Thank You, Readers

I sincerely appreciate the fact you take time from your busy lives to read what I have to say. I will try to reward that as best as I can by creating more quality content.

Unfortunately, there may be some significant gaps of days, perhaps as much as a week, between posts. My online class is in full force now, and the time I spend at work does not appear to be on a downward trend.

I promise you this blog will not be neglected; I make time to do what I like, and blogging happens to be one of those activities.

My Weight Loss Program

For the past month, I have been on a one-meal-per-day diet. There have been a couple of days where I have eaten more than one meal, but I have been consistent enough to the point I have been experiencing results-15 pounds to be precise. I have been substituting a cup of yogurt for one meal consistently for almost two weeks now, and it is making the diet slightly easier on the body.

It has not been as rapid a process as I would have hoped. I have constantly monitored my weight for some time now, and I have found it to fluctuate; nevertheless, I am slowly but surely losing weight. To help accelerate the process, I have decided to do more consistent walking; I have access to a nice park near my house with well-maintained, paved trails. It remains to be seen how much this will help me, but I am confident if I give it time, better results will be mine.

Currently, I weigh 175 pounds. My goal is to lose at least 30 pounds more. If I can keep making good progress, I can reach my goal conceivably by the end of October.

Some might wonder why I am so intent on losing weight. Well, I think I look fat. I have thought this ever since I started gaining weight fairly rapidly after March of 2001 due to some infernal medication. I never truly became fat, but I was still uncomfortable with my new weight. I wanted very much to return to being as thin as I was, and I have just recently decided to take serious action and see it through.

While my methods are admittedly less than ideal, they work well. Hopefully soon I can be content with my weight again.

Newly Cyst-less

For about a couple of years now, I had a small cyst on the back of my upper left arm. When I first showed it to my doctor, he said it did not look serious and offered to cut it off if I so desired. Since I did not fancy the prospect of being cut, I declined. At an appointment on the third of this month, I decided to reluctantly take him up on his prior offer, since I found it to be an annoyance; he took another look at it and was slightly worried about the redness at the base; he thought it could mean I have skin cancer, so he scheduled an appointment for today in order to have it removed and then sent off to a pathologist.

I still did not fancy the prospect of being cut, so I was quite nervous about my appointment. I was told they were going to numb it sufficiently so I would not feel anything other than pressure; nevertheless, I figured with my luck the numbness would not last. Thankfully, I was wrong. During the whole process which took around 40 minutes, I was on my side. I am not proud to say I am quite a pussy, so I was occasionally trembling at the prospect; however, I was able to keep sufficiently still so as not to interfere with the work of the doctor and the nurse. I tried not to think about what was happening, but it is rather difficult to keep my mind on anything else. I was praying throughout the preponderance of the procedure that the numbness would not wear off, and thankfully my request was granted.

It is nice to know this business is mostly over. I still have to wait for the results of the test, but I am hopeful this is not a sign of skin cancer. I will have to change my dressing for the next ten days until the stitches are removed. Hopefully, the wound will not become infected; the antibiotics I am on should see to it. The bandages were initially rather uncomfortable, but I am growing more accustomed to them. I am not in any pain, and I hope this will continue. If only I can avoid sleeping on my left arm tonight...

The Original DontMarry.com Essay

Read it here.

Yesterday, I was browsing MGTOW and I encountered this classic article which describes at length much of what I find wrong with marriage today. As I said before, marriage is in shambles.

As this essay so aptly states, marriage is quite a risky proposition for men. Even if there was a woman out there I fancied and she likewise fancied me, I would have to carefully consider whether I can trust her for lasting commitment when she could so easily change her mind and leave me to pick up the pieces. If I would be willing to step down the aisle and say "I do" to a woman, I would fully intend to honour my commitment. Would she?

I would be pleased to have a long, loving marriage like my parents have. They have been married approximately as long as I have been alive, and it shows no signs whatsoever of dissolving. I could perhaps be fortunate enough to find a woman I would spend the rest of my life with, but the probability is not exactly promising, especially in the West. This tragic situation is one of the prime reasons behind my unwavering contempt for feminism.

Why I am a monarchist

Undoubtedly, some readers of this blog are curious as to how I came to be a monarchist. I endeavour to satisfy this curiosity.

What was I before? Like many others, I was conservative in my political philosophy and also a believer in representative forms of government. I still am quite conservative, perhaps even more so than many so-called "right-wingers" today.

What changed? I came to question and ultimately reject the cherished beliefs held by so many infatuated with representative government such as equality, equal opportunity and majority rule. Very disturbing to me is the tendency of representative governments to march ceaselessly to socialism, world government and the accompanying elimination of national borders. Very few politicians in these representative governments are alarmed at this; in fact, they are some of the most influential, enthusiastic proponents of such rot. Who in power truly cares about preserving culture, borders and national distinctiveness?

Why do I favour monarchy in particular? I would suppose a monarch would be less likely to surrender his sovereignty, even if only for reasons of self-interest, to some internationalist despots than his representative equivalents. The dynastic nature of monarchy provides some degree of stability and forward-thinking, since a monarch would like to have his name and house live on; a representative is elected only for terms and can build successful campaigns on poorly conceived "quick-fixes." The grandeur and opulence associated with monarchy are also quite appealing. Remember this form of government is thousands of years old and has been proven throughout history to work.

While I could definitely add more, this should be sufficient. Some of the subjects broached in this article will likely be discussed at length in future articles. Once those are written, I will edit this to add the links in appropriate places.

On the Futility of Life

Some undoubtedly think someone as young as I am should brimming with hope and optimism. Alas, I possess neither.

In my years, I notice people engaging in the same routine every day. Every year of their lives just leaves them older with the few constants being pain, sorrow, work, taxes and bills. Sound appealing? I thought not. What makes it better to live such a life than to live no life at all?

The successful and the unsuccessful perish. The rich and the poor perish. The healthy and the sick perish. The strong and the weak perish. If one gains the whole world, what profit will it be to him in death? If one accumulates innumerable possessions, what profit will they be to him in death? If one acquires great strength, what profit will it be to him in death?

To what end do I toil and endure? Why do I rise in the morning? What makes the misery worthwhile?

What has my life thus far amounted to? Very, very little. I behold myself in the mirror and state, "So this is what I have become." I hate seeing former teachers or schoolmates when I am on the job...or anywhere for that matter, since they unwittingly remind me of my failure; with all of the potential people say they see in me and my distinguished academic career, I am ashamed to be where I am. Truly, I could have become more than what I am today, and this knowledge torments me. I could have had a family of my own by now, a house and decently compensating employment. But what am I now? A bachelor who has never dated working a job where the pay and the frustration prove inversely proportional in a decidedly negative fashion. I no longer have the charisma I once had in public speaking, which I discovered after taking a required speech course at my new school after the fateful "Spring Break" of 2001; I found watching the video of my speeches to be deeply disappointing.

I start my last class on the 23rd of this month, but I wish it was over now. I hoped in the past if I was still in school at this time of life, I would be on my way to a Ph.D., not a bloody Bachelor's degree. The degree will prove to be more highly esteemed by other people, particularly employers, than myself; it is just an overrated, expensive piece of paper to me. I can and do learn just fine outside the confines of a university campus, which by no means has a monopoly on knowledge.

What do I have which makes my presence in this world meaningful? In my honest opinion, I have only one asset, my mind. Are there greater minds out there? Of course there are, so what I have to offer is hardly much; it is not as if I have unlocked the secrets of the universe and shared them. My outlook on life is obviously not rosy, so I do not exactly give off an infectious zest for life. I have provided some modest amounts of encouragement and levity to others occasionally, but these could be performed with greater frequency and efficacy by others.

Will my outlook on life ever improve? Perhaps, but it will never happen sans adequate justification.

Will life ever be more than an exercise in futility? If so, when? I long to live, not merely exist.

On Equal Opportunity

Here is my article on equality: On Equality.

One might inquire, "Lord Feverstone, I concede there is no equality between persons, but what are your thoughts on equal opportunity?"

Can anyone say truly equal opportunity exists? Suppose a community hosts a no-charge-for-admission function open to the public. Is that truly equal opportunity for all? What if I live on the other side of the planet? Do I have equal opportunity to attend that function as someone who lives in that community? Would it be feasible for the community to send invitations to every person in the world? And what of the issue of many different languages? Does anyone seriously think this community is going to translate the invitation for everyone's native language and ensure everyone the world over receives an invitation they can read? For that matter, do they ensure those who are blind receive braille invitations? If they decide to give the invitation online, what of the people who do not have access to a computer and an internet connection? If they decide to give the invitation via television, what of those who do not have access to one? If this community would be able to give the message to everyone in the world and allow sufficient time for everyone to arrive, would there be sufficient space to accommodate everyone? Of course not! The community function is not a true example of equal opportunity.

Should there be equal opportunity? As my example above illustrates, it is quite impractical and inefficient. But what of equal opportunity to everyone who can apply for a job opening, for example? If the employer tries to give equal consideration to all who apply, there is no one stopping him. What if the employer is discriminatory? It is his time, money and assets on the line. If he only wants to hire polka-playing Eskimos, that is his affair. If his business fails because of poor hiring policies, again, that is his affair. I do not advocate any "Equal Opportunity" commissions or bureaucracies in my ideal monarchy.

On My Experiences with Bullying

Bullying started in earnest for me in the sixth grade and lasted even into my first college experience.

Before High School, I remember getting slammed into the locker on a few occasions and being stabbed in the back of my head with a pencil. I do not remember much else except gratuitous verbal harassment.

In High School, the bullying dissipated somewhat. It mainly consisted of verbal harassment.

When I was staying in a dorm at the first college I attended (which happened to be a Christian college), I was not beaten except for a head-butting incident. I also received my fill of verbal harassment there.

One night while I was staying up to type a term paper and another smaller paper, I remember someone might have had a book I would find useful as a source. Perhaps I should have chosen to inquire of someone else, because not long after I entered the room there was a brief verbal exchange about who knows what between me and the perpetrator of the aforementioned head-butting incident who did not even live in that room to begin with. Within a moment, he had me pinned to the side of the bed with his legs over my shoulders. He eventually let me up about two hours later, but he would not let me escape. Finally, the RA for that floor opened the door and I was free to leave. After I returned to my room, it took me about half of an hour to get back to work. Thankfully, I still had time enough to finish those papers before they were due.

My bullying experience was not confined to school; I also experienced a particularly unpleasant incident of it at a fast-food establishment in which I once was employed. One particularly disagreeable fellow was reading something on the wall and I either asked him a question or made a statement to him; I do not remember what I said, but I am sure it did not warrant his response, which involved grabbing me by the wrists and slamming me against the wall behind me. He then proceeded to throw me into a wall and other objects. Whenever I rose again, he would immediately grab me and throw me again. Since this area we were in was in the back, it was out of view of others. After a few minutes of this, a female manager and then another employee finally came back to investigate; consequently, this disagreeable fellow stopped throwing me around. When I was in the office, the manager asked me if I was alright; I had a few bruises but nothing more to show for it.

The bullying coupled with the anger it provoked in me eventually led to leaving that college. The school officials thought I "needed help" because they did not think I was sleeping or eating enough and that I played too many computer games, etc. My grades were quite good; I had a 3.82/4.0 GPA and had some great scholarships. Nevertheless, I spent my Spring Break of 2001 in the psychiatric wing of a hospital feeling deeply bitter and betrayed. I did not really find out what my parents were told until after the fact. I ended up being diagnosed with a "delusional disorder" while I was there; I certainly did not imagine what happened to me then or in the past. From my hospital room, I gazed out onto the world and proclaimed I was saner than a great deal of the "normal" people going about their business. This was a crushing blow far worse than any I had sustained from the hands of a bully. I was deceived by my parents and by the school; I was led to believe they wanted me to take a break from school for the rest of the semester. It turns out the school officials thought I was "dangerous" and that they did not know what I would do if I discovered the truth. What poppycock! If I was so bloody dangerous, the bullies certainly did not appear afraid of me. To top it off, I was anorexic for a while. I hardly weighed little more at the time I left the school than the lowest weight I was able to attain. I had always been quite a weakling. On my diet, I lost much of the very little strength I had. I was too weak to be realistically considered "dangerous."

Once my parents discovered more of the truth of what really happened, they regretted the part they played and concluded the school did me wrong. The situation could have been handled differently and a more satisfactory conclusion could have been reached.

Why was I bullied? I can only offer a few hypotheses. Some undoubtedly found my manner of speech to be exceedingly formal and hence peculiar to their ears. Some undoubtedly concluded my interests such as chess (I played over 100 informal games in High School and won every time excepting a couple of games where I made a careless mistake), reading, writing, etc. to be atypical for a school-age lad. Some undoubtedly found me to be an easy target since I was (and still am) so weak; they understandably had no reason to fear attacking or provoking me. Indeed, I have more hypotheses, but these shall suffice for now.

After this business was over, I considered two years of my life to be completely wasted. I started to pursue my current major in Spring of 2002. Since my previous coursework was quite different than the current coursework, it was like I started over again. I came to hate school more than ever before, but I still excelled. I have maintained a perfect GPA since then; I have received my share of academic honours and recognition, but I find it all to be quite empty, insignificant.

I wish those two years of disgrace, failure and pain never happened. Likewise, I wish the related incidents throughout many years of my life never happened. I wish my life proceeded differently. The end result, after 25 years of living, is this pointless, thoroughly displeasing existence.

On Equality

In Western society, one word often heard is "equality." I would wager most Westerners are at least nominal egalitarians after hearing how reverently they speak of it and those they claim "fight" for it.

Is equality a comfortable myth or verifiable fact?

In the context of mathematics and related disciplines, there is no doubt in my mind equality is a reality. If a + 5 is equal to b + 5, then a is equal to b. From henceforth, I shall refer to this as quantitative equality. A qualitative equality, which I believe most people refer to when speaking of equality between persons, strikes me as quite arbitrary, sentimental and unprovable.

Can one prove person a is quantitatively equal to person b? I cannot see how it can be done. Supposing person A is stronger than person B and person B is smarter than person A, does it mean each person's advantage balances the other's and they are therefore equals? No, there are differences in scale to advantages and there are far more abilities and weaknesses to be considered; furthermore, not all abilities have equal utility.

One might object like so: "Lord Feverstone, the utility of abilities is defined by the context. For example, if a soldier is strong and battle-hardened, this ability is of greater utility in that situation than the culinary skills he lacks."

I would answer by saying situations where one ability is emphasised does not happen in equal frequency to situations where another ability is emphasised.

What point am I making? There is no way to prove one person is equal to another. There is no balance sheet and point-value systems which can demonstrate equality. I therefore conclude equality between persons is a comfortable myth.

Western governments are dominated by representative forms of government, whether it be in the form of a republic or a consitutional monarchy. At the heart of representative government is the assumption all are equal. Many object to authoritarian systems of government such as absolute monarchy by saying it does not honour "equality." After all, they also think voting is a right. Since an absolute monarchy does not involve proclaiming and enforcing "equality" let alone voting, they conclude it to be an oppressive, illegitimate form of government.

What is oppressive about recognising the obvious fact there are exceptionally-gifted people in the world? What is illegitimate about rejecting the preposterous notion the ill-informed and the informed should be given equal say over how the government is to be run?

Even if "equality" can be proven, what difference does it make whether I or anyone else give my assent to it or not? As in On Truth and Monarchy, I stated truth is objective. Just because I am not a true believer in equality, does it mean I treat people like dirt? Absolutely not! God treats us all far, far better than we deserve, and He certainly does not regard us as being equal to Himself. There are people in the world who regard others more highly than they do themselves, and they treat such people accordingly. Of course, there are definitely many resentful of those they think are better than themselves. As one can conclude, belief in equality is no prerequisite to treating people well.

I am a believer in what Jesus says in Luke 12:48:

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required...

A related verse is found in James 3:1:

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

When God gives gifts and responsibilities, He expects them to be used wisely. When He returns, will we be found to be good stewards of what He has entrusted to our care? Needless to say, there will be consequences for mismanagement, so we should live our lives in that knowledge. What really matters is not whether we are "equal," but whether we live our lives as God intends.

On Marriage

One of the foundations of society, marriage, is crumbling. An astonishing, disturbing percentage of "till death to us part" vows are spoken and proven empty. Countless families are shattered and scarred. Alas, what can be done to mend such brokenness?

What is marriage? It is a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman for mutual encouragement, companionship and procreation. The future of society rests upon healthy marriages producing healthy offspring. The world is a cruel and lonely place. It is beneficial for people to have a loving, supportive family to come home to when the inevitable storms of life manifest.

Why are marriages falling apart? Easy access to divorce plays a considerable role. Now, one does not even have to prove one's spouse broke the marriage vows. One can unilaterally proclaim the relationship to be ended and the government honours that decision. Worse yet, the same spouse who breaks the vows can end the marriage, take custody of the children and be entitled to assets and monetary support from the other. To whom is this repulsive power most often given to? The wife, of course. Her commitment to her husband ends when she says it does and his commitment to her is always in force. Is this justice?

Why should a man get married when divorce and its distasteful consequences hang over his head throughout? Are there any guarantees his bride-to-be will take her vows seriously and not exercise the destructive power given to her? Make no mistake; there are ultimately no winners in divorce except for those who seek the destruction of marriage and the collapse of society.

How can this crisis be managed? Eliminate no-fault, easy divorce. If marriage is to be a lifetime commitment, the partners ought not be given incentive to shirk their responsibilities and break their vows. If ending commitments is free from consequences for one or both parties, it is logical to anticipate many ended commitments.

Once government and the people start taking marriage seriously again, people will not be so hasty as to make solemn commitments they are not sure they will keep. Relationships will be more likely to last and we will be a happier, stronger society.

On Truth and Monarchy

I believe truth to be objective. There are some who claim all truth is subjective. Is that not an objective claim? The measure of truth is not opinions, but the measure of opinions is the truth.

One can reject or uphold truth, but the fact it is indeed truth remains unchanged. One man can rightly recognise truth and the rest of the world can proclaim him a fool. Who is in the right? The one man, of course. My point is truth is not a matter determined by vote. The majority can be gravely wrong and the minority can be quite right; the reverse is also true.

In monarchy, one's time is not wasted trying to win debates. In real life, people are quite stubborn and will not likely be swayed even by impeccable logic. In my ideal implementation of monarchy, the monarch would occupy himself with discovering the truth and crafting policies grounded therein.

At the root of more representative forms of government is compromise. Even if one politician happens to discover the truth of the matter and proposes appropriate legislation, he will have to market it to many others. In the process, the legislation will undergo change to make it more palatable to an often biased, faction-ridden body.

Compromise ultimately dilutes the impact of truth. Do not misunderstand me; compromise has its rightful place in unessential matters unrelated to matters of truth.

Since truth is not determined by the majority, why should laws and policies be determined by the results of a popular vote, whether it be direct or through representatives?