Why do men fight?

In an age where masculinity appears outmoded - where masculinity is in fact mocked and derided, the issue of why men fight becomes a vexing question.

And there have been many answers to that one question - or perhaps questions raised by that one question.

Is it that men are inferior to women? Surely if they were not so egotistical or vain, if they were more able to empathise and cooperate, then they would see there was no need to fight? The pen is mightier than the sword, good deeds are better than bad, we are one species and only have one planet to live on. If men could learn to share, then they would no longer need to destroy.

Or perhaps it is masculinity, that cult that is supposed to direct us and tell us what to do? Perhaps it is simply a mistaken cult, one that can be shaped to be different? For is not masculinity just an idea? And cannot ideas be changed?

Maybe it's the system? The capitalism that pits one against the other, that competes for resources, that demands a loser for every winner? Perhaps it is civilization itself - that monstrous entity that corrupts us, that consumes us and uses us as fuel to maintain itself?

Or perhaps it is God who makes us do this, because He made us in his own image? Or even the Devil, who hates what God made and therefore whispers temptations into our ears and leads us to our doom?

But consider this. We have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. We don't really know much about that common ancestor, but genetically we do know that the chimpanzee is our closest relative. A brother. And chimpanzees fight too. Viciously and frequently.

Ah, but that is different, you say. Men fight for causes, for honour, for flags, for pay, for the motherland, for family. Or for stupidity, and the lies of other men. Take your pick.

But at the point of fighting, at the point when a man engages his opponent, whether in a bar or a battlefield, does any of that other stuff really matter? At the point of death, at the point of driving home the blade, charging the blood soaked horse or crashing the burning plane into the enemy's ship, are any of those causes really thought about? Pondered over? Repeated to one self?

Or, at the point of naked aggression, is there something else? Something we dare not speak of? Something that those who do not fight will never understand? Or would prefer to not understand?

Now ask the question: Why do chimpanzees fight?

When you can answer that question - truly properly answer that question - then we can answer the question of why men fight, and therefore dispense with all that philosophical, theological or ideological nonsense that we currently fill our heads with.

Middle Class Hypocrisy

Guderian is in danger of becoming my favourite commenter. Here's another gem from a Spiked article:

Dear Tim

I see you are a bit bewildered by the ways of the modern world. Let me see if I can help you understand 

You see, when the Guardian says something, we call this an "opinion" but when the Daily Mail says something, we call this "being judgemental". That's because Guardian readers are being insightful whereas Daily Mail readers are being prejudiced.

Money is also different, £7.45 an hour is shitty money to most people, but Guardianistas call that "living wage".

Same deal with food. A piece of beef in a bun is a "gourmet burger" in Guardianland but it's junk food when the working class eat it.

And finally sex. When the nice people have sex they are expressing their sublime love for each other but when my window cleaner does his wife he's just giving in to his animal instincts, treating her like an object and perpetuating some kind of macho crap.

So don't fret Tim, eventually you'll get the hang of it.

All the best

Feelgood factor

Quote from Guderian in a Spiked article:

People in the Third World have never had it so good and it's thanks to heroes like me. Every espresso I have at Costa Coffee makes Guatemalan children very happy, I have seen the pictures and they always smile. I drink water from some company that vaccinates (or is it fumigates?, I forget) children in some African country, they also smile in the picture. My bananas make peasants in some other loser country very happy because a nice lady in London tells them how lucky they are to be paid a fair price. I am very precious and all the brown people know it. My mum was right.

Get a grip

Some brilliant comments by Sinister-Dexter in an article about the comedian Russel Brand's call for a 'revolution of consciousness'. Here's S-D's take on modern trendy activism of the kind lauded by Brand:

Western activism over the past decade has descended into an ego stroking exercise. I often meet people who have flown into the country to attend a summit on climate change, when i question them on their usefulness I always get the same response: "We're raising awareness!" which is what people end up saying about Brand when it's pointed out he has no substance, no solutions, and his revolution doesn't even have an exit strategy! "Raising awareness" is for backslapping narcissists who want to believe they're saving the world but don't want to do any of the boring shit, like, actually saving the world. "I really care about the planet, y'know? That's why I've organised this Green event, we're going to have DJs, and people speaking about polar bears, and face painting, and it will all raise awareness!" No. You are useless, just like Brand, you're a distraction, a feel-good exercise. There are people doing hard work to actually solve such issues, intelligent, studious people working on solutions. Shitting on such people and shouting "let's burn it all down and rebuild it based on the principle of love, not money!" might make you feel good for an hour or so, but it draws attention away from the committed people who spend their entire lives working on solutions to these problems.

 And here he is on the 'disaffected youth' of today:

 And seriously, when has the youth not been disaffected? The youth aren't that fragile, disaffection is a phase, a natural part of growing up. I feel disaffected with the disaffected British youth, whereas the disaffected youth in other countries riot for political change, in the UK the disaffected youth riot for a new iPhone. Funny how you didn't see the disaffected youth in turkey or Egypt robbing JD Sports.

Hypocrisy

72 'activists' have now been killed in Egypt - protestors gunned down by State security forces.

And world leaders are queuing up to condemn the heavy handed suppression of democracy, aren't they?

Aren't they?

Oh wait, they aren't. Well what about sanctions then? Uh, no. No-fly zones? You must be joking.

Surely Human Rights campaigners and the President of the United States - a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize - are united in condemnation of the Egyptian Military's actions? Surely there must be outcry at the countries that supply Egypt with weapons? Surely our own parliament is being lobbied by all those who insist that weapons are supplied only to those regimes that don't use the weapons against their own people. Surely the very people who protested against the actions of the Gaddafi and Assad regimes are joined in condemnation of the suppression of an election and the 'will of the people'.

Don't be silly. There can't be an outcry against those countries that supply Egypt with weapons, because the aforementioned Nobel Peace Prize winner still pays the Egyptian military $3 Billion a year, and will continue to deliver its promised F16 fighters. And the 'will of the people' only counts when the protesters are young, english speaking, facebook using, secular liberals. With lots of women in the picture. And it helps if they are college educated, like the journalists who photograph them.

Otherwise, they can be gunned down with impunity.

What the dead needed, you see, was not their right to life, but a good public relations agency. This is why the Libyan rebels hired a US PR agency on day one, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Syrian rebels had done the same.

Western Liberals are only interested in people who are just like them, and the claims that they see all people as the same, with no discrimination, are in fact just plain lies.

If you're 'just like us', or beautiful or young, then we'll like you.

If you're not like us, or ugly (and bearded), or the wrong (political) colour, then we don't want you.

That's the reality of Enlightened Western Morality. It's just a crock of shit.

The world knows we are hypocrites. It's just us that don't.

Cohesion

Cohesion requires an enemy.

Sex and Feminism

I remember, during the 80's, when the 'missionary position' was criticised by feminists. It smacked to them of male dominance, with the male bearing down on the woman. The fact that he was on top and she below seemed, in their minds, to mimic the patriarchal order. In a science fiction novel that I read by, I think, Joanna Russ, her lead character encourages her partner to make love to her with both of them lying sideways - 'because it's more equal'.

It's not equal. It's obsessive, not to mention uncomfortable if done in the rustic surroundings of Russ's novel.

Sex is nature at its most raw. It is, as Camille Paglia says, animal. We are biological animals, programmed to procreate - this is fact, not some cultural or patriarchal imposition.

Nature doesn't give a shit about equality. Equality has no meaning in the natural world. The position of our organs is what dictates the best sexual positions, not ideology.

But in Feminism's eyes, everything is a conspiracy.

Feminism Lesbianism

I wrote here that Feminism is not really about equality. I will go further and say that Feminism is not really about women - or rather, all women. Feminism, at its heart, is concerned only with lesbianism.

Feminist lesbianism despises men, for it has no actual use for them. But it also despises heterosexual women. It hates the way they contort their lives in order to attract men. It hates their overwhelming desire to read heterosexual romance novels and watch heterosexual romance movies, consuming these genres in larger numbers than men consume theirs. It hates heterosexual romance, period. Because it involves that other hated figure - men. It hates the outcome of that romance - children. It hates the whole business of childbirth, nurturing and all the other things that seem to take up so much of women's time. It can hate all these things honestly and without contradiction because, of course, lesbians only desire other lesbians. Lesbians view children the same way men do, for the chances of having to carry them inside themselves are slim. They also view heterosexual women the same way that men do, seeing them as stupid, easily led and incapable of shaping their own lives.

Heterosexual feminists defeat themselves with contradiction. They decry being turned into sex objects by men, then defend the right to wear sexy and revealing clothing in public. They condemn men's commercialisation of women's bodies when they pay prostitutes for sex, but then defend the prostitute's right to work, free from the interference of the state. They demand the right to succeed in the workplace just like men, for women can focus on their careers just like men, then demand that other women look after their children for them while they do so. They demand the right to abort foetuses, at any time, then condemn men for being cruel and heartless. They claim that women are, in fact, the same as men, and can do anything that men can, with calls to let them serve in frontline armies, for example. Then they campaign to end violence against women - and only women - as if women could not defend themselves and needed extra-legal protection.

Lesbian feminists don't have to worry about making themselves look incoherent with such demands. There is nothing in feminism that contradicts lesbianism. And that is because lesbianism is what feminism is really about.