle. If I want ice cream, I have to go to Safeway or DQ and buy it.

I never feel deprived because I never deprive myself, but I’ve structured life so my natural laziness limits how much unhealthy food I’m eating and the good habits I’m developing naturally take over.

So be moderate. Don’t deprive yourself, but structure your life so that you aren’t tempted. You’ll eat healthy, but never feel deprived.

****

Back to dying. When should you die?

Should you live fast and die young, or should you eke out every tiny bit of life you can?

Neither, either, both. The question is flawed.

The better question is why do you live? What do you live for? What is your purpose, your mission?

You should die when you are done.

You should live until you have accomplished your mission or when your continued existence can no longer serve your mission. You should not allow yourself to die before then and you should not try to prolong your life beyond this point.

You do not deny death, you do not affirm life. You affirm your mission and realize death is simply when you cease to struggle in this mortal world.

Live to struggle for your mission, struggle to live for as long as you are able to advance your mission. Then allow yourself to die. Don’t drag it out, don’t fight it; go to the grave knowing you gave your all for what mattered to you.

That is when you should die, when you can rest peacefully knowing you have done everything you could and there is nothing more to do.

Die when you are done.

****

Roosh, the Captain, and D&P seem to come at this from a hedonistic perspective. They want to enjoy being young; their mission is pleasure. So, it would make sense for them to live fast and young as long as possible, then fellate a gun when they are too decrepit to enjoy themselves.

If you live hedonistically, the Smith & Wesson plan or the early heart attack is the perfect death.

But, hedonism is not something that works for all; it’s just not enough for many.

Most people need a mission; something greater than their own self-pleasure to live their life for.

The S&W plan might not work for them. Living fast would not work for them, but neither would eking ever last painful second out of life work.

What will work for them is dying when they have nothing left to accomplish.

****

Some personal reflection:

These last years, I’ve been looking for a mission. So far unsuccessfully. Because of this, I’ve cared little about whether I remained on this mortal coil or not. The lack of success has lead me to slowly become more nihilistic over time, and hedonism is looking increasingly attractive.

But it doesn’t seem enough.

I want to fight for something, to have a mission. I want to go to breath my last breath knowing that I fought for something greater than me.

Hopefully I can find it, before the S&W plan starts to make more sense than it already does.

****

To conclude, avoid the extremes of health-nuttery or gluttony. Eat moderately.

It’s not about suffering to live as long as possible or dying young. It’s about fighting for as long as you can and dying when there’s no fight left in you.

Die when you are done.


Knowing Your Mission

I was going to post on something else today, but I just read “What then Should a Man Do” at Bright Darkness, and started to reflect.

The second point of his post is that a man should embrace a quest. My question is, how does one find one’s quest in life?

Growing up, I always did what I supposed to do. Succeeded at school, graduated university, found a job, buy a house. The next steps were to pursue marriage, raise a family, and continue to advance in my career. I would possibly enter politics upon my retirement.

So far, all I’ve accomplished has just been from stumbling through and doing what was expected of me; there was never any sense of purpose or aim to it; I had/have no real mission.

The closest I’ve had was a desire to start a family, but is/was that just doing what was expected of me? Even so, is that in and of itself a purpose? It would seem rather small to devote myself solely to raising a family, with no other meaning to my life.

I entered my career simply because my employer was the first to hire me for a decent job (a big consideration after a year of underemployment and living at home). I have been questioning my career path, as it is unfulfilling. Yet, maybe as I advance and my responsibilities increase, it will become more fulfilling. Or maybe not. Do I want to just be a desk jockey for the rest of my life, just another cog in the bureaucratic machine? (Now I’m talking in cliches, so I’ll wrap this up).

Anyway, one thing I want from this blog is to find a mission, a purpose. (Or possibly that there is no purpose, so I can give up the search to embrace nihilism).

I’ve tried to find a purpose before, but never had much success. I’ve always assumed I would stumble on it as I went through life, but here I am a few years shy of 30, having accomplished nothing noteworthy, spending my days in pointless government busywork, spending my evenings in front of the computer. I desire something more.

So the question: how does one find a purpose?

PS: I know that these first few posts have have had a lot of personal reflection on myself and my life. I’m trying to establish to myself what I hope to accomplish with this blog. In the future, my rate of posting will go down (the only reason I’ve had one major post a day so far is the spare time the long weekend has provided) but there should also be more analysis of issues in the future and less of me narcissisticly muttering to myself about myself.