Thomas Jefferson – the principal author of the most profound document ever written in human history — once said,
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
He said this because he was fully committed to truth, justice, and reality.
This statement is a reflection of reality.
The reality that no such thing as “too much liberty” exists.
That “too much liberty” is an impossible contradiction – like “too much” self esteem, self respect, and integrity.
And contrary to popular belief, “too much liberty” is not anarchy. Liberty requires government – a proper and just government, fully and absolutely committed to protecting the rights of man – every man.
Anarchy is an absence of government, and of the protection for liberty.
Anarchy is a negative. Liberty is a positive. The two are not combinable.
In the same way, and for the same reasons, I am convinced no man with reason as his absolute can expose himself to “too much controversy”.
Cannot expose himself to “too much”, because the confrontation of that controversy is an uncompromising quest to uncover the reality and truth surrounding a given issue that he has judged to be important.
An uncompromising quest that requires more than the strength of a thousand men. A quest that requires the strength of a man to stand against men – the one against the many.
This is a strength all of us possess, but most of us shrug.
It was a strength exercised by the founding fathers of the American States.
It was a strength exercised by Ayn Rand in her lifelong battle to depict the ideal man.
It was a strength exercised by Arthur Jones in his quest for the ideal exercise machines and protocols to use them.
It is a strength exercised by our first re-founding rather, Ron Paul, in his struggle to reverse 150 years of improper government and it’s corresponding momentum.
It was a strength exercised by Doug Mcguff and John Little in their journey to undo 40 years of “fitness” nonsense, and identify the foundations for an ideal exercise program in their book Body by Science.
It was a strength exercised by Tim Ferris when he went on national TV to promote The Four Hour Work Week and stated that if you hate what you are doing, you should do as little of it as possible – even as little as four hours a week.
It is a strength exercised daily by Mark Sisson when he confronts an onslaught of misinformation, group think, and half a century of conventional wisdom.
It is a strength exercised by the young James Steele in his constant research of the lower back – a critical subject that pains many, and is ignored by even more.
This is a strength possessed by all. The courage to use it, by most. The will to go through with it … a select few.
This is a strength I possess, yet, am still learning to exercise properly – and perhaps, will always be learning how to exercise ever more effectively.
“Rape” is a subject I judge important at present. I consider it the salem witch trial of our day. The word in our language has become nothing short of an obscene slander, flung around like shit – and sticking all the same.
What I view as it’s mis-use and improper, vague definition, is the source of the reversal of one of the greatest principles of a free society – that man is innocent until proven guilty.
The degree to how hideous this is cannot be stated in words. It is ignored at your own peril – man and woman alike.
My examination of the term “rape” has also caused me to question whether or not it is mentally healthy, and rational, for a woman to desire to confront physical force from a man she has willingly chosen – a man she is fully attracted to.
While apparently unpopular to the highest of degrees, I am convinced it is. I am convinced a woman of self esteem – a woman who is convinced she is competent to live – would seek this out, and while she probably wouldn’t advertise it on a bill board, she would not be ashamed of it – as the rest of society and the sum of our culture has told her to be.
She would not be ashamed to seek a living man stronger than herself, in every sense of the term, and to experience that strength in the clearest expression possible.
These are the basic premises I sought – the pieces of a larger puzzle I am building – in the previous posts on “rape”.
I do not have all of the pieces, but I do have some. If you disagree, you should state why, and attempt to disprove what I have put forward.
While I may not have been as clear in those posts as the best of my ability would and should allow, me being unclear in a post does not make the flicking of a tongue in silent, bitter disagreement morally courageous.
Quite the contrary. Evil reigns when good men stand by and do nothing.
If you disagree with the above points, let my posts on “rape” be a lesson in why silence is not always the best choice.
If you disagreed with the posts, without reading them, and without giving your best effort to understand them, let those posts be a lesson in why judging a book by it’s cover and not it’s content (assuming you now agree with the basic points I am making), is the wrong choice in all cases, with the exception proving the rule.
I will not always be superbly clear in what I am saying, but my commitment to what is right is inflexible to the highest of degrees – to the highest degree possible.
Remember this when you read The Dream Lounge, because there is no controversy I will ever back down from, or submit to.