Bill G

Re: Frot & Army

3-9-2009

Hi Viktor,

I just read your excellent post.

Thank you for sharing it.

Bill G

Bill Weintraub

Re: Frot & Army

3-10-2009

Thank you Viktor, and I agree with Bill G.

A truly excellent post!

What animates Viktor's post is his understanding that sex between men is an activity, and not a condition.

So he says:

Cockrubbing was very common ... No one thought it was homosexual but thought it was normal male to male, soldier to soldier activity.

"Activity" is the key word.

"normal male to male, soldier to soldier activity"

Exactly!

Where sex between Men is seen as an activity -- which was how it was seen in ancient Greece -- it becomes a virtually universal male act -- which impacts Men for Good.

It becomes, in other words, a source of those key Male Virtues, Valour and Courage -- Manhood and Warriorhood.

And it becomes a core part of the Warrior Bond:

From very early times I had always wanted to be with other males and I liked frot. In military I found frot common and I was soldier and it was good. It was good to be with other soldiers and masculine men all day and night. It was good to drink with them and to frot with them. We were brotherhood and more than just group of soldiers fighting against enemy we many times could not even see. We supported each other and watched over each other so as many of us who could would survive to see next morning.

Now -- Viktor says that in the Soviet army, Men seldom talked about their erotic bonds.

But in ancient Greece, as we've seen in our discussion of the Agogé, those bonds were openly encouraged; and their effect upon Warrior Virtue was much talked about as well.

Plato:

For a man in love [with another male] would surely choose to have all the rest of the host rather than the one he loves see him forsaking his station, or flinging away his arms; sooner than this, he would prefer to die many deaths: while, as for leaving the one he loves in the lurch, or not succoring him in peril, no man is such a craven that the influence of Love [Eros] cannot inspire him with a courage that makes him equal to the bravest born; and without doubt what Homer calls a "fury inspired" by a god in certain heroes is the effect produced on lovers by Love's peculiar power. Moreover, only such as are in love will consent to die for others.

~ Symposium

Xenophon:

For when he is seen by his [male] beloved, every man rises above himself and shrinks from what is ugly and evil [kaka] in word or deed, for fear of being seen by him.

~ Cynegeticus

In both cases, the assumption is that having a Male Lover, and being in a Love relationship with another Man -- being under the influence of Manly Love, that is, Eros -- leads to Virtue.

It leads to Virtue, and, I cannot emphasize this enough or too often, it leads to Virtue because it's an activity -- something Men do and indeed *choose* to do; rather than a condition.

When affection and "intimacy" between males becomes a condition, as it has in our so-called civilization, those who partake of it are cut off from the rest of Mankind and shunted into a ghetto of effeminacy, promiscuity, and anal penetration.

So -- whether you understand it or not:

"Homosexuality" is a condition;

"Sexual orientation" is a condition;

Both ultimately degrade.

EROS is an activity.

And it exalts.

In no small part because a male lover is freely chosen of one's own free will.

And yes, I'm consciously and purposefully repeating the words "freely" and "free."

EROS exalts because a male lover is freely chosen of one's own free will.

While "homosexuality" and "sexual orientation" degrade because they're conditions -- diseases -- to which one must submit.

That was the point to the coining of the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" in 1869.

Just as, in the nineteenth-century, there were people who were "tubercular" and were said to suffer from the disease known as "tuberculosis";

so now there would be people who were "homosexual" and were said to suffer from the disease known as "homosexuality."

That's an ENORMOUS shift in the way people conceptualized sex between men and sex between women, and it was a consequence, as we discuss in posts like Warriorhood and Male Intimacy, of heterosexualization.

Once again, the difference between, and the implications of, conceptualizing sex between men as a condition, rather than an activity, are enormous.

Viktor:

Cockrubbing was very common ... No one thought it was homosexual but thought it was normal male to male, soldier to soldier activity.

No one thought cockrubbing was "homosexual" -- that is, a sign of a disease, a condition, which locks males who have that condition into one form of sexuality and one form only;

"but thought it was normal male to male, soldier to soldier activity."

An activity -- something guys *choose* to do because they want to do it -- it feels good and it enriches their lives.

And because cockrubbing was thought of as an activity, a "normal male to male, soldier to soldier activity," it was conducted without shame, guilt, or fear.

Now, in a follow-up email to me, Viktor expressed some concern that Americans view the Soviet military with distaste.

I responded that it depends in part on the context.

Older Americans remember that the Russian Army helped free Europe from the Nazis.

In my case, one of my mentors, who was a Holocaust survivor, was at Auschwitz.

If I said to her, "When you were released from Auschwitz...", she'd immediately respond, "I wasn't released, I was liberated, by the Russians."

So there's that history too.

And it's complex.

This memorial to the liberating Soviet soldier stood in the town center of a Baltic capital and was removed after the fall of the Soviet Union because it was seen as a symbol of oppression.

And my mentor would have understood that.

But she would not have wanted us to forget that it was a soldier of the same army who saved her and her fellow Jews from torture and certain death at the hands of the Nazis.

Then there are other cultural issues.

I don't know about Russia, but in many of the surrounding countries, wrestling and other skin-on-skin combat sports are extremely popular.

This is from the International Herald Tribune:

In Chechnya, the tiny and mostly sealed-off land where male fitness and martial courage are celebrated and codes of honor are passed down through generations, sports that pit one man against another in a contest of strength, skill and stamina have an intensive following. Young Chechen men learn judo, and to box and to wrestle. In wrestling circles in particular, Chechens are regarded as among the best in the world.

Of course the Russians, rightly or wrongly, fought a devastating war for control of Chechnya

while Russian leader Vladimir Putin is himself a black belt in judo and has actually made an instructional judo video.

Please note that I'm not endorsing the leadership of Vladimir Putin.

All I'm doing it pointing out that there's a deep cultural respect for combat sport shared by cultures that are sometimes in deadly conflict.

Sometimes cultures that are in conflict share a respect for more than just combat sport.

For example, there was this article a few days back, also from the International Herald Tribune, about "drag racing," that is the racing of cars, in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi racers roar all night, fueled by boredom

By Robert F. Worth

Published: March 8, 2009

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia: The young men start gathering around midnight, on a broad strip of highway between the desert and the sea. By 1 a.m. there are hundreds of them, standing in clusters alongside their cars, glancing around uneasily for the police.

Then, with a scream of revving engines, it begins: a yellow Corvette and a red Mitsubishi go head to head, racing down the road at terrifying speeds, just inches apart. Shouts go up from the sidelines, and another pair of racers shoot down the road, and another.

This may be the most popular sport of Saudi youth, an obsessive, semilegal competition that dominates weekend nights here. It ranges from garden variety drag racing to "drifting," an extremely dangerous practice in which drivers deliberately spin out and skid sideways at high speeds, sometimes killing themselves and spectators.

For Saudi Arabia's vast and underemployed generation of young people, these reckless night battles are a kind of collective scream of frustration, a rare outlet for exuberance in an ultraconservative country where the sexes are rigorously segregated and most public entertainment is illegal. They are, almost literally, bored out of their minds.

"Why do they do it?" said Suhail Janoudi, a 27-year-old sales clerk who was watching the races from the roadside with a faint smile around 1:30 a.m. "Because they have nothing else to do. Because they are empty."

Some young people, asked why they risked their lives this way, said it was because of "tufush," a colloquial Arabic word for boredom whose meaning is said by some to derive from the gestures made by a drowning man. Drifting, which tends to attract poorer, more marginal men, has also been an unlikely nexus between homosexuality, crime and jihadism since it emerged 30 years ago. Homoerotic desire is a constant theme in Saudi songs and poems about drifting, and accomplished drifters are said to have their pick of the prettiest boys among the spectators. Drugs sometimes also play a role. But a number of drifters have also become Islamic militants, including Youssef al-Ayyeri, the founder of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who fought in Afghanistan and was killed by security forces in Saudi Arabia in 2003.

...

So -- the article, reflecting the heterosexualized values of the reporter, attributes the racing to boredom, sexual segregation, and frustration, and adds that the most violent part of the sport,

Drifting, which tends to attract poorer, more marginal men, has also been an unlikely nexus between homosexuality, crime and jihadism since it emerged 30 years ago.

"unlikely nexus" says the journalist.

As though "homosexuals" were far too passive to be involved either in crime or "jihadism" -- a warrior pursuit.

Yet, admits the writer, "Homoerotic desire is a constant theme in Saudi songs and poems about drifting, and accomplished drifters are said to have their pick of the prettiest boys among the spectators."

No kidding.

That's because "drifting" is a manifestion of warrior culture, which is what -- culturally -- Saudi Arabia is.

A pre-heterosexualized warrior culture, which, although badly damaged by its contacts with the West, still maintains its pre-heterosexualized warrior "homoeroticism."

My foreign friend told me that such "homoeroticism" is common among the Pashtun, from whom many Taliban are recruited.

Perhaps, when they become Taliban, they reject any and all homoeroticism.

I don't know.

It's also possible that they don't view certain forms of same-sex affection and intimacy as "homosexuality."

That, again, to them certain acts are just that -- acts.

And neither a condition -- nor a sin.

Again, I don't know what happens among the Taliban.

But now, thanks to the Herald Tribune, we know what happens among the Saudis.

So what we see here are two groups of Men -- the, in theory, atheistic and secularized Men of the Soviet Army; and the fundamentalist Islamists of Saudi Arabia -- both engaging in what the Herald Tribune refers to as "homoeroticism."

And which is really just a normal and natural male activity.

What is it my foreign friend says about that?

Oh yes:

Male sexual desire for men cannot be tied down to a minority group. Rather it is a universal male phenomenon, especially strong amongst masculine identified men.

A universal male phenomenon:

Found among the Men of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan;

and among the Men they were fighting there, most of whom were of course Afghani, but some of whom, as we now know all too well, were Saudi.

Saudis and Russians.

Most Americans would consider themselves superior to Saudis and Russians.

Superior materially -- and culturally too.

But suppose the Men in those places actually have more freedom -- freedom to be Men -- than the oh so forcibly-heterosexualized males of the US of A.

From very early times I had always wanted to be with other males and I liked frot. In military I found frot common and I was soldier and it was good. It was good to be with other soldiers and masculine men all day and night. It was good to drink with them and to frot with them. We were brotherhood and more than just group of soldiers fighting against enemy we many times could not even see. We supported each other and watched over each other so as many of us who could would survive to see next morning.

Thank you again Viktor.

A truly luminous post.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Viktor Marchenko

Re: Frot & Army

3-17-09

Bill,

I thank you for posting my writing and for your comments and comments of Bill G. Of course Saudi Arabia is ancient warrior culture as is Russian culture. War and fighting have always been part of our culture for centuries. For whole history Russians have spent most time fighting against someone somewhere. Under Soviet regime Russia was society of fear but Russians were still fighting somewhere most of time.

US I would say is most nation of peace and that is difference between our two cultures. Men in US have mind of peace while men in Russia and under Soviets have mind of war. War is glorious especially under Soviet regime but in US people think war is horrible and not glorious. So there is difference between us.

Soviets tried to mold Russian males into what they called Soviet Man. This "new man" was suppose to be masculine and proud of manhood. But Soviet man was also suppose to be mindless, none thinking, doing whatever Soviets said without question. He was suppose to consider nothing his own for everything was shared by all. But in all this Soviet Man was suppose to be fighter brave and strong! So warriorhood was still with us even under Soviet regime.

Yes frot among Soviet soldiers happen and seldom was discussed. But was not out of fear of being called homosexual. Was not discussed because there was nothing to discuss about it! Everybody knew it was going on among soldiers and no one thought anything about it. Was normal thing that happens when men are together and in war. We did not see selves as being homosexuals but as being soldiers and manly men. Was normal thing in many minds of ours and no one cared because everyone understood it to be normal thing to frot.

Yes as you say many rebel fighters in Afghanistan were not Afghani but were Saudis and Americans are even today finding this out in their war in Afghanistan now. Is interesting thing that when Soviet forces were first sent into Afghanistan we were told that we would be fighting against Chinese and Americans dressed up as Afghanis. But was not there long before we see clearly that these rebel fighters were NOT Chinese or Americans at all. Some were Afghani. Some were Pakastani. Some were Saudi. But this was usual Soviet propaganda against Americans and Chinese. They also told us we were there on peace mission but this also was not true and everybody knew it but said nothing. To speak openly in Soviet Union and especially in ranks of military was punishable.

Have been many bad stories come out about Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. Some true but others are not true. It is said Soviet soldiers wore no socks and is true some. Also it is said Soviet soldiers wore no underwear and this is true some also. Socks and underwear were prized items and in short supply. Young conscripts came with few pairs of socks and underwear which would be taken by soldiers who had been in military longer than they. In Soviet Army there was big caste system. Older soldiers were the rulers over the younger. Seniority was everything! New conscripts were made to serve older soldiers doing their laundry, cleaning their areas, giving up socks and underwear to them, and doing anything else they were told to do by older soldiers. Some commanders of units confiscated all socks and underwear and in some units no men wore either. Commanders thought that this would make soldiers stronger and fight harder. This is thinking taken from Russian Field Marshal Suvorov who lived in 18th Century. His idea was that more comfort makes for less courage. Soviet Commanders who believed this thought taking away of socks and underwear would make less comfort and more courage. In war little things matter. You may think no big deal about no socks or no underwear but in war fighting in land that is hostile little things matter and even smallest comfort matters. When that small comfort is taken away, yes, makes man angry. Makes man want to fight more to get anger out because the man is miserable and angry for having small comfort taken away.

You write Male sexual desire for men cannot be tied down to a minority group. Rather it is a universal male phenomenon, especially strong amongst masculine identified men. I agree. Is UNIVERSAL MALE PHENOMENON! Is found in all cultures all over world. Frot is NOT thing of minority group but is thing of MAJORITY group only no one talk about it in our times. Maybe some do not discuss it for fear of being called homosexual. Maybe others do not discuss it because frot is considered NORMAL thing of which there is nothing wrong with it. But it is universal and is found everywhere among masses of males and even in armies today.

One thing will also mention is among Soviet men hugging, touching is normal thing. Not like men of West who are afraid to touch other men. Who are afraid of hugging or kissing other man. The homophobia outside of Western world is NOT as strong as is in Western world. American soldiers were once unafraid to hug others or to show affections to other males and soldiers. Has not been that long ago as your writings about American soldiers in Great Patriotic War-World War II-suggests. But something happen to American soldiers and American man! Suddenly everything between man-to-man is homosexual and abnormal. American society may consider self superior to Russian or Soviet society but what is superiority of man can not love others for fear of being called homosexual? Of course this does not surprise me because Western society has always considered itself superior to the East. But in Eastern world we consider ourselves superior to West in many ways. So things are equal then.

One of the prices paid for all of your comfort in Western world has been and still is the fragmentation of Western society and we are seeing it even today. Western man is isolated. He has natural feelings such as love for other man and yet he does not know what to do with these feelings. So he keeps them bottled up or lives secret life being married, having children, having good job, having big money but also has secret life of loving other manly men too. So he is double minded! To be double minded is not good thing I think.

Western man is confused and even angry inside self because has feelings for other men and wants to be with other men most of time BUT cannot for fear of being called homosexual and made into demon. Western man is very comfortable. Maybe is TOO comfortable. Most have not suffered for want or shortage. Most have not lived under ruthless regimes such as Soviets were or Nazis were. Most have lived life having everything they want materially but most have lived lives NOT having what they want in own hearts emotionally and psychologically. Most know that to love other man is normal and natural but they are forbidden to love other men and so that place inside goes unfilled and this creates many problems inside Western man and for society in West. Western man is confused and unsatisfied? Yes! Western man is angry inside self? Yes! Why? Because Western man rejects the natural of man. Western man fights against nature and this creates many problems for Western society.

I have heard much about how Soviet soldiers were ruthless madmen. Still hear talk of how today Russian soldiers are madmen. The West continues to demonize warriors and fighters because the West knows that these are natural masculine men and they fear masculine men who do NOT fight against nature but cooperate with it by accepting their own nature as manly men and fighters. So they say-- Oh this is Russian soldier or some other soldier who is ruthless and evil. But in truth he is no different than other man from world because desire to be with other men is NATURAL desire of manhood! In the West you fight this. In the East we do not as much. So there is difference between us.

Too much comfort makes man weak and such man does not like to think especially of self. So comfortable man looks at outside thinking the buying of stuff will make him feel good. But does not! Does not fill void of wanting to frot with and love other men! The man who is too comfortable is double minded and unclear in thinking. But, man who is not surrounded by so much comfort is different. Lack of comfort causes him to THINK about self and others. He wishes to fill void inside of himself and knows material things cannot do this. So he is unafraid to love even if love is for other man! His lack of comfort makes him more courageous just as Sukorov and others have said. It gives him courage not only to fight but to seek out and find what he most desires. That is what I think. This is what I have seen.

Man who has little comfort or is different is demonized in Western world because he is different. But this is right? No is not right! Being different does not make man a devil always. Doing what is natural for manly man does not mean he is devil or evil. West has gone too far away from natural things. West has demonized natural things and fights against them. In West there is much confusion. In Eastern world yes there is confusion but not as much because Eastern man is mostly still going along with what is natural to man. So which is superior? Which is right? Who is to say.

Viktor Marchenko

Redd

Re: Frot & Army

3-20-09

Viktor Marchenko's insightful post shines brightly on masculinity. Thank you Viktor.

A lot of points you make jump out at me:

• Western men are double minded because they lack the natural need/desire for masculine connection

• Western man is angry because he fights against his natural inclination to cultivate male company/companionship/brotherhood, hence creates problems in society

• Too much comfort is not good for men; lack of comfort makes men more courageous

These points make sense. They help put some ideas in perspective for me.

Redd

Viktor Marchenko

Re: Frot & Army

3-30-09

Bill thank you so much for posting my writing and pictures of Russian soldiers are great especially one of the men on the tank. You can see warrior on their faces and eyes and, look closely, you can see desire to frot also. Redd thank you too for comment about my writing. Is great to hear from others on site and what they think. Is good to have discussion and keep it going.

Western men are of double mind in my views in many ways including their lack of natural need/desire for masculine connection as you say Redd. I do not think that need/desire is not there. All men have natural need/desire for masculine connection and brotherhood I think. But in Western men they have been made unaware of it maybe. Or perhaps they are aware of it but pressure from Western way of life is so great that Western men hide from this natural need/desire for masculine connections. Where I come from it was ok for men to be together and most men spend most time with other men. But in West is different. Everyone is what you call homophobic! Everyone is afraid of being called gay or by some other name! So they feel natural need/desire to be with other masculine men but they are afraid because they fear being called gay or something. So they tie up their emotions and ignore their natural need/desire for masculine connection. FEAR rules over such men in Western world! That is not good thing. That is bad thing! Western man fears to touch other man. He fears to hug other man. He fears to grow close to other man. He fears to spend too much time with other man and all for fear. Yet Western man does not see that his behavior is not normal male behavior! He thinks his behavior of fear is normal but is not. It is his natural need/desire for masculine connection with other men that is normal and natural yet Western man fights inside self against this. So he is of two minds inside self and he wars inside own mind against what he feels/desires with other men and what Western society has taught to him. Inside such man rages a war between the natural and the unnatural and this war in the man is cause of many problems you see in Western society now I think.

Western man live in fear and fear turns into anger and Western man becomes not only fearful man but angry man. His anger builds up and explodes one day for no reason but is reason. Reason is he fights against his own natural and normal need/desire for masculine connection with other masculine men like self. Have heard many times out of mouths of Westerners that society is not at fault but truth is society IS at FAULT because Western society has taught men to go against their natural selves, natural needs, natural desires. Society has brainwashed him and put him in place of fear and now anger! When man explodes in rage of anger and does horrible things Western society refuses to take responsibility at all for any of this. This only make things worse for man and for all other men in Western world.

Russian General Suvorov make many good points long ago. Was very smart man and very good soldier. He knew too much comfort makes men of less courage. He knew lack of comfort makes men to be of MORE courage! Is true! Too much comfort around man make him soft and weak. He come to expect things he should not expect. He begin to take everything for granted and grow lazy waiting for someone else to do it all for him. Then he get angry when no one do it all for him.

Men in West need to tough up and am not afraid to say this! There is too much comfort in Western world. Maybe need hard times to make men in West less comfortable. Maybe would be good thing and make men in West change to be better all over. Am not saying this to be asshole or mean. Am saying this for own good to Western men. Look at men of Roman Empire! Roman men came to have too much comfort and they became weak and fearful and not full of courage. Romans had to recruit foreign men for army to defend Empire because Roman men were too comfortable and would not do this. They grew weak and afraid and SAME thing is happening in West to men! In end Romans lost everything and will be same in West if nothing changes soon.

Western world teaches men to fight against what is natural and this is very BIG mistake. Men who fight against natural in selves develop many problems in their mind, soul, and even in their bodies. Perhaps you who read this now laugh but is very true! No one live on this planet alone. We all live in a society. That society molds and develops us so we are influenced STRONGLY by what society we live in. So if something wrong then society must accept part of blame and do something to change it. If not then only grows worse!

Today many men in West are very angry and you can see anger on face and anger is growing. But every one pretends none of this is there. None of this is true! Is mistake because is true and is there! No one wishes to take responsibility for anything and growing problem is ignored. Things only grow worse when this is so.

I was soldier in Soviet ground forces for many years. Was not simple recruit who spent short time as soldier. As soldier I saw man men destroyed. Some by bullets or grenades. Others destroyed in own mind. What was worse? It was the man who was destroyed in own mind! Soldiers shot by bullet or blew up by grenade died and was end of life but man who became destroyed in own mind did NOT die. He lived on in own Hell. This is most horrible thing! Think you have saying like lucky man dies and unlucky man lives? In war the unlucky man was man who lived destroyed inside self.

Too much comfort for any man not good no matter if he is soldier or not! Maybe man who has too much comfort should give up some of his comfort and learn to live without so much comfort. Maybe he should do little thing like walk for miles with no socks in cold and snow. Maybe man in West who likes underwear should throw away and live without so he is uncomfortable. Maybe he should throw away television and games. Maybe he should get rid of fancy comfortable car and buy some old car that is uncomfortable and ugly. Maybe he should stop thinking about own comfort and start pushing self to limit and even go beyond his own limit. Is possible even if do not think so. Man can go beyond own limit but NOT when surrounded with too much comfort.

Maybe comfortable and weak man should go spend week out in mountains or in forest taking not much with him. Maybe he should learn to survive and count on NO ONE but own self out there. Maybe he should learn to sit on HARD rock instead of soft chair. Maybe he should learn to cook food over fire instead of in microwave. Maybe he should learn FIRST how to find and hunt for food that he will eat instead of going to comfortable grocery store. Maybe such comfortable man should focus LESS of own comfort and MORE on self and manhood!

Soldiers learn to survive under any conditions. For soldier life is NOT about comfort but about survival. Soldiers do not know or have much comfort so they grow tough, manly, and of much courage. Why? Because life of soldier depends on it! Is soldier is not tough, not manly, not full of courage then soldiers very own life is at risk. If enemies do not kill him then elements in wilderness will and because he is one who has grown weak and TOO comfortable. So he is walking dead man already and he does not even know it!

Comfort is nice and every one like comfort BUT too much comfort is NOT good thing. When man has too much comfort he becomes too lost in his own comfort. When he becomes to lost in his own comfort he stops thinking of other men his brothers. He grows to be alone and feels no connection to other men or anyone else. This is beginning of many mental problems for him. Too much comfort ruins mans mind and his body and his spirit too.

So maybe more men in West need to be like soldiers. Do not have to join Western army but just live life like soldier WITHOUT too much comfort. Instead of fight against what he feels naturally inside he should NOT fight it and just be manly, soldier self.

Have been in shadows of this site for long time. Have read many articles and posts on this site without saying word about anything here. As I read I notice much talk about men hear liking to call selves warriors BUT how many of you are REALLY WARRIORS? How many of you are really only warriors sitting in comfortable chair surrounded by comfortable house? How many of you here are tough up like REAL soldier and REAL warrior? One must live as a REAL warrior! One must LIVE as a soldier! It is NOT only thinking of it but you MUST live it every day of life! Warriors and soldiers are full of courage because REAL warrior soldiers have much COURAGE. So how many here have COURAGE and how many here only THINK about courage?

To say you are warrior means you MUST live as warrior soldier! Is no other way! If not then one is not really warrior soldier at all but is only fake man living in dream world on computer! Is man who has too much comfort and is weak having NO courage at all.

Not to get angry at me please. Am saying these things for own good. What I say here is this. If a man claims to be something then he MUST live it because there is no other way or choice. If a man claims to be something but does not live it every day of his life then he is a weak man and a LIAR. A liar to all around him and to other men and to his own self. Such a man is only pretending to be something he is not. Such a man is living in delusion and fantasy which will in end cave in on his own head. This is true of any thing for a man. If you claim to be warrior soldier then you must LIVE it every day and BE it every moment. If not then it is only fantasy of own mind.

I know many here some post and others just in shadows and they live with too much comfort. In truth they live being weak and afraid and it is even reflected in some posts. Some even say so openly. Is sad so what is solution? Give up some of your comfort! Stop thinking of self as weak and stop fighting natural need/desire to have masculine connection! Warrior soldier who is soft and weak in own mind is warrior soldier already dead and killed by enemy! Such a soldier will NOT survive in war! It is soldier who thinks of self as strong and brave in own mind and who is not afraid to fight that will survive war! And we fight war here against BFD and all the TOO MUCH COMFORT of this society that in truth IS weak and soft and afraid of much. Maybe my saying all this makes some of you angry and I say GOOD. Because maybe my harsh words will make you stand up and fight back and start being REAL WARRIOR SOLDIER instead of what you call armchair general. The war is on the battlefield and is not in your comfortable armchair my fellows. This is the first thing you must learn before you even start to FIGHT BACK!

Viktor Marchenko