Love and emotions are not the domain of "women." Loving and emotion is absolutley masculine/manly!

One of the biggest misunderstandings of manliness and masculinity is that it means one is an emotionless entity. That just because of masculinity being associated classically with a form of stoicism means that manliness means to be unfeeling. To be an uncaring and callous domination over others and things. This could not be further from the truth of manliness and masculinity. The truth of the matter is that manliness is filled with emotion and love. Men do express and act on their emotions differently than women usually, but, they still have them. To argue I as a man do not love or have emotions is to deny my humanity. To deny masculinity has an emotional component is to deny men have a consciousness at all.

I am going to argue that manliness and masculinity are built on core principles of nurturing. Those principles are protection, provision and production. Men are traditionally and historically the human animal that protects, provides and produces for other individuals. This includes guarding against the barbarians at the gates in our human history. It includes being the hunters of our species food and protection of those around them. It includes being historically the workers outside the home whom made the money and then provisioned it to ones wife and children. It was about producing the things needed to help you and your kin to survive.

All of these things are emotional as much as material. All of these are forms of nurturing other than breaking down into an emotional honey trap of tears while arrows fly at you. Emotional mastery as found in traditional masculine and manly archetypes is a form of emotional strength and resilience. It is also a form of self nurturing which helps to be able to do the things needed to nurture other people; including historically ones kin. You cannot have emotional mastery without emotions; even very intense and overwhelming emotions which you learn to nurture and master. Mastery is a form of love in a serious way.

Men protect other people throughout time immemorial. Please do not listen the to the rabid anti-history feminists whom claim history is built on men oppressing women. The truth is that it is the total opposite. Every single strict rule for women was put in not to oppress them, but, as a form of trading freedom for protection. Why did women not work? Due to how dangerous it was for women to work at the jobs that existed at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that is why. It was a continuation of the idea of women being safe at home protected while men were out hunting for food. Any man that oppresses another person irregardless of gender is an aberration from a man and a brutal, savage monster. He is the opposite of masculine he is damaged.

Oh, wait you say, what about the vote? The vote was not a right it was a privilege associated with going to war associated with conscription. It was a way of protecting women from war and destruction not meant as a form of oppression. Not only that, but, not all men could vote only certain sectors and classes could. Women eventually got their right to vote, but, men never did. To this day Men in the USA NEED TO BY LAW register with Selected Service (AKA the list used for Drafts). Women do not meaning they have no responsibility to the Military they have something for nothing.

Does this mean I support those security over freedom rules? Of course not, but, it is not oppression at all. There is a specific definition of oppression and that would not be it. The point is that masculinity is not and never has been about oppressing other people. It has always been about protection, provision, production and I will also throw in procreation as well. It has been all about nurturing, but, just in a different way from women. Men, manliness and masculinity has always been emotional, loving and these things are not "feminine" or "womanly" things. Masculinity is nurturing at its core and manliness is definitely not cold or emotionless. Love is manly and love is masculine. Love is human after all!

Ringing in a New Year: Do not be afraid to have Shameless Pride in 2017 it is beautiful!

This passed 2016 is leaving us and 2017 is about to begin. It is time to go out with the old and in with the new. A time for saying to goodbye to whom we were and hello to whom we are now. A time to let the past go and embrace the now, our future. For me removing the old year and beginning a new includes saying goodbye to an unauthentic me. It includes ringing in the real me and presenting it in an authentic manor to all I meet. It includes forgiving ourselves and giving ourselves unlimited self--compassion. With letting things become a water under a bridge.

Tonight I was told I am the most kind-hearted person one of my co workers ever met. I must admit it touched me on a very personal level. We are going into the New Year and to know this made me very happy to know it. It showed me that indeed I am the man of value I prize myself on being. It helped to cement within my mind that I am that great man I always pride myself on being. It gives me even more practical confidence to expand my positive attitude even more. As this year gets under way I plan on ringing it in right. With a huge dose of shameless Christopher Pride!

Howard Roark's Defense in Court from "The Fountainhead."

The role of Biology is right in your faces. A rejoinder to anyone that thinks we are a "Blank Slate" (even Objectivists and the MRM).

It gets very frustrating to see the role of biology in human behavior being eschewed for nonsense when the evidence is present right before your very eyes. You see this blank slate argument coming from every side of the coin. From the feminist on the left to the Objectivists on the right. I want to point out that all animals have natures something that Objectivism itself points out. I also want to point out that all animals have a biological disposition. The idea that we are separate from nature in this way is silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It is unscientific to claim that biology and evolution ends at the neck and does not extend into the brain and human mind. 

From the left you have the people that want a new Marxist man and also the feminist types. They both want to use social engineering to alter human nature due to not believing that humans have one. This is a sickening view that totally devalues human life and makes me want to vomit to be honest. Men should be able to break with masculinity because "testosterone don't do nothing." There is no biology to men being men. To men being masculine and tending to be certain ways with others and themselves. It is all nurture and nature plays no part in men being whom and what they are. It is sick and twisted to be sure. 

However, how are SOME Right Objectivists any better when they believe that free will is so absolute that we have no innate tendencies? We have no innate functions, emotions, views, predilections for this or that. That evolution does indeed stop at the neck and there is no innateness to the human. That we are all a blank slate if you will and have no human nature. Despite Objectivism saying we have one and must live by that nature. That man is qua man and cannot be anything, but, man qua man. Which means that if there is even a little bit of biology to anything it must be acknowledged and worked with in this framework. 

Evolution is real and biology is real it can be seen/studied/understood. How can it be that our biology not be a factor in the midst of our lives and choices? Of course it is and it is in the center of everything from mate selection to why we love Fast and fatty foods. The idea that we have no innateness is insane. The idea that we do not have evolved traits which helped to make our species survive and thus still survive even if buried deep is insane. I say to THESE Objectivists you are acting like cultists denying reality as opposed to letting reality be the final arbiter which is part of Objectivism itself. 

I have as much of an issue with those MRA's whom deny evolutionary reasons for various things they like to blame on other things like society. For example; it is not society that deems men to be in the most dangerous of jobs it is the biological differences between the sexes. Women could not and cannot still often times work some of the most deadliest jobs as well as men. Why? Do to their nature mainly pregnancy worries, but, also the differences in strength. The average "feminine" women and the average "masculine" man are just different in many regards to upper body strength it cannot be denied. So, jobs where lifting for example takes place will be mostly men. Construction will be mostly men and so forth. 

You will never get women taking over all the dangerous jobs; sorry, but, this is one of those Nature being a Tyrant things we will never escape. Most women just have different preferences than men. Which means that MRA's whom preach that everything is some Gynocentric Societal Construction are just as inane and loony as the feminists that preach about some Patriarchal Societal Construction against women. I have said it before and will say it again Gender Roles are the domain of nature the Tyrant and not absolute free willed choice. Unless you rewire women and men's natures we will never have "egalitarianism." The idea is against the very biology that makes our species survive and is an affront to Nature.    

All we can do is protect all individuals right to pursue their own happiness irregardless of if it is determined or absolutely free. By doing this one can act from nature, nurture or both and be safe in acting. Be safe in being whom and what they are. Be safe in being left alone instead of being a sacrifice to their neighbors needs and desires. This is what is required; the fire for the engine does not matter, but, to have a just society the engine needs to be able to run like clockwork. The fuel for that engine is irrelevant as long as it is not forced from others and is done via rational and voluntary means. The FACT that biology is a driver of many of our human actions does not alter what is moral or practical it all remains the same. 

The most important person to trust is yourself and then others can earn your trust.

Sometimes you need to stop and ask yourself do I trust the person that matters the most? Do I trust myself in any situation? To be a good person and do the right thing? To be virtuous and and a person of value? The answer for most people whom are not mentally defective is absolutely yes. Or it should be yes! Backed up with evidence of your ability to be so based on the kind of person you are. If you do not trust yourself then you cannot learn to trust others. Inner trust is required before you can learn to trust others. Inner trust then goes out towards others, but, it all begins within and in attitude.

If one does not have inner trust it makes it hard to act to live a good life. Why should anyone want to be around you if you cannot trust yourself? I mean you are not trustworthy, so, why would anyone want to be around someone that cannot be trusted? You need to trust yourself first before others can trust you. You need inner truth and inner self-compassion for yourself. From there all else can come from simply sewing that little seed. Once you learn to know how and why to trust yourself you can extend that same understanding to others as well.

Another bout with BisexualRealTalk and his so-called "bidar" garbage is just that junk.

The other night I had found that BisexualRealTalk had a new video up and decided to give it a watch. This one was on Bi-sexual radar and whether it was real or not. I was expecting some sort of destruction of the idea that bisexual radar existed, but, found quite the opposite. A video bestowing upon his audience that indeed there is a bisexual radar that exists. Which to that I say it is junk and nonsense. How do you tell someone is bisexual without them telling you? I mean we are not talking about people that are out there throwing off signals to other people. He himself separated bisexuals from "queers" in a previous video. So, how can you tell? 

He presents a bunch of utter junk as supposed evidence of a bisexual radar and all of it is idiotic. Ranging from micro expressions to someones hair cut. Really? So, if I get my haircut a certain way that indicates something about whom I am attracted to? Garbage and junk all of it. Gender expression he also adds in there, but, most bisexuals are mostly straight and not "non-conforming." This makes no sense in anyway as a sign of bisexuality at all. The only way you can know if someone is bisexual to any extent is to ask them. To be inquisitive and ask the question to the person. 

So-called Academic Paper claims "masculine same sex attraction" is Male Misogyny.

Sometimes you read something so ludicrous it makes you feel like hitting your head on your desk. Recently I came across a paper that made me want to do just that till my head bled, but, as I am sane I did not. A group of Radical feminist Scholars in academia are claiming that masculine bisexual and homosexual men are somehow brainwashed fools. Or are devious fiends depending on how you read their paper. That they are in fact "becoming part of the masculine ideology of female oppression." Yes, men not sleeping with women are oppressing them if those men are not effeminate and are in fact manly men. The insanity is so high it leaks off the page into the air. 

It is pointed out that most effeminate bi and homosexual men stop being feminine and begin to de-feminize as they called it usually during or following their adolescents. Is this pointed out to be the obvious testosterone flood of hormones and brain chemistry during this formative time of a growing boys life? The most obvious culprit that they have if anything received the replacement flood for the testosterone they might have missed out on in the womb? Nope, not at all it is that they are giving into "their oppressors" the heterosexual patriarchy. I have never heard such ridiculous inane bullshit like this in a long, long time. 

So, manly and masculine homos and bis are basically Trojan Horses in disguise and they are even worse "repressing their true selves." Bullshit, masculine men that have or even might continue to be with other men are not "repressing their true selves." This is just what and whom they are and nothing more. The idea that bi and homosexual equals an effete pussy with a purse for a mouth and a swish for a walk is totally built up from a straw man. There are 6 pack ab, Greek god looking, swaggering Alpha male bis and homosexuals just as much as there is heterosexuals. 

This is insane! Most men whom have been with other men you would not even know had been. They do not walk around saying look at me I have been with another man. They are just a typical man with a typical masculinity. In fact, most men that have been with men turn out mostly straight as they grow up and more than likely end up in long term commitments to women. I have noticed this myself with myself currently having no desire to pair bond with a man. I would still sleep with one, but, I have no desire for a commitment to a man at this time. Nor is a man my first choice for mating, but, I am not going to deny with the right one I could. 

The role of biology and that we are talking about men is never considered in this article. The idea that a man could "masculinize" over time just due to internal hormonal and neurological forces is not even considered. The idea that men have a hormone called testosterone which when in balance and properly circulating tends to cause masculine behavior and interests is not even considered. That there is an interplay with society and nature or biology and neural programming is never considered. The idea that testosterone will change your voice when you get enough of a rush of it is not even considered. Or your walk or anything else they might be meaning.

Next we move onto their thesis that the only reason to detest Queens and "feminine" men is because of the hatred of women. First of all it is not true in the slightest. To point out that it seems exaggerated and performative over authentic when you run into a flaming queen is not saying you hate or detest said person. It is simply pointing out, "hey man you do not act like that all the time it comes and goes.. just be yourself." Also, there is a difference between being "feminine" and a catty toxic bitch like most "feminine" men act and Queens are the worst. They have all the worst traits of the biggest bitches and toxic women with a penis. Sorry, they just do! Trust me I have been around the community long enough to know!

I am not a fan of flaming gay men at all to be honest. Their attitude drives me crazy and I put that as the reason over anything else. It has nothing to do with a hatred of women or even the feminine per-say. It has to do with their attitude and it has to do with their behavior. On both scores they drive me batty and the fact that so many of them are presented as the face of bisexual or gay men drives me bananas. It is my opinion that "community" needs a major injection of men with proper masculine virtue and whom do not go out of their way to perform a stereotype. Give me a man whom is not closeted, but, not a camp "Queer Eye" wannabe any day! It is performative and it is annoying!

 

 

I love Being Masculine!

The existence of a State is not the same as state-ism and minarchism or bust.

Last night I found myself enthralled in a debate between different factions of the liberty movement. Specifically about which view is the most consistent with the goals of libertarianism and the Libertarian Party of America. The debate an age old one between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists. The clear winner with much head shaking, head palming was the minarchist position. The position I myself hold, but, I tend not to use the term itself as it just confuses things. 

The definition of a minarchist is someone whom wants the State to exist, but, for it to be a Nightwatchman State. In other words it should catch the crooks, fraudsters and perdition, but, leave peaceful people alone. In other words a State which is enforcing the Zero-Aggression principle more or less. A State which does nothing of which an-caps rail on about and they have no reason to call statist. In my view taxation should not exist as it is theft, but, neither should a stateless society. 

For me government is not a necessary evil,  but, is in fact a symbol of human goodness. A properly limited government; a nightwatchman state is the only truly moral form of freedom we can have. As it is the only way to defend individual rights and use if needed excessive retaliatory force against evil people whom wish to harm others and their property. Capitalism requires governance it requires rule of law. It requires due process and for laws to be objectively obtained. It requires us to be able to have guaranteed protection of our life, liberty and property from harm. Thus it requires a state; a centralized power structure with enforceable laws. 

This does not mean it needs to initiate force on anyone that is peaceful. It does mean that those whom are not peaceful will face the full force of the law; whether through a bullet or through the process of a trial. This is required for us to maintain the peace for human nature is not all wine and roses. There are genuine nutcases that do not care about others and wish them harm. A government; a proper and true government, works on behalf of protecting the innocent against the proven guilty. It works to defend all of our rights and that is the reason it is an immense moral good and sign of human progress. 

A properly limited government is a beacon on a hill of a sign of progress. It is leaving the tribe and war of all against all towards a world of voluntary interaction and coexistence. Properly limited and good governance is an immense good because without it there would be chaos and destruction. I am not being hyperbolic here we have a lot of irrational and dangerous people in this world whom government protects us from everyday. National defense and domestic defense requires a government and sometimes a very powerful and highly centralized one to work over an entire Nation. 

This does not mean this government should intervene in the economy in anyway. It is there for one thing and one thing only to protect our rights. Getting involved in the economic and personal lives of citizens is not its job. To protect our life, liberty and property is its job and soul reason for existing. This is why taxation is theft it says the government gets a right to take the product of your own labor. In a high enough tax bracket it becomes being a total surf like something from Feudalism. Government is required, but, ideally all funding is voluntary. Acting as dues or user fees for services rendered. 

Minarchism is voluntaryism as it was traditionally defined as a nation/government that protects individual rights and the ability to have voluntary cooperation. While being funded also on a voluntary means and existing solely due to the consent of the governed. Anarchists stole the term voluntaryism from a minarchism political philosophy which resembles Objectivism and Classical Liberalism as opposed to statelessness. It was another term for a radical for capitalism and for a member of the logically consistent wing of the Classical Liberal tradition. A term never meant to be used to mean anarchism at all. 

The an-caps in this debate just kept circling back and not answering the question. Making claims that minarchists are not being logically consistent for some reason. They kept claiming that human nature did not have a dark side and it was somehow manufactured as if out of whole cloth from their enemy the state. It reminded me of feminists claiming everything evil comes from the patriarchy, but, replace that with state in and of itself. At one point they even argued there was no right to an attorney to defend you and basically that rule of law was bullshit. At one point saying the only rule of law they needed was a gun in the face of the accused. Basically, they denied the need for innocence until proven guilty without wanting to admit it. 

This was barbarism and tribalism at its worst. This was not the good and positive primal male and female defenders, but, the lynch mob. I am not saying that primates are amazingly great, we are not and never have been perfect. However, the good aspects of the primal I talk about getting back have nothing to do with this horrid collectivist tribal gang warfare mentality. I was shocked, stunned and frankly disgusted that they were speaking about rolling back things which have made civilization possible. It is one thing to privatize anything non-law related that moves and everything non-law related that does not. However, this was just insane. I am all for self-defense, but, there is a difference between walking in on a rape in progress and killing the fucker, and, doing away with rule of law for the accused of a crime. 

An objectively determined rule of law is needed in a civilized society. Even with the NAP you need to have objectively defined laws and need to be able to essentialize actual laws based on zero aggression. We do not have lynch mobs and we will not be going back to the Crusades or Witch Hunts because of irrational fools that are against government at all costs. It is folks like these that make it hard to call myself a libertarian anymore. The idea that people just willy-nilly perpetuating vigilante justice is a moral ideal is sickening. I want in no way to be affiliated with such bile. The anarchic wing of the libertarian movement ruins everything. How are we to deal with Islamic Fascism without a state/government? Blank out as they always do. Excuse me as I go to the funeral of the Western World.

Confessions of a Climate Change Skeptic

There was a time when I was very much a believer in the idea that climate change was a major issue that needed to be tackled. That was before I actually looked into all the studies and not just some of them pre-picked by the UN or other groups whom had a vested interest in there being a catastrophe.
I realized climate was not in the horrible state it was said to be and in fact the environment is much better in this era than it had been in our human past. We are living one of the Greenest forms of planet Earth that has ever existed.

Not only that, but, the vast majority of climate alterations is not even human caused. There is much more natural influence on the overall climate as part of Earths climate cycle than humans. Water Vapor is the most important greenhouse gas for alterations in Earths climate along with various sunspot and solar cycles. Man-Made CO2 pales in comparison to the effects of all the natural inputs on the Earths climate sensitivity. In fact, the Earth has been in a cooling phase since around 1998. Where it is either cooled or stayed the same with a complete stop in Global Warming overall. Even the Met Office in the UK had mentioned this at one point.

I not only find no climate catastrophe, but, find very little credible evidence for the climate changing by very much at all since around 2000. Not when you look at all the actual satellite minus the computer models biases. It shows clearly there is no issue and the globe is not changing the way it was thought to be within the broader scheme of things.

Which is a pity really because as we are in fact still in an Inter-glacial Period historically we should be pumping much more CO2 into our cooled down atmosphere to make it warmer than it is now. I say far from dissing the Oil Sands we should be looking for more of them all over the West. Dig, find that black gold and stop feeding the Saudi Arabians that support the likes of ISIS.

CO2 is a necessary element of life and it is NOT a pollutant it is food for this Earth and its organisms. Not only that, but, fossil fuels help make it so we can have all the wonderful things that help us survive. Including helping to run life saving medicines, schools and all of our homes. I love fossil fuels and I also think we should be using more Nuclear Energy too. Wind cannot sustain the infrastructure of a major city. We need actual fuel like fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

The point is the environment lobby really only looks at studies they do themselves or that proves them right. They never look at all the studies or all the research and see what is really out in the science. Only viewing studies to see they agree with you is not scientific and nor is it reasonable. I look at all kinds of sources for my information and go by what I find.

I do not just go by one or two sources. We are in a lot of ways in one of the most clean generations of this Earth and we are not in an apocalypse things are good right now. People are just too blinded with BS information, myths, lies and downright stupidity. To paraphrase John Stossel's old special name.

Relax the world is fine, the world is not ending and it is not as horrid as your worried wort negative thinking wants it too be. We are all too many of us seeing only the bad and often wrong stories. We do not see how we are living even for all the crap in one of the best times to be alive for so many reasons. Lighten up people and enjoy life. We only got one, so, live it while you can and quit worrying that the world is ending. It is not, it is just your primate wetware mind needing a boogeyman to fight.