It is very likely that I will not live to see a society in which men regulate their violent actions according to natural law.
Socially-imposed law, unlike natural law, tends to suffer from the individual egotism of ambitious individuals and from the collective egotism of stupid social groups.
I encourage readers to review a brief summary of Unwin’s fundamental insight – a culture that restrains sexual freedom will flourish.
However, bear in mind that even the most restrained cultures left some outlets. Patriarchal, monogamous Christian marriage coexisted with prostitution.
If the current globalized travel patterns continue, perhaps the 21st century will see the “do-me feminists” and “sex-positive feminists” become a separate social class. Or perhaps technological advances in porn will render 20th-century-style promiscuity obsolete. But it is entirely possible that globalized travel will be restricted as more and more countries lapse into anarch-piratism.
Currently, sex and drugs are seen as means of individualistic hedonism. What if either sex or drugs were seen as a means of collectivist struggle?
I’m inclined to think that a non-masturbating celibate male would perform violent combat duties more effectively than a porn-addicted male who has no sex with others but still masturbates. However, I have no scientific backing for that notion; perhaps a porn addict would be more in touch with his base animal desires and thus more violent. One might expect that strong synthetic drugs might make it possible to turn a bunch of raw recruits into homicidal shock troops.
Of course, national militaries have long given various stimulants to their troops in order to keep them alert and aggressive. Despite modern pharmaceutical knowledge, it has not proven easy to design drugs that will turn passive, non-rebellious citizens into gung-ho, homicidal William Calleys.
Some USA warfighters complain that their superior officers want them to be warrior monks. Indeed, warrior monks can accomplish great things – but the USA lacks the spiritual integrity to produce real warrior monks. Modern pharmacology and brainwashing gave the USA such tricks as MK-ULTRA and scopolamine, and yet the USA still cannot muster a force fanatical enough to govern such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why is it so easy to build atom bombs and so difficult to turn unruly citizens into obedient hatchet-men? Perhaps because the human brain is infinitely more complex than a lump of U-235.
Research shows that the effects of amphetamine on aggressive behavior are complex and are dependent on the types of variables involved. One such variable would be the kind of species used for experimentation. It can be
difficult to make comparisons between species, as they tend to produce differing results and have unique brain structures. For example, in experiments involving rodent subjects, higher doses of amphetamine lead to a
decrease in aggressive behavior, whereas higher doses in monkeys cause an escalation in aggression. In addition, the affiliative behavior of primate subjects clearly has biphasic effects, with rates of occurrence decreasing steadily
as the dose increases (Smith and Byrd, 1984), whereas rodent subjects exhibit clear increases in social exploration along the same scale (Moro et al., 1996).
Such diversity between species often makes it difficult to generalize to the human population, and so carefully organized experimentation may be necessary to understand this variance. Another complexity is the biphasic effects that amphetamine has on behavior. This dose-dependent condition can sometimes lead to difficulties in predictability since there is no clearly defined linear relationship. Even intraspecies effects can have large degrees of variance and so extensive sample sizes are necessary to gain a better perspective. It is interesting, however, that these biphasic results seemingly contradict the common belief that larger doses of amphetamine cause increases in aggressive behavior, when, in fact, it is smaller doses that elicit this condition.
When studying the effects of amphetamine on human behavior, several factors must be taken into consideration before any assumptions can be made. … the history of drug use of a patient, the patient’s lifestyle, and the patient’s social status and interactions are all possible influences on his or her drug habits and aggressive patterns of behavior. Wright and Klee (2001) report some interesting points in the area of amphetamine-related human
aggressive behavior. For instance, correlations between amphetamine use and aggression are strongly associated with drug dealing rather than intoxication.
… in regard to the subjects’ patterns of amphetamine use, there were no significant differences between those who reported aggression and the rest of the sample, and no straightforward relationship could be found between amphetamine use and one’s potential for aggressive behavior.
As one can see, the connection between amphetamine use and aggressive behavior is ambiguous and complex, with no easily discernible results. Since it is an illicit substance, the opportunities for human experimentation and
research using this compound are extremely limited.
The USA does not have a reliable way of producing sincere nationalists. Indeed, the USA has lacked sincere nationalists since the FDR regime. Its native-born population is dwindling as the leftists bring in immigrants from Mexico and Africa who are not willing to assimilate to USA nationalism.
Even when the USA can start with a citizen who is rooted in a social network of nationalistic ethics, the USA war machine cannot apply carrots and sticks reliably. The USA’s rule-of-law has been replaced by rule-of-lawyers, and these lawyers often attack the low-ranking warfighters, such as Fred Reed. Reed went through an acrimonious divorce and feels more at home in Mexico than the USA.
The USA war machine can produce enough brain-washers to keep its clandestine MK-ULTRA labs operating. (I don’t know which locations they recruit from – perhaps Abu Ghraib produces enough veterans to maintain the brain-washers’ headcounts.) But they probably can’t make the process cheap and reliable. In large part, they seem to rely on men like Tice, Binney, and Snowden, and women like Edmonds. Somehow they manage to keep most of these competent bureaucrats working for charismatic managers who can run operations like the one at Mena, Arkansas.
Throughout the 20th century, the fighting men of the USA have mostly served the interests of international racketeers. A few have tried to bring the racket to light, break it up, and scatter its pieces to the winds – an ambition which has seemed futile since 22 November 1963.
As the international trade system enters chaos (the Americans just kicked Russia out of the G8), the EU begins to collapse, and national self-interest and security problems overwhelms the Anglo-American system of global trade, communication, and finance, we are entering a new stage of history that is catching most of the American leadership flat-footed.
Certain optimists have suggested that the USA’s fighting men will dig in their heels, any year now, and refuse to sacrifice their nation for the greater profits of international investors.
Much depends on how closely the USA’s current regime can tie its survival to the economic survival of the masses. If the USA collapses to a situation much like Brazil, with ultra-wealthy kleptocrats cowering behind high walls and hopeless plebeians scratching around in the mud outside, the nation-state might be considered technically functional, but in practice, it will have ceded its role to whatever social order arises from the slums.
And what comes after the nation-state has lost enough legitimacy to fall past the critical breaking point? For most men and women, a support network which doesn’t allow them to create families, protect them, and prosper with them, would be fundamentally incomplete.