A Case Against Gene Preservation: Forum Post

By "forum post" I mean that this is really more or less something I'd appreciate read, and then posting why you think it is wrong, right or in between.

Where to begin... I've been thinking of this topic since Christmas or a little before, and have hit brick walls occasionally with where the logic ends or where it goes from there and IF we really want things to turn out that way. Welmer's recent post on The Spearhead inspired me to write this piece and get it discussed. I know there are great writers in the MRM/MGTOW, but I can't write something of this magnitude alone, it needs to be discussed and dissected from every perspective of the old, the young, the in between, the pro-natal, and the lifelong bachelors. So after reading my case, feel free to say what's on your mind. If I could get this posted on The Spearhead, that'd be great, but writings on The Spearhead a bit more thought out than this one, if a talented writer would like to take this after its processed and run with it, feel free. I don't "own" ideas or writing, at least I don't think I do.

This post is mostly intended for a male audience, because... well parts of it are only experienced by mostly Men, and Women trying to vicariously write may not understand the entire picture of what Men go through, especially since Men and Women have completely different expectations, desires toward and outlooks on rearing offspring. Feel free to post if you're Woman, but understand if you're disagreed with or supported but for reasons you didn't expect.

Anyway, my topic today is about gene preservation; bringing future generations into the world.

Now, personally, I think it is GREAT to have your own offspring, it's up to the individual if he/she wants kids, but I've always kinda imagined what it would be like, and not imagining nightmares.

"But AmStrat, this is the case AGAINST gene preservation!"

Correct, and I don't want to drive yet another difference between Men in the MRM/MGTOW/FRM (F stands for Fathers), but this needs to be dealt with, at least in a philosophical sense.

We are all familiar with the Catalog of Shaming Language, if not, click and you will be. What I see on forums occasionally is yet another series of words that seems to only really serve a purpose in argument only in shutting down opposition... that's shaming language to me. It usually goes along the lines of "The future belongs to those who create children, so your philosophies and achievements will die with you." or something to that effect.

First off, there are plenty of Men who used to strive for the "white picket fence" fantasy of a wife, children, job and being a pillar of the community (to borrow a phrase from The Fifth Horseman), but the vitriolic Man-hatred, changes in law and general trend of any Man getting married and having kids going through hell in family court, losing all or most of what they own, and never seeing their kids again have proven to these Men that perhaps it's better not trying, the statistics and risk weighting certainly say so. What good is passing on genes if 1. you'll never see them, 2. they'll grow up in a misandric household or have THEIR ideals of marriage broken just by watching what just happened and 3. they may never pass on THEIR genes, which is actually one of the main points of you passing on yours.

I want to say that to call those who don't pass on their genes "genetic losers" or "losers" is kinda irrelevant. What did they (perhaps we) lose? I don't want to sound Keynesian, but in the as n approaches infinity, the likelihood of your genes passing on (since it is not ensured) approaches zero. Calling someone a "loser" just because "their" genes won't directly show up in the next generation is like judging someone solely based on how fast they can eat, it doesn't actually matter and here's why.

I was inspired to write this topic in the first place by Biblical Manhood (I think that's the post that did it, not sure.) because he makes a point whether you're atheist or Christian; Your genes are very very VERY similar to your neighbor. Heck, biology textbooks place the genetic difference between any two people on Earth as .1%. This means that you are, at worst, 99.9% the same genetics as anyone else, and even more if that person is the same race as you, or comes from the same ancestral country. Passing on general things like your skin color, your polydactly, or your interest in engineering WON'T be in short supply from others, so why does it have to be you? (Note: It didn't mention if the people could be of different genders, seeing as how different the Y and X chromosome are, even if Men have one)

But I'm getting ahead of myself, I want to emphasize that quite a few in the MGTOW and Marriage Strike wouldn't feel this way if the laws and attitudes were different, we have nothing against kids, but to throw oneself into a meat grinder in hopes of offspring emerging is a fool's game.

"Finding a good church" and settling down with "the right Woman" isn't absolute. Women change, and though some look at them as horrific past mistakes there were regulations to keep her from breaking the marriage contract selfishly in the past. As long as there are divorce courts and the no fault divorce laws (and many others) on the books, it doesn't matter how devout you are, or how traditional you thought your wife was when you married her, you're a potential target. Change the system, then we'll see.

I want to make a point that genetic legacy SHOULDN'T be that important to a man, it's okay to want, but disadvantageous to need. If you absolutely HAVE to "get your genes passed on" you can be screwed any which way to make the deal happen. But if you only WANT offspring, you can take or leave any trashy deal, and that's precisely what many Men are doing. To me, genetic legacy is really maintenance. Some say that passing on genes is one's truest or only purpose... why is that? You live to pass on life to others? Who's purpose will be to pass genes on to more? When does something get done that isn't just about continuation? That's why I believe that gene preservation is a maintenance function, and not the "purpose of why we're here", it's something that, for a species to continue, needs to be done, but not by every individual. The ones who don't pass on a genetic legacy will pursue other callings. If we all just bred and bred and bred, what else would get done? Precisely. If a truck is traveling from Washington to Canada but needs to refuel every so often, is it's "grand purpose" to refuel, to use that fuel, and refuel again? No, it's to deliver whatever needs to be delivered, but refueling is an essential function to this. THUS, I conclude (at your discretion) that populating is an important function, but not "the grand scheme", and that those who opt not to for whatever reason are not necessarily "losers" of any sort. Feel free to call them "genetic losers", but that is a shortcoming in one field, by the same logic you are a "chemical engineering loser", a "furniture designing loser", a "satellite trajections specialization loser" and various other kinds of loser, anything you don't "do". Loser then loses any sharp point edge it had and you might as well have not even brought it up.

Still not convinced? I'm not surprised, everyone has a different idea on "how things should be" or how things are ranked. Let me tell you why I am against gene preservation as an individual NEED. It places all the power in the hands of Women. Are you saying that Women inherently know which genes are superior? To what purpose? Is every Woman getting impregnated by biker thug making the best choice? Okay, maybe (for evolutionists) in evolutionary psychology she is because (well, the short of it) is that in pre-civilization times, he would best defend her and her children, at least in theory. But are said genes the best genes for NOW? Is living a lifestyle that drains the rest of civilization good for present day? Probably not.

Now for my first brickwall: Some SMBCs (single mothers by choice, NOT Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal) and SMBC advocates (surprise surprise, usually other Women) argue that single Men should be up for marrying SMBCs even with no chance of creating a legacy of his own due to whatever limitations. They argue that such a proposition is a "ready made family". I've just argued that genetic preservation shouldn't matter to a Man, but if a Man WANTS this but doesn't NEED it, he should be able to walk away. I don't want my argument to bolster SMBCs because Women just don't get the difference between Men and Women in this regard, they get the long end of the stick. Yes, they get pregnant, then have to give birth, but to know 100% for sure that the offspring that emerges is YOURS makes it worth it and then some... with interest! Men don't have this guarantee, even if/when paternity tests become mandatory and the Man leaves the cheating and cuckolding harridan, it just means a failed trial, a broken heart, and a betrayed sense of self. This is why I don't think Women can really understand the viewpoint of the Man in this context. Gen tics don't matter to Women because they CAN'T matter to Women! You're asking the Ocean what it's like to be dry, it'll never know! Women will never understand the pains of cuckoldry.

This post is subject to edit when I think of what else I thought while thinking of this post, BUT feel free to begin posting!

Thank you.

Merry Christmas!

I'd say it was more decent than I expected, though I definetly see a lot less lights up this year, it would figure that people have a lot less to cheer about this year. Well, without the bad times, we wouldn't recognize/appreciate the good times.

I believe that even if you are in the trenches fighting the good fight, or simply in this when you have the time for it, you should maintain a disposition to enjoy yourself when you can, let the stress and distress leave you for a day, it'll feel so much better in the future.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

-AmStrat

A Downright Decent Post by Zed.

That's right, Zed, I'm capitalizing your name, even if you don't.

For a bit of background, Zed is one of the most-first writers on MRAesque musings I've ever read. Having a site on geocities for a while, which I can no longer find, I believe he went into semi-retirement from posting for a while. Well, he writes magnificent posts on The Spearhead now.

To put it in context, this is in the comments section of a piece title "Think Twice, Young Man," about how young Men should be warned about the dangers of marriage (divorce, etc.) like they are warned about the most obvious and painful possibilities of all things (perhaps being killed if you enlist in the Military for example). A troll showed up and attempted to strike a few nerves, large amounts of posts were used to refute her arguments and insult. THEN a poster comes in playing the triangulation card, after admitting to skipping the first 40 or so posts, at which Zed comes in and explains something everyone should hear. Clicking the link I just made out of the word "Triangulation" will explain what it is and why it's illogical, thank you PMAFT.



zed December 9, 2009 at 11:18 am

You know, I stopped reading the comments at about entry 40, because I just couldn’t process the anger, bitterness, and self-righteousness.

Then you missed most of the point.

We’ve been living through a remarkable social transition, which has left a debris field of broken families and damaged institutions miles wide in its wake. “Marriage” as a social institution has probably been damaged beyond repair and in 20 more years there will probably be little left which people who came of age before the 1990s would recognize.

I think the “provider” role for men is another casualty. The last vestiges of it are being desperately pursued by the family court system, but no police state which is not also a theocracy has ever been able to maintain the degree of social control which would be necessary to keep men trapped in that old provider role while at the same time allowing women to do whatever they want.

The most likely scenario for the immediate future will probably be usage and counter-usage as both sexes continue to try to get what they want out of the other while at the same time giving the minimum possible in return. It’s something of a relationship “arms race” which neither side can really win. Strategies for “Smart Hookups” will probably see-saw back and forth with each sex having a few months advantage from an innovation until the other sex comes up with a counter-measure.

Through it all I think you can expect to see relations between the sexes continue to degrade as both sides react to being used by members of the other with loss of trust and willingness to give another the chance to use them again. There will be a lot of “collateral damage” as members of both sexes who are not taking part in the cycle of usage and manipulation nonetheless find their pool of potential mates more and more polluted by the exploitation by other members of their own sex.

Regardless of what anyone reading this thread does, people are going to end up drawing their own conclusions from their own life experiences. Those who see working and relatively happy marriages around them will likely continue to believe in marriage and try it themselves. Those who see little besides carnage are unlikely to be convinced that they have much chance of their experience being different.

Through it all, you are going to hear more and more from men like the ones you refused to read here. The entire gender dialogue has been very one-sided for the past few decades as women’s subjective experiences suddenly got elevated to the most significant thing in the world, and men’s subjective experiences were denied, refuted, or simply dismissed as being due to “bitterness and anger.”

I realize that it is quite threatening to most women that their hegemony over the gender dialogue is about to end, but part of the reason for that is because they have worn out all their tools which have worked so well to silence men for so many years. As you have seen here, a large and growing number of men no longer care in the least what women think of them, and see women like Lady Raine and Amanda Knox as the prototypes for contemporary womanhood.

Survival amongst enemies requires a certain set of skills and attitudes which men are adopting. The choice of whether to adopt them or not is based on the individual man’s belief about which will insulate him best from loss. If he regards women as probable net losses, he will regard them as something he needs to protect himself from. If he regards a realtionship with a woman as a probable net gain form himself, he will likely take the risk while doing whatever he can to minimize that risk.

Where the eventual balance point will be reached as far as percentage of men who view women as a net loss versus net gain is anyone’s guess.

But, whatever that percentage is, unless the ratio is similar among women, and for every man who is just totally burned out on women there is a Lady Raine to offset him in the population, it is likely that a substantial number of people who might like to have mates will not end up finding one.



I boldened part because I can't take anyone seriously who skips anything that still has a grain of reasoning in it. feminist hate-speech, sure, because it tells you nothing and doesn't provide evidence. When these things known as "feminists" DO post something attempting to reason, it's usually easy enough to spot out of the fat and gristle of curses and shaming language anyway.

Zed often has a few grizzly predictions of the future, but this one speaks to me. It reminds us that no matter how powerful we are or become, we can't avoid this fate entirely. To put it in imagery; We are climbing a steep incline, and Zed has shown us where the boulders will fall. We cannot stop these boulders, they are already set in motion, it is too late we are "water balloons and they are tons of rock, but we can dodge them as best we can, or MGTOW and find another Mountain entirely. The point is, people are right now, at this very minute, living their lives in the squalor prequelling this, and their attitude will be nigh unchangeable after being wronged as such.

Equality Redux, by Novaseeker

Novaseeker may not be one of my original inspirations, but he's definetly an asset to hang on to once discovered. His realism and sensibility are hard to match, and the fact that he can put MRA in a religious perspective is a plus (Most of what I see is from Atheists or those who just avoid a religious context, that is, how to fight for Men's rights when you come from a white-knighting, collaborationist church). One of his few weaknesses is that he can be too pessimistic of the future. This piece itself speaks to me, there's no new content for myself, but it connects dots and puts things into words I had trouble with. Without further intro, I present Novaseeker's "Equality Redux"

This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.



Equality.

We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.

Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?

It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:

Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities
And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.

What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?

The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.

In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.

Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.

This is hardly equality.

In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.

In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.

Posted at The Spearhead

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/

Happy Thanksgiving!

To everyone who celebrates it, and even those who don't (in which case, I hope you at least have an above average day).

To tell the truth, I've never really like the blog-reading aspect of holidays. Why? Because like this post, most posters are out doing their thing, which is fine, but it is really boring when everyone does it on the same day. No new news, no new discussions, more or less all the new posts merely wish "Happy/Merry ".

I suppose I am selfish, I love reading everyone else's pieces... at least those that are in the least bit coherent (this cuts out almost all pro-feminism posts), but I don't in particularly enjoy writing down things.

Part of it is because if most of what I want to write is what I just read, because it's brilliant, or it makes sense, or maybe it can help someone in some way.

The other part is because I'm driven mad by repetition. How is this repetiton? Well, I already KNOW what I'm going to write, so when I'm writing it, and necessarily RE-writing it, that's a lot of repetition. Even twice is quite a bit for me. If I hear a story or funny joke, I can repeat it once, but if someone's walking into the room just as it ends, I'm NOT the one telling them that same story or joke. Just my personality I guess, that doesn't mean it is insurmountable though.

I'm finding this to be good writing exercise though, not to say I'm a bad writer, but I'm needing less and less revision as I continue, which can only be good. From here on, I think I'll aim at posting every Saturday.

Which reminds me, the reason I started this blog, even though I've been reading MRA/MGTOW blogs for a long time now, is because of a blog named "What Men are saying about Women"
The author was at the time concerned with little exposure or growth in similar blogs. He understood he had many readers, but none of them would then spread the message. He ran a rally for some of his readers to start blogs of their own, and only one or two answered. I can't find this post, because Christian J. is the opposite of me. I do a post every 30 days, he does 30 posts a day (or did for a while, anyway, and I'm going to boost my number). In case you are wondering, or your name is Christian J. I started one because of that post, but didn't reply. I don't know why I didn't.

The hierarchy of MRA "action" for me goes like this.

Doing absolutely nothing -> Only reading the ideas -> Reposting the ideas (AKA, whining to those who actually act) -> organizing actions -> carrying out said actions.

I've seen some transcendence in the past year. I believe Counter-feminist went from just being an influential blogger to actually organizing to save his fellow man, ala Kevin Driscoll

I've also seen some bloggers go "ghost". I don't know if they still read or if they are just doing "nothing" related. Some still post on other blogs, but a lot less than when they ran their own blogs. I look forward to when I begin working into actual actions, words can be powerful and encourage action, but I can't really feel I've been the change I seek in this world (citing Ghandi on that one) unless I actually do something. When will that be? Good question. All actions need strategies, and all strategies deserve plans. I'm planning now so I'm not actually HARMING my own cause.

Well, as said earlier, Happy Thanksgiving, I understand there will be others who will rather read in their off time than be missing all day. Don't get me wrong, I have plans, but not for every minute tomorrow (today).

On the Importance of Firebrands

I believe I actually wrote this several weeks ago in Markymark's Thoughts, in response to some of Christopher in Oregon's comments, alongside some comments that he may be scaring away valuable allies from our side. Well, any good strategist can see the benefits of all his members/contributors/allies, and I think that we should at least acknowledge the good. I would've posted this earlier, but certain circumstances prevented it from happening.

--------

I think it's time I commented on Chris.

"The mere presence of heroes can break the chains of destiny" -forgot who said it.

I don't disagree with Chris, I also have my differences in opinion with him, however, if he is who I have observed him to be, he won't care either way.

As you will note, Chris writes and comments a bit more "polarized", some would call it radical, but his accessions appear to come from his own heart/mind, if they WERE based on pure anger, there would be few crannies where his alleged anger's persuasion wouldn't influence. As such, I have seen a couple to a few areas in which he is unparticipated to the extremity of "hatred of women" or any other controlling viewpoint.

However, don't let that fool you, he is a firebrand, some of his words can burn. Some of the more "moderate" in our ranks would see him as overdoing it.

Any movement needs its firebrands though, and I believe Chris to be one of the stronger. One of his qualities is the fact that he hasn't "burned himself out", thus he is not consumed with all-controlling hatred. The reason (I view) that feminists can go on for years hating men is because they have constant repetition from others, and even hypnotic effects from "classrooms" to change who they even are. That and I suppose most Women are predisposed to holding onto every grudge, whereas Men tend to let go easier.

What if Chris isn't in "the movement", you say? We are all in the movement, even those not reading this, never been to MarkyMark's Blog, or even heard of anti-feminism. Your futures intersect into the sphere of the ongoing and upcoming battles ahead, even the MGTOWs and Ghosts who've taken the greatest of care removing themselves from the system. They've done their part, and continue to do A part in this world against feminism whether they see, notice, or want to or not. If you don't have a plan, assuredly you will be in someone else's plan.

Chris' part is fairly natural to him, he educates and influences. The more moderate who would never dream of saying such things subtly get a bit more shifted across our side of the line. It's very subtle because even if they are opposed to such descriptions, they now are more familiar with them, they are no longer alien, and maybe, just maybe, they are a little more acceptable.

Another aspect would be that a lot of people, even on our side, don't like being on the "extreme". Even if your view is currently "moderate", imagine if you lived in an alternate world where most things are the same, but the most extreme our side would get is what qualifies for "moderate" here. They would feel that "maybe I could be wrong, I AM being as far from the opposite side as possible, maybe I should give in MORE", not so much for their opponent, but for themselves, uncompromising behavior broods feelings of self-viewing tyranny in some. They would never feel on the side of Justice. Some who don't like being on the edge, to be the most extreme of a group, no matter what they personally believe, can point the ACTUAL extreme to others and feel relieved. Relieved to themselves that being on the "inside" makes them more benign, more understanding, and yet they keep their position. Our side doesn't backtrack a step.

I have considered the possibility of firebrands scaring away newer recruits, and I have a lot to say on that, perhaps in the future.

I can sing many people's praises, and that would not mean I admire them most, nor should any care for my admiration, I am a mere Amateur and a contest of internet popularity only ends poorly, I will say one more thing of Chris, however.

He is like a Master Monk, a Martial Artist. They have very powerful blows that they pull right out of any stance. Yes, many new Martial Artists who come with strength already can put up nearly that kind of power, but they haven't learned how to without exhausting themselves. The Master understands the need to simultaneously relax and yet be alert, even in the middle of a fight. It is unwise to completely tense up and stay that way until the end, you lose all your energy and you did nothing with it. I see Chris' ability to constantly vigil, and effortlessly respond, yet keep his own distance as a clear indicator of a fortified individual and personality.

I think we all have a part in this, even on the local level, but sometimes; even the little things can spread to affect the global atmosphere.

As I said, I don't agree with Christopher from Oregon on everything, and we even differ on KEY ISSUES, in some spheres, he may even be my opponent. But that is what makes us individuals, our differences, and to roll with the energy from your allies (even if they are only allies in just a few spheres) is a Grand Strategy for Success.

---------

I believe that even if we were all opposed to Chris (and I'm not), he wouldn't go away, nor stop what he's doing. Chris isn't the only one either, we have some real power in some of our more extreme members who are defending our positions and changing minds in ways and places we haven't seen. I'd like to personally thank all who bring our side together, and vanguish our foes. Whether we like it or not, they're there, and they do what they do, if you knew you were on the right side, you wouldn't change your position just because of a fellow member's more aggressive stance, would you?

Last day of August

August has come and gone, and with it some of my more time-restricting activities, I'll have more time to write now, but most of it will be spent reading, absorbing, and planning.

So much has happened I didn't get to comment on, nor does it feel all the proper to when so much has been explored already. It'd be "beating a dead horse".

So be on the lookout for my September posts on new things, and the most basic things we can't ignore!

-Amateur Strategist.