Utopian Realism

Treat others as you wish to be treated. 

How do you want to be treated? 

With respect, dignity and consideration.

This is the golden rule of equity.

Equity being a word which means to be just and fair.

Taken a level deeper, just and fair appropriate to the context.

There are situations and contexts which at first may seem contradictory to this rule, but in fact are not.

If someone came over to you in a cafe and deliberately poured a hot cup of coffee over your laptop, without provocation or just cause, then you would be within your grounds to respond physically. 

One may think, I would not like to get punched in the face, so therefore I should treat others in the same way, thus not responding in a physically proportional manner.

Although if you were to reverse the situation and you had been the one to unjustifiably attack someones valuable private property, would you not find it reasonable that the victim punched you in the face in response to your initiated act of aggression?

One should of course first identify if the man who had poured coffee over their laptop was of sound mind, for they may well be a literal retard. In this case, responding physically would not be appropriate as a retard is not fully responsible for their actions. 

It is not to say that one should act by identifying if the laptop destroyer is mentally stable and then immediately punch the man in the face.

It is to say that it can be considered reasonable to behave in such a way, but not that it is the best methodology to utilise. 

It is to highlight that at times, the way you wish to be treated would be to be punched in the face, if you had done something to deserve it.

In that same situation, if you were a retard and had poured coffee over another's laptop, you would not want to be punched in the face for something you had little control over.

If someone accidentally hits the back of your car while driving, you should treat them the same way as if you had accidentally hit the back of someones car. This is equity, this is treating others as you wish to be treated.

If you were a bully and went around acting like a thug, intimidating people to reveal their private information, threatening to tie them up and kidnap them, then it would be reasonable for someone to respond with force against you.

This is because you are treating others in a way you would not wish to be treated. 

Use the police for example. If one is approached by the police and harassed, they can consider it from the opposite perspective.

If they were the police and were attempting to violate someone innocent, how would they deserve to be treated? They would acknowledge it would be perfectly reasonable, justifiable and deserving for them to be treated according to the context. 

If the police were harassing one who was innocent, then that man has the right to respond with force if necessary to be left in peace. Perhaps he should not for fear of consequence, but it does not change the fact he would be right to defend himself physically and he would not be violating the rule of equity, as he would be treating the police exactly the way he would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed and he was instead being a violent bully.

Equity is to treat others according to the context the same way you would wish to be treated.

If a teenager stole something from your store, you should not wish to respond physically by punching them in the face for stealing from you. You should want to apprehend them and then educate them as to why they should not steal. Perhaps you could even have them work at your store for a little while, then gift them with some appropriate item to show them that by working, they can have what they like by earning it, without needing to steal it.

Why should one do this? Because this is the way one would want to be treated if they were caught being a thief.

There is a difference between what you want to do and what you should do.

You may want to retaliate to particular inflammatory acts in an aggressive manner. Just because there is cause to do so, does not mean that one should do so.

If you discovered someone had sold you a dodgy car, one where the odometer was rolled back by 100,000ks and there was a whole host of issues which were denied when asked when you bought the car, you may feel entirely justified in responding violently to a lying crook. This does not mean that it is the best thing to do or that you should do it. 

The golden rule of equity, along with Objective Morality as a totality, requires the use of escalating force.

If you can achieve your results with words, then do so. If not, then force can be used which is equal and appropriate to the situation.

If a passenger on a plane is trying to kick down the pilots door, you should not immediately punch him in the throat with a kill shot because you felt that his actions were going to kill everyone on the plane. One should first attempt to use their words to de-escalate the situation by telling him to calm down and stop. The man may be drunk, having a psychosis or be on drugs. There are many reasons for why he may be acting so irrational, so words are always the first go to if the threat is not absolutely imminent.

If he did not stop kicking the pilots door after you used words, then you have legitimate grounds to use physical force to pull him away, put him on the ground and to try and restrain him. You should not throw him on the ground and punch him in the face multiple times. This would only be justifiable if you could not contain him without applying more force and if he was hitting you first.

This is appropriate action according to equity because if the situations were reversed, you would expect the same to happen to you.

Equity is what is just and fair according to the circumstances of how you wish to be treated, in alignment with your power to act.

If four armed cartel members busted into your home with guns aimed at your face, there is not much you can do. 

If you were holding a gun, you do have the right to shoot them as they have invaded your private property, caused damage and are armed with deadly weapons aimed to kill. 

You may ultimately believe that these traumatized and misguided thugs deserve to be rehabilitated and helped, but this is not in your power to do at this moment. 

If you were superman or James Bond, you could disarm all 4 gang members, tie them up and fly them to a rehab centre to get better. 

Even if you are a super hero, the proper correctional facilities would have to exist to do this, which most often they do not. One can only have so much power even if they are super powered or highly skilled. 

Since we can't be supermen, we can rule out having bullets bounce of our chest and calmly pulling the weapons out of the thugs hands.

The best we could become would be a "James Bond" level of ability. Even the most skilled combat expert in the world would not be able to or would have great difficulty disarming all four assailants without harming or killing any of them.

Even if it was ones highest desire to treat them exactly as one would wish to be treated and one was very tolerant of wrong behaviour, unless you have the power to act in a way which allows you to treat others exactly the way you want, then you have to compromise and treat them the best that you can in the context.

James Bond may wish to disarm the thugs without harming them before taking them to rehab. But even he cannot physically achieve this.

Even if you had the worlds best communication expert, there are cases where some people cannot be talked down.

The best James Bond may be able to do is shoot them all in the arms and legs, thus disabling them enough so he can remove their weapons, call an ambulance and have them taken to hospital, where they can then hopefully be transferred to an arbitration center, have an immediate trial, be found liable, then sent to rehab to heal their mental wounds which caused them to act so badly. 

Even this case is highly improbable, it may be achievable in the movies, but not in real life.

In real life, one may have to hold their hands up in surrender and allow the thugs to do as they please with them. Or if they wanted to fight, which would be their right, throw a grenade and blow them all up. 

One can only treat others as they wish to be treated according to the context and their power to do so. One can only do the best they can with the power, knowledge and experience they have.

If one would not like to be on the end of a misleading marketing tactic such as FREE ITEM, then later discover it is not free but XX amount of $$$ then they should not instigate the same type of marketing tactic.

When one acts in a consistently fair and reliable way, treating others as best they can to the same standard they wish to be treated, then one is being equitable.

The rule of equity is to emphasize that one should always strive to do their best to treat others in a just and non-contradictory way.

1. Have you caused harm or loss or a violation of consent?

2. Have you almost caused harm?

3. Did you intend to cause harm or loss or a violation of consent?

If one drives through a red light, but it is entirely safe to do so, then why should anything be done about it?

If they didn't cause harm, intend to or come close to it, then no one else has a right to do anything about someone safely passing through an intersection. 

In the cases where someone had actually caused harm, whether accidentally or deliberately, then apprehension by anyone is reasonable to attempt to remedy the situation.

If you were running along the beach and almost ran into someone, then no harm is done and you are not doing an inherently dangerous activity.

If you were riding a motorbike on a foot path and almost ran someone over, then this is cause for you to be be told not to do such a dangerous thing, to not ride your motorbike on the foot path or to at least be more careful. It is not an act which warrants punishment or physical violence as a retaliation. But it is an act which came close to causing harm, even though that was not the intention, which makes it a case for consideration, but not much else.

If you have caused harm but it was not your intention, but mere accident, then this is unfortunate, but not a situation worthy of punishment. It may require corrective rehab, for example if one caused harm while drunk but did not mean to. Or if one had a car crash when it was possible to avoid the crash if they had better driving skills. It's an arbitration centers job to identify the problem which caused the accidental harm and to find an equitable remedy to make it less likely for the same accident to occur again. This may be individual rehab or suggesting a new technical solution to the peoples council. 

If one had plans of shooting up a retirement village, spoke about it publicly down at the pub and showed people the guns they planned to do it with, well they must be apprehended before they commit a crime. They had not caused any harm yet, had not come close to it but had intentions to do so in the future, so thus they can be treated as if they actually had caused harm and should be rehabbed immediately. 

The same thing can be applied for loss and consent violations in the appropriate contexts.

In modern everyday life, if you have not violated a causality factor, anyone's rights, the lore or the golden rule, then you have done nothing wrong.

Examples of the legal systems allegations of wrong doing would be running a red light, speeding fines, parking ticket fines, e tag fines, not paying gst or all types of tax, not paying rates, not complying to a breathalyzer, not giving police private details or any other trivial matter with no reasonable justification.

All these legal allegations don't hold any weight when measured against the much higher standard of Objective Morality.  

Intelligence is the ability to learn, to solve problems, to acquire knowledge, to validate judgements, convictions and conclusions.

Some people have a natural affinity and proficiency in one or more fields, this often gives them the title of being ‘intelligent’.

Intelligence can be narrow and it can be general.

One who is narrowly intelligent may be the best in their field in biology, but when it comes to basic commonsense in mechanics, engineering, philosophy, morality or maths, they may have no clue.

One who has general intelligence is able to translate and transfer their skill of intelligence to a vast variety of different fields.

They can apply their inductive and deductive skills of acquiring knowledge and verifying information to be factual or not to new subjects and fields of study much more easily than a narrowly intelligent man.

Narrow intelligence can be useful, for it allows one to become very highly skilled in a specific area.

Although it has many downsides and often leaves one oblivious to the rest of reality and easy prey for general intelligent psychopaths to take advantage of.

Intelligence has a very strong connection to passion.

When one is passionate about gardening, hippology, zoology, marine biology or electrical science, they can learn that topic very easily.

When one is not passionate about a subject, it is very difficult for them to learn, like trigonometry, economics or politics.

It is understandable for one not to be passionate about Entomology or Pathology, as these fields of knowledge do not concern everyone, yet the topics of philosophy, morality and social structures do concern everyone, yet unfortunately most people are not passionate about them.

One shows a general level of intelligence when they are passionate about all the topics which directly concern them and their life.

If one has a car and that car gets a flat tyre every now and again (as cars do), then one should be passionate or at least interested in learning how to change the wheel without needing to call for help for such a simple task.

Everyone has a body, yet not many people know how to burn fat or build muscle. They do not have any idea how their body works and are not passionate about learning how.

One may be an expert heart surgeon, yet have no idea about the terrain model and how people get sick and need heart surgery in the first place.

Just because one may be very skilled in a narrow area, does not mean they are generally intelligent.

The use of the word general here is likened to a medical general practitioner and more so to a general in the army. A medical GP has a general idea (in theory at least) about the functioning of human bodies in comparison to the heart surgeon.

A general in the army has the highest rank because he is generally good at everything and has a broad range of knowledge. He is a specialist at being a generalist.

A generalist can still specialise in 1 or more fields, but they don’t only specialise in a few fields and then have little knowledge about the rest of the world like the specialist.

The more things one is good at, the more skills they have, the more money they save.

When one is intelligent enough to do many things, they don't have to rely on others so much, they become more independent.

Of course, no one is a pure polymath genius, good at absolutely everything.

Having a general level of intelligence means one can be utilise their intelligence in a variety of fields and have a greater capacity to translate that ability to think and problem solve to other fields.

For example, one may have a general level of tradesman skills, being able to do basic work on their car or around the home, be able to use a variety of tools, have a specialised knowledge in weightlifting and bodybuilding, know in depth how the human body works and how to prevent it from getting sick and staying healthy, be well versed in philosophy, psychology, etymology, morality, economics, legality, computer technology and software, history, English, writing, social structures, geography, nutrition, combat sports, physics, military tactics, marketing, weapons training, sales, vehicle operation, business management, boating, leadership, communication skills etc…

The more passionate one is about learning and evolving themselves to make their life easier and more interesting, the higher their level of general intelligence.

The more generally intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to be deceived by the schemes of evil people.

Intelligence is not just what you know, but how you learn and your desire to learn.

The better one can learn, the more they know, the more they can do with the knowledge, the more intelligent they are, which can aid them to learn even better into a revolving upwards spiral.

Intelligence is less a natural born gift and more of a mixture of curiosity and passion.

When one is passionate about themselves, as one should be passionate about their own life, because they aren't living anyone else's life but their own, they will be then be curious about new ideas and information which can help strengthen their character and increase their knowledge.

With enough time, dedication and passion, it’s possible for one to become generally intelligent.

Their are those who are naturally gifted and can simply pick up subjects very easily without passion and with little effort. For whatever reason their brain functions differently.

There is no point discussing the biology behind these naturally intelligent people as it is not useful for those who do not have it inbuilt.

For the rest of us, we have to learn how to be intelligent, we have to invest time, energy and focus into becoming good at what we want.

Just like body building, consistency is king.

If you want to become generally intelligent, you must put aside your pride.

If one doesn't want to be wrong more than they want to be right, they will remain as someone who is narrowly intelligent or simply stupid.

When one wants to be right more than they care about being wrong, they can become unstoppable.

One who wants to be generally intelligent does not care about being wrong, they do not let their pride or ego get in the way of their evolution.

They are happy to have friendly debates about what they believe or know, because it either reinforces what they already know or shows them how they are actually wrong by pointing out a contradiction in their ideas.

General intelligent men are like the saiyans from dragon ball z. Every time they lose or (or in this case, are proven wrong), they simply come back stronger.

One who is not intelligent will cling to their beliefs because of pride, arrogance and fear. They do not want to be proven wrong, so even in the face of insurmountable evidence, they will evade and deny it’s existence or truth so they don’t have to be wrong (in their mind) and don't have to change.

GI (general/ly intelligent/ce) men are able to entertain contradictions in their mind so they can then evaluate multiple perspectives simultaneously.

The term ‘GI’ can also be used like this, instead of saying a GI man does XX, it can be said a GI does XX.

One may have come across a plethora of research that eating meat is healthy, but also come across a vast amount of research which denies this and advocates that humans are frugovores.

One who has GI is able to consider both perspectives simultaneously, can see the pros and cons, the truth and falsity's of both sides. Ultimately, they can then make an informed choice through their theoretical research as to how they decide to eat or can proceed to move into inductive practical research, experimenting on themselves to see what works best for them, irrespective of the best theoretical argument they hear.

One may believe in the primacy of consciousness, but then come across new information which points out that existence is primary. One can consider both contradicting perspectives and then decide logically which idea makes more sense and is objectively true.

One may believe the only way social change will occur is through a freedom based political party. If they have GI and they hear of anarchy and voluntarism, they are able to suspend what they currently know about politics and consider such an alternative social structure without instantly dismissing it.

One who has GI typically has a very high level of respect for themselves, they see their mind as the most worthy of investments they can ever make, one that always pays off and only ever returns profitable dividends for the rest of their life.

A GI can also make broad range logical deductions with great accuracy. For instance, one could conclude “the government lies about everything I’ve ever investigated so far, which could be in excess of dozens of individual subjects, so why would I believe them about such and such”?

If one finds out that someone or an agency lies about practically everything, it is very easy then to deduce that everything else they do which has not been thoroughly investigated is also a lie.

An example, one discovers that the war on drugs is a cover up to control the population, restrict their freedom and to control a monopolised black market on drugs. They also discover that 9/11 was an inside job. The same with all the wars, there was always an ulterior motive, if not many. They find out all the presidents are connected by family bloodlines, the voting is rigged and even the concept of their authority is delusionaly false. If one who has GI can figure all this out, they can then use that same reasoning “Everything the government does is a false front to cover up something evil and they always lie”. Bu having GI, one can use this same deductive logic to figure out the basic gist of other b.s. the government spews. One who is GI would not believe in NASA and space for example. As not only is it provably false, but it would contradict logic. One has already established that the government lies about everything, or at the very least twists things to be in their favour, why would one with GI suddenly in contradiction to all factual evidence and their inductive and deductive reasoning falsely believe that the government isn't lying about this one thing? It would be illogical and would prove one is not GI.

GI’s are more adept at broad range deductions than others. They can draw logical conclusions faster and more accurately across a broader scale than those who cannot effectively make broad range deductions.

They can look at the idea of faith for example, which is the belief in something to be true in contrary to all evidence, and recognise that there is no sound examples of faith which exists. They do not have to go through every single concrete example to understand that faith is an incorrect method of cognition.

When a GI is working on something and cannot figure it out, they don’t say “what is wrong with this?” They say “What am I doing wrong”?

They measure twice, cut once.

A GI will never say “I can’t work xx out” without first looking to see how xx works.

A GI doesn't make assumptions. They find out what they want to know.

If a GI wants to do something, but doesn't know how, they find out how.

A GI will always look at information, opinions and ideas and think “What can I take from this, what can I learn?” While at the same time knowing what to omit or to store in a neutral zone in their mind. As Bruce Lee said, absorb what is useful, discard the rest.

A GI will always happily evaluate themselves, looking for errors in their methods of cognition, idiosyncrasies, habits, ingrained repetitive behaviours, actions, attitudes or anything else part of their personality or character. They are like a self judging, self correcting machine, always looking to update themselves and take their life to the next level, consistently.

They can admit when they are wrong, own up to their mistakes and are always looking for better ways to achieve their goals.

Because they respect themselves so much, they spend more time than the average joe learning how to make their life easier. They also respect their time.

If a GI man could invest 30 minutes into learning how to change their brake pads, then 20 minutes every time for the rest of his life to change them himself, he would be saving a lot of money and time. If he had to pay someone else to do this basic task, it may cost him approx $100. Depending on how much money he makes per hour, this may be 1 or more hours worth of work to earn that amount of money. Even if it took him only 1 hour to make $100, he would still have to spend 3X the amount of time to pay to have his brakes changed, as it would only take him 20 minutes to do it himself.

Multiple this example to the rest of your life. Fixing your own computer, changing your own oil, installing your own solar, being your own personal trainer, fixing your boats steering, fixing your plumbing, rewiring your lights etc…

The more one can do themselves competently, the more time they save in the long run and the more money.

A GI also knows when something is out of their scope, when to ask for help, when to pay someone else or when to delegate. This is part of being GI.

One who is GI knows how to live on earth and in reality better than those who do not have GI.

One who is GI knows more, can do more, learns more, learns faster, learns better, saves time, saves money, is good at more things and is more interesting.

A GI man is a superior being in many ways, what Nietzsche would call an uberman.

At the same time, one who has GI realises that although they may be better at many or most things than one who isn’t GI, others will typically be better at something that he is not good at. There are just too many things in reality to be good at them all.

The idea isn't to say that those who have GI are better than everyone else, it’s to say that one will be better if they become GI.

If one does not have even a basic level of intelligence, it makes it difficult for them to be objectively good. They can easily be tricked into doing evil things via persuasive marketing under the pretense of ‘benevolence’, which can fool one into believing wrong is right. Such as voting for politicians, supporting police, paying tax, getting jabs, following the “law” etc..

Even those with a very high level of narrow intelligence can easily be fooled by the large range of psychopathic archontic strategies.

It takes a great many qualities to be a free thinking, real individual in control of ones life.

Most people exist simply as a puppet, dancing to a systemic tune they cannot hear, but controls their every move, a tune so deeply ingrained into their essence they have become the tune.

How can one consistently make the right choices and not be manipulated into doing the work of evil if they are unintelligent? Answer, they cannot. The evidence is overwhelming.

Until one invests into themselves and becomes someone valuable, not just to society, but more importantly, to themselves, they will forever be vassals of evil.

A stupid person cannot be good, they may accidentally do good things or may even have good intentions, but until they intend to learn what is objectively good and what is evil, they cannot be explicitly good. For only one who is actually good will know the difference, will know that they must know the difference between right and wrong so then they can objectively choose how they wish to live and who they wish to be.

Intelligence is the virtue which aids one in gaining knowledge, knowledge metaphorically being a garage full of tools, each tool unique to a specific job.

If you don’t have the right tool (knowledge) you cannot accomplish the goal or task you desire.

Intelligence is one of the qualities which enables one to build their repository of knowledge to become more abundant, wealthy, useful and deep in character.

If one has not exercised their intelligence to know what is good and what is not, they are not objectively good until they do. Good intentions are not the same as being good.

For a community to flourish and become Utopian, it must be comprised of individuals who have the intelligence to discern truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

Courage is the overcoming of fear in the face of adversity.

Only when fear is present can one be said to be courageous, for courage is always linked to fear.

If one could not feel fear and free climbed a cliff face, they would not be courageous, as they physically cannot feel fear. Yet if one was terrified and still did this, they would be. Even without fear, it is of course still an incredible act of skill, but it is just not courageous.

When one feels fear confronting a bully, in or out of uniform, they are being courageous. If they have no fear when doing so, then it is not courageous, just the right thing to do.

One may be a master pistol duellist, having over 100 victories under their belt. They may start back to back, walk 3 paces, turn around and then fire without any fear of death. They would be displaying honour, by not turning before the 3 paces to shoot their opponent, but they would not be courageous unless they felt fear.

Courage is being aware of the risks and consequences and continuing to act in spite of the potential negative harm one may have to endure due to their courage.

One may decide to confront police, stand up to their family or challenge a stranger who is doing something wrong.

When one has objective awareness about why they are doing what they do, they can look at the context of a situation and objectively analyse and evaluate it.

Courage is looking into the face of what is wrong or even evil and saying “not on my watch”.

It is the mental fortitude to overcome ones emotional state.

Fear is an automatic bodily reaction to the threat of violence or harm. Courage is the volitional mental response to fear.

When one cannot conquer their fear, they are labelled as a coward, as weak and consumed by their fear.

When one wants to go rock climbing, but cannot because of their fear, they are being held back by their fear and their lack of courage. The same can be said with sky diving, cliff jumping, standing up to bullies, voicing ones true opinion, living independently and squaring up against tyranny.

Courage is the ability to push through ones own fear and mental blocks to do what it is they want to do, whether stand up for what is right or to pursue adventure hobbies.

If the saying “everything you want is on the other side of fear” is true, then courage is the tool which will get you there.

Graham had invited Samson along on a camping trip with a bunch of people that Samson had never met.
The topic of conversation had turned to courage as they sat around a large camp fire.
Abbey was impressed by Samson's examples of courage.

“Wow, you are so courageous, you must have no fear. I couldn't have done what you did. Not wearing a mask when everyone else was. Going to protests, getting attacked and arrested by police. Not getting vaccinated when there was such a push for everyone to do it. I couldn't do that, I was just too afraid of the fines, the police brutality and the social pressure from everyone who believed in the whole narrative. I had to wear a mask because I was more afraid of what people would say and getting fined than of a virus. I was more afraid of the police brutality than of spreading a virus, so I chose to be my own prisoner and guard. I was more afraid of losing my job then getting covid, so I got vaccinated. How could you do it? How could you be so fearless in the face of such fear?”

The others all stared in awe at Samson, admiring him for his heroic courage in the face of adversity.

“You don’t get it.” Samson replied. “I felt fear alright. Although I wasn't stopped by my fear, I was motivated by it. It’s not the social pressure, the fines or the police brutality which really scared me. It was the fear of doing nothing. Allowing tyranny to run free and continue to descend into chaos, into dystopia, that’s what really frightened me. I had to act despite my fear, because the fear of not acting was much greater. I acted because I was afraid, not because I had no fear. I was courageous, because I was so scared. I wasn’t afraid of losing my job, I was more afraid of dying from a stroke, humiliating myself and feeling like a total failure. I wasn't afraid of the social pressure, I was afraid of inhaling toxic plastic and looking like a fool. I wasn’t afraid of the fines, I was afraid that if no one stood against the police thugs, they would think we were all just pushovers and easy victims for their psychopathic tendencies. I was so courageous because I faced and overcame an enormous amount of fear. Because I was more afraid of the guilt, the shame and the dishonour of being a coward. That’s why I did what I did, would do it again and will if I have to. Because it was the right thing to do and good men do the right thing.”

Some of the others looked at Samson in shock, some hung their heads in shame, some furrowed their brows in deep contemplation.

“Ok, yep, good explanation. I get it, I’m a bloody coward. But what can I do about it?” Abbey answered.

“Find your reason to be courageous.”

The fire continued to flicker and burn, illuminating the camp site and adding a background crackle to the now silence of deep thought.

Honour is a very high concept and value.

To understand honour, one must understand a whole host of other sub concepts which make up honour.

Honour encompasses the qualities of dignity, integrity, morality, sovereignty, intelligence, independence, trust worthiness, reliability, justice, honesty, care and courage.

If one does not have intellectual dignity, they dishonour themselves by believing in lies.

If one does not have integrity, cannot stand by their word and a code of conduct, then they are not honourable.

If one violates objective morality, they have no honour.

If one is not sovereign, they are not in control of their actions and thus cannot be honourable, as for one to be honourable they must be conscious of why they do what they do.

If one is not intelligent, if they cannot discern what is the right thing or the wrong thing in circumstances that may be difficult to distinguish, how can one behave honourably if they don’t know how to?

If one does not wish to be a dishonourable parasite, then they must be independent and self sustaining.

If ones word cannot be trusted, if they break promises and have been proven to violate confidentiality, they are not an honourable man.

If one cannot be relied upon, then they are a liar and an immature child, thus there is no honour in the unreliable.

If one has no sense of justice, then they have no sense of honour. An honourable man does not commit injustice acts.

One who is dishonest with themselves or others cannot be honourable, for honour values the truth and being honest is communicating the truth.

One must care about the truth, about rational values, about morality and about doing the right thing to be honourable. If one had no care about the right thing, no care about doing the best for themselves and for others, then how could one be considered honourable?

If one lacked the courage to do what is right when the time to act was before them, then they are not honourable. Cowards have no honour.

There may be even more qualities which are necessary to fully understand honour, but the above qualities are enough to have a sufficient grasp on the value of honour.

Honour is the value which protects that which ought to be protected. Honour protects oneself from the dangers of ones weakest self and honour protects others from the threat of wrong doing and evil.

Life is the power which gives direction and momentum to a man (otherwise he is motionless, stagnant and dead), honour is a magnetic field, a state of being which attempts to exert its influence to steer ones life and direction onto the right path.

If a mans purpose is to establish peace on earth, his life is the vessel which allows him to sail towards this purpose, without his vessel, he cannot travel towards his destination.

Honour is the trait which ensures that on his way to achieving peace, he does it the right way.

For honour knows that one could achieve peace on earth in many manners which would not be honourable and would be in fact evil.

Take Emperor Palpatine from star wars for example. His goal was to establish peace throughout the galaxy. Although, his methods were tyrannical and out right evil. He wished for peace, but had no honour to guide him. Because of this, his idea of peace was dystopian, not Utopian. It may have been his personal Utopia, but a true Utopia is only when Utopia is Utopian for all, not just for one or a few.

If an honourable and dignified man had the option to take a covid vaccine or to be killed, he would choose death. For there are some values that are too important to sacrifice, even in the face of death.

One who has a rational set of values, who values his freedom and ability to live life as his own master, will not sacrifice those values for the value of his life.

Man has to constantly evaluate whether he should compromise his honour to prolong his life or if he should compromise his life to maintain his honour.

If life is mans foundational value, which everything else depends upon, then honour is his highest value, the reason man has values in the first place. Honour is the goal of mans system of values. Man values his life so then he can become honourable, the most accomplished value man can achieve. What a real man, or woman, should do in their life is become honourable. Why be honest, have dignity or be trustworthy if not for a greater purpose, a higher goal, that ambition to become honourable?

Honour is not the only worthy or high value to achieve. But it is the most rewarding and influential value. An honourable man does not have to be compassionate, but he can. He does not necessarily do the right thing because of compassion, but because of a strict adherence to a code. Compassion may help him to stick to his code of honour, but is not a requirement.

Compassion is a great value to strive for, but it is not as large or as influential in its actions as honour. For one may be compassionate, but a stupid coward. A stupid yet compassionate coward has less impact in the world then an honourable man lacking compassion.

Although, for a honourable man to continue rising in honour, it would be wise to adopt the value of compassion, for he could become more honourable in doing so, but again, it is not a necessity.

Honour is the morally correct method for acting in life, as it is simultaneously a reward for the execution of correct action.

A man may conquer the world, control every mind, have everything he wants and demands, be a king of kings, yet have no honour. What value is a man, or any intelligent being, who has no honour?

Life without honour is a scourge, a cancer on those who want to live honourably.

A samurai may kill a 1,000 people, yet if it was all in fair duels, then he has honour. He did not murder out of hand those who did not consent to duel him.

Honour is the personification of all that is good, right, fair, noble, just and honest. It’s mans interaction with himself and the world in such a manner. One cannot be considered a man until he has honour. He is either still a boy who hasn’t grown into an honourable man yet, but has the potential to, or a monster.

If a man punches his woman in the face for yelling at him, he has no honour.

If a man goes to war and fights against others who willingly want to fight, then this is honourable (to the extent of the context).

If a man rejects learning about vaccines, dismisses the fact that vaccines make atom bombs look like fire crackers in comparison, yet still injects his daughters with poison, he has dishonoured himself and his family, he is not fit to be a father or a man.

If one wears a mask to protect themselves from imaginary illnesses, refuses to learn how he has been duped into believing a lie, then he is dishonourable and unworthy of life, for he is rejecting his own right to life by allowing himself to be ruled by lies.

Everyone makes mistakes. When one makes a mistake and besmirches there honour, there does exist the chance for them to redeem themselves. If they do, they can regain their honour. If they do not, then they are a dishonourable husk, either a beast or a boy who failed to grow up.

There are some who shirk the path of honour because they have chosen a path of evil, the path of the sub human, the monster. Then there are those who prefer to be interested in trivial matters, to evade their evolution and growth from a child into an adult.

It is dishonourable to willingly and consciously choose to live by a code of evil, but it is highly questionable if it is even more dishonourable to not even choose a code, of right or wrong, to stay as an ignorant and inexperienced child, in an isolated bubble of immaturity.

To choose ignorance, to not learn the code of honour, which is the code of right, or to choose to learn evil, which is the code of wrong, is a dishonour to ones existence as a being with the potential for consciousness. It is a disgrace that one has such little intellectual dignity that they will not honour themselves enough to even learn the difference between right and wrong.

To honour oneself is to treat oneself right, in accordance with how they should, with the utmost respect and care.

When one receives an honour, they receive a public recognition of an honourable deed.

To know if someone is honourable or not, check to see of they always do the right thing. If they do, then they are honourable. If not, then they are not honourable.

To determine if you are honourable, find out if you really know what this concept means by checking how you react in certain situations where the opportunity to be honourable arises.

A magistrate or judge has no honour, as one who is honourable would never demand another to call them a title, for this is a dishonourable act.

A police officer has no honour, as they stalk and attack innocents in packs with weapons.

A politician has no honour as they lie and speak garbage.

A banker has no honour, creating money out of thin air and demanding you repay him, or else he has legal right to take your property.

To be honourable is to act in accordance with what is right. To do the right thing requires a whole host of qualities.

Is how you earn money honourable? Are the groups, ideas and beliefs you support honourable? Do you act with honour every day to the best of your ability?

Honour is a unique quality in the way it is so large and encompasses so many other sub concepts, is a necessity for one to be good, yet it is also a trademark of those who are great.

If one does not act with honour, then how could they be good? When a man does act with honour, he is good, as to be good, one must be honourable, as to be honourable means that one embodies all the qualities, aspects and behaviour of goodness. An honourable man does not do wrong and does many things right. He is not perfect, an honourable man can also become a greater man by integrating more desirable qualities, such as compassion, rapport building skills and generosity, but a man cannot be great without first being honourable.

To be honourable means to always do the right thing whenever there is an opportunity to do the wrong thing. If society is demanding he wear a mask, take a vaccine or do something, anything else, an honourable man does not simply bow to demands without rational thought and accurate judgement.

An honourable man does not and cannot simply know what is right from wrong in every situation.

An honourable man must be calculating, analytic, judgemental and evaluate every unique situation as best he can before acting.

He must relate every situation that places a demand upon his honour back to his measurements of how he should act.

That measurement is his total character.

He may know the right thing to do instantly in some situations, but this is only because he has rationally thought about what he would do in XX scenario and so therefore has predetermined his course of action.

He may hate littering, so when he sees someone litter, he knows he will speak up. He knows that the msm is nonsense so whenever they spew propaganda, he will ignore them. For new situations an honourable man has not come across, he must first figure out what the right thing to do is, as it may be unclear and it is best for him to not act one way or another until he is sure of the right path.

Consider a situation where it was easy for you to discern the honourable path and a situation where it was difficult.

An honourable man is not impulsive, he is methodical, precise and accurate in his behaviour and deeds. He does not suffer from violent mood swings or long lapses in his character. He holds firm and steadfast to his character and does not allow his emotions to cloud his better judgement.

An honourable man is the result of a rational man putting in the work.