I am both Proud of falling on the Straight side of the Bi spectrum as well as an ally to the rights of all people.

I am not ashamed to have loved and slept with men.. I refuse to be ashamed of how into women I am.

In honor of this being Pride Month my views on Pride continues...

This is Pride month in many places and also Pride week here in Charlottetown. I did a recent article mentioning my views on the organized Pride movement which included the parades. However, this might have made one think that I think someone having personal pride is a bad thing. However, that would be wrong. What I have issues with is the idea of a collectivized pride based on nothing more than some single character trait. Especially given the narrative of Pride that your orientation being some innate thing. Which means you did nothing to earn being proud if it is simply based on an innate characteristics. 

I think individual people whom are gay, bisexual can have personal pride, but, that is not based only on ones sexual orientation, but, the content of ones character. Which means that whether or not you should be proud remains largely on your character as a person. So, just being gay, bisexual or whatever is not an accomplishment in itself. The issue with the collectivized Pride movement is that it assumes Gay equals good and worthy of pride over being based on ones character,. In fact, the toxic world of Pride and LGBTQ+  which exists shows the sort of character of the organized Pride. 

I do know gays and bisexuals that like me swear off the Pride movement and the LGBTQ+ nonsense altogether. I am not the only person that has issues with the concept of Pride as it exists at this time. Myself, I do not plan on doing anything for nor with Pride this year. Even though I support the individual rights of people I still want nothing to do with it. In fact, as I mentioned previously I have not had anything to do with Pride in quite sometime. However, I do think that there is a glaring hypocrisy with the whole Pride month and week. The whole movement or idea in general really. 

The hypocrisy I mean is that gays and bisexuals seem to be able to have Pride, but, heterosexuals and/or mostly heterosexuals or bisexuals that just prefer the opposite to the same are left out in the cold. There is s serious blindness to the fact if there can be Gay pride then heterosexuals and hetero-leaning people can have their own personal Hetero or Straight pride. I do have personal pride because I am a good man. I am a heterosexual male with pride in being a good man whom is into women. I have Straight Pride, but, based on being a good man that is straight and not because I am straight period. I refuse to cower and be small in the world because I ended up a 30 year old heterosexual male. 

Since Pride should be based on individual character and being a good person all heterosexuals that have good character should be able to be proud to be such a good person. Straight Pride does not mean hating on gay or bisexual people. It is properly speaking something all Straight people of good character can and should have in themselves. In the same vein gays and bisexuals that have good character and are accomplishing something in life to be proud of can have their own sense of personal pride. However, that pride does not equally get to denounce others orientations and act like fascist or Maoist extremists. Getting to trash the broader world using terms like heteronormative and pushing bullshit. 

The world is mostly heterosexual in nature or at least bisexual in nature. It is a mammalian norm due to it being how our species survives and reproduces. Penis is crafted by Mother Nature to go into vagina that is the natural norm. Males getting hard over females and females getting lubricated over males. Heterosexuality is not the normal due to "hatred of gays." It has the norm due to the Tyranny called nature and how our species evolved to keep living. This does not mean homosexuals or homosexual activity is bad or immoral or anything. It does not justify actual bigotry or religious hatred of homosexuals. It just means that it is not the overall norm for our species. Most homosexual activity exists in most species in a bisexual manor. As it does as well in ours, but, that does not mean exclusive homosexuals need to change or need "cured." 

However, that also means that by denouncing "heteronormativity" Pride groups are in fact denouncing the vary process by which our species keeps living. As well as the process by which they themselves came into existence. To denounce that there should be pride in heterosexuals for being good men and women is antithetical to the existence of pride on a personal level at all. It makes Pride a worship of a collective group and a hive mind that does not exist. I support us heterosexuals, us straight people having personal pride and an abundance of it and self-love for being good people. Good people should be proud and evil/vile people should not have pride. Positive should be proud and negative people have nothing to be proud of one could also say. 

Pride is an achievement of being a good person and not something that falls out of the sky like rain drops. Pride is a virtue and so is self-esteem, but, pride does not just jump into your lap. Much like respect actual pride is earned by matter of your virtue as a person and your accomplishments of character. It is not just something you have out of nowhere. Most LGBTQ+ people whom support Pride and attend Pride events have not really thought of what pride means epistemologically. Just being born is not enough to have Pride and this is why I do not support "Pride" organizations. You earn pride, you earn respect it is not benevolence. There is a difference between having a benevolent outlook at others and respecting them. 

  

Libertarianism, Conservatism and Objectivism

A lot of times people tend to do one of two things with people whom are in favor of liberty. They either call them conservatives or will apply that they are more conservative in nature. However, if one looks at the libertarian view which is individual rights for all and what said people consider conservative they are not similar in policy usually. These people consider libertarians to somehow support views that are more aligned with the Religious resurfacing and the Moral Majority.

Of course, this makes no sense at all. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support the sort of policies that the Moral Majority support. However, one needs to point out that this is wrong for more than just the allying of libertarianism with micromanaging policies. The truth is that the idea that conservatives are naturally against freedom for people from various lifestyles is itself a mistake and unfounded. Whereas one whom is libertarian often thinks conservatism does not go far enough one should not accuse any specific conservative as being a religious agenda pushing monster either.

This is something that libertarianism is bad for as well. The assumption that a conservative is some statism supporting busy body that wants to micromanage peoples lives. The truth is that libertarians and Objectivists can find a good deal of agreement of support from the "classical liberal" breed of conservatism. Conservatism can mean conserving freedom and classical liberal values. This breed of conservatism which is based on the classical liberal political values shared by libertarians and Objectivism is at home right next to Objectivism and libertarianism on the individual rights respecting side of the political spectrum.

When someone is a conservative one needs to ask them what they support or do not support. It is very possible they are a conservative classical liberal and not the kind that most people seem to think of when they hear the term. In fact, the Moral Majority and Religious Right types are on the fringe of the overall modern conservative movement. At least in Canada and for the most part in the US as well now. Take for example Same Sex Marriage; most conservatives support this now. Or the Drug War a good deal of them are finding it is not helping and should be abolished. A conservative whom is a classical liberal is a natural ally of individual rights and should be accepted as a part of the broader individual rights or liberty movement.

This does not mean we should not criticize conservatives if they try to push religion on people. Nor does it mean Objectivists should stop criticizing Altruism and religion for the evils that they are. If someone tries to base their views on unreality their mistakes in reasoning need to be pointed out and critiqued. Nor does it mean that Objectivists nor libertarians should switch to identifying as conservative instead of their current political identity. However, if one did that would be up to the individual judgment of their individual mind. If one wanted to identify as a conservative that was grounded in Objectivism or grounded in a relationship with reality VS religion that is up to them. Said person would not become thine enemy for doing so.

I just think the automatic judgment that conservatism is the enemy of liberty that some in the liberty movement have needs to be challenged by the facts that in fact show this to be a generalization. A collectivization ironically of every single person whom is a conservative holding the same constitution in their minds. I do not know quite a few conservatives and also Capital C Conservatives within my own Country of Canada. The Canadian Conservative Party is filled with classical liberals, libertarians and even Rand supporters although they might disagree with the whole selfishness thing. The Republican Party has an entire caucus of libertarian conservatives.

I am not one of these people whom are going around screaming to Unite the Right. I think that would be just as collectivist as saying for us to not trust any conservatives at all. However, not being paranoid that someone whom is not a libertarian is somehow a tyrannical despot. The same can go for meeting people in life in general. One should never assume that we are surrounded by slave driving malevolent humans that want to have other people serve them as slaves. Not libertarian and not Objectivist is not codeword for dictator in the making. This outlook causes one to have a fear and even a hate for their fellow man as opposed to seeing them as possible values in ones life. It helps to dehumanize others and form an out group. This does no one any good.
\

Virtuous Self-Interest (Selfishness) VS Self-Destruction (Altruism) and libertarianism.

Recently I put up an article stating I was an objectivist and one might think that means I am anti-libertarian. However, you would be mistaken to think so. For decades Objectivist organizations have berated libertarianism as being incompatible with reason. However, this is not the case as there is only one of two ways to come to libertarianism that is a possible basis for the Non-Aggression Principle.

One of them is some form of religious or spiritual view of rights being given by natural rights which makes nature out to be some sort of rights giving force. Those natural rights can be based on god or some other spiritual/intrinsic view of nature as divine rights giver. The other, however, is the Objectivist view of rights being based on human nature and part of ones requirements for living life on Earth.

Specifically, based in reality and what is needed in reality to survive as an entity. It does not get called "Objectivist," and often people will hate Objectivism with its pro-selfishness views while agreeing with this part of the Objectivist world view. Often times it is just considered the non-religious or secularist view of libertarian rights. However, it is the only other justifiable reason for being a libertarian. Yet, there are some that try using utilitarian or other nonsensical reasons for libetarianism as well. It is this view as well as the Anarchocapitalist that are unfortunately part of the broader libertarian movement that most Objectivist object to.

The Objectivist that hates on libertarianism due to these individuals is generalizing and iornically collectivizing all libertarians as nihilists and as anarchists. They paint libertarianism in general as morally relativistic when that is not the case. They paint libertarians as a bunch of people that do not have any reasonable grounding for libertarianism due to not accepting as whole cloth Objectivist Ethics and the rest of the world view. This is silly. Coming to liberty via reason is what matters and not being an Objectivist.

To me getting out the need to have reals before feels. The need for rationality to overrule our older evolved instincts to just believe in patterns regardless of falsehood. This is what I think is important to be a person whom has a close and personal relationship with reality. It is this and not being an Objectivist that matters. That does not mean I think one should not look into Objectivism and contemplate seriously taking on this world view. Or that I think there is a more consistent and precise principle to support individual rights or liberty. There is not in my opinion, but, that does not mean we need to become dogmatic and make in/out groups and become hateful of others that do not agree with us each dot and each tittle.

One of the things that pushes the liberty disagreements between Objectivism and the broader libertarian movement is the denouncing of Objectivism due to its being against altruism. The truth is, however, what Objectivism considers altruism is often not what others think it is. Objectivism does not say that kindness to others, charity, generosity, benevolence and loving others is wrong. That giving help to others; hell even laying down your life is always wrong. It all depends on context and anti-Objectivist libertarians are ignorant and not aware of what they are dissing or defending.

Altruism is literally the philosophical core of all collectivist dictatorships. It is referring to the philosophy of Comte. Whom said that individuals did not exist for themselves, but, instead lived as like a Borg for the religion called The Great Humanity. Altruism means lose/win scenarios. It means rape for example. The sex is not a win/win, but, a win/lose. The rapist wins and the person has sacrificed their bodily autonomy for the pleasure of the other person or the power list of the other person. It is sacrificing the greater value or something you want for something you do not. In the case of rape it is sacrificing your body and your rights for the sake of someone else's need.

It is clear that using the above example no one can defend that definition of altruism and it is this self-destruction that Ayn Rand/Objectivism is against. Altruism as originally define by Comte was that definition. What people really are supporting are various forms of benevolence usually like charity, but, in using Altruism as the thing they are defending they are unknowingly defending the other type. For it gives ammunition to the true Altruists that do want your self-destruction. You should be defending benevolence, kindness and the like. Giving more than you get back, even your life as you value what you are giving up your life for more than you life is not self-destructive. Which if based on rationality and reason is selfish and not anti-Objectivist at all.

What I mean by Altruism is the sacrificing of the self, of the mind and of ones very soul to get romantic to someone else. Which is evil by any other name and is not the same as helping others or the same as even laying down your life for the proper reasoning. I mean self-destruction and self-harm for the sake of someone else and that is not just being kind to your neighbor. It is not even the religious maxim of loving neighbors as ourselves. It is the hatred of the self for being the self and the sacrificing to the collective which is an illusion made of nothing, but, other individuals. So, do I mean it when I say Altruism is evil and I will never support it nor its true proponents? Yes, Altruism is evil and at its most pure. It is the origin of all slavery, of all dictatorship and all coercive collectives.

Altruism kills the self, the mind and the very soul to be romantic. It is the ultimate evil and for this reason I cannot be anything other than selfish which by definition means to nurture the self/mind/soul. To guard against self-harm and live according to ones one rational self-interest. It does not mean to be a brute, savage or a douche. It does not mean being a dogmatic cult like hater of anyone that disagrees. Nor does it mean to not be kind, charitable, have reverence for others or be benevolent. It means that it is done in accordance with ones own interest in doing so as a free-man and not your surf or slave to your mind, but, acting according to my own mind.

So, did I mean it when I said I am selfish? Yes, Damn Right I am and I am damn proud! I love myself, so, why do you hate yourself and continue to deny the virtue of selfishness? I think it is because probably in most instances you have swallowed what is called a package deal. You think selfishness means to not care about others or to run over others for your own interest. When in fact being selfish means living according to the trader principle of win/win relationships where neither person is a surf to the other. Equal and mutual relations between all trading value for value. Not just material ones, but, also human ones of friendship, love, reverence, admiration and even sex.

We should all be selfish and everyone needs to work on nurturing our selves and love ourselves enough. To have enough self-esteem and a benevolent enough sense of life to love ourselves enough to nurture ourselves first and out from their the only real love, and cooperation between people can exist without opening the door to serfdom and slavery amongst people. Love yourself enough to be selfish, rationally so and not douche-like. Before you can say I love you you must first be able to say I.