Yaron Brook | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature

The Dark Net isn't what you think. It's actually key to our privacy | Alex Winter | TEDxMidAtlantic

There is a hidden Internet, completely separate from the surface Web. Documentary filmmaker Alex Winter spent several years immersed in this fascinating world and talks about how the battle for your right to privacy is being waged in this dark corner of the Internet. You may have heard the "Dark Net" is a scary underworld filled with crime, but Alex's findings will surprise you.

Alex Winter entered show business as a child actor on Broadway and came to prominence in the wildly popular BILL AND TED franchise. Winter’s latest, award-winning documentary DEEP WEB, recently had a critically acclaimed world premiere at SXSW and a broadcast premiere in the U.S. on the Epix network, to be followed by a worldwide release on all platforms in September 2015.

Emily Wilson, Director of Analysis, Terbium Labs | The Reality of the Dark Web: Fake, Funny and Fraudulent

Emily Wilson, Director of Analysis, Terbium Labs
The reality of the dark web goes against industry reports. Most of the dark web is legal, even ridiculous activity amidst drugs, fraud and other crimes. This session will look at the funny and absurd.

Fatal Obscurity | DEBUNKING 9 DEEP WEB VIDEOS

This video is basically about some of the most popular "deep web" videos, the supposed stories behind them and their debunk.

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

PBA Bowling PBA Clash 12 23 2018 (HD)

This show was televised on Fox. The USBC, PBA, and Fox own the all the rights, I do not. This upload is for those that don't have that channel available and would like to watch the show.

Tatiana Andreoli v Shubkina Olha – Recurve junior women’s gold | Roma Archery Trophy 2018

Ed Hudgins | Objectivism, Evolution, and Ethics

Ed Hudgins offers in this talk a detailed examination of the attempts by the new secularists and atheists to address the fundamental questions of ethics and morality from an evolutionary and based on insights into human evolution and neuroscience. he discusses how thinkers like Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer have wrestled with these issues and analyze where they've succeeded and where they've failed to establish a rational foundation for ethics. The he shows how Objectivist meta-ethics is both consistent with the core of their discoveries and, indeed, necessitated by their understanding of science and the role of reason.

Jackson Mirich v Matteo Canovai – Recurve junior men’s gold | Roma Archery Trophy 2018

Captain Disillusion | Cicret Bracelet DEBUNK

NoReset x DreamHack Montréal 2018 - Super Mario RPG by pidgezero_one

Globalism is Good and Promotes Western Values to the world!

I am seeing way too many people conflate globalism to some sort of elite conspiracy against the masses. Globalism is good and is in fact the core of living in a modern world that is integrated and not at constant strife. People whom trade will not kill each other if they know they are dependent on those other people to keep living their life in the way they wish to. The answer to making poverty actually slowly go away is globalism it is Global Capitalism embodied in unilateral free trade with any peaceful group/organization/individual. 

Currently the trend is to conflate worries about national security and the Islamic Threat with nationalism and anti-globalism. Somehow being Pro-National security means also being anti-immigrants that are peaceful and not criminal. It has been conflated with being anti-free trade. It has become conflated with being alt-right or with being Xenophobic. When wanting The West to deal with Islamic Terror in a proper way that is successful has nothing to do with being anti-globalism at all. 

I know that Islam is a threat and I want our Governments to deal with it. I am all for finding credible threats and dealing with them accordingly. Protecting individual rights and citizens is what a Government is intended to do and it is not intended to remove individual rights. By stopping Globalism you are stopping people and companies from engaging in peaceful global trading. You are not in fact stopping the people that are wanting to destroy Western Civilization. In fact you make it worse by stopping the exporting of Western Culture to other places in the world.

I think Europe and Canada are being pussies when it comes to the War Islam has declared on the Non-Islamic world. I think even the US is not really doing what needs to be done really. However, that does not mean one sacrifices economic freedom for security. One does not shut oneself from trading with people or with doing business because there is an Anti-Capitalist and Fascist group that wants you dead. There is much more that can be done about Islamic threats than we do, but, those things do not include infringing peaceful citizens rights.

For example; known radicals should be picked up as soon as they are on the radar and either housed in our own prisons and possibly deported elsewhere for housing if from a different Country. Our Countries need to get serious about the Mosques and dealing with them. Getting rid of the mosques which are linked to groups like The Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist groups. This is not infringing rights as these people would be known threats and not peaceful citizens. Also, none of these possible prescriptions are anti-immigration nor anti-globalist. While I supported the idea of Trumps Travel suspension I do not support his idea of banning immigration from Mexico nor the Trump Wall. 

I am Pro-Peaceful and civil immigration for anyone not linked to the Islamic threat, a known criminal, has infectious diseases nor has linked to any other Terrorist group other than Islamic radicalism. I am ant-letting dangerous individuals into any plot of land, but, I am also all for civil individuals coming into and out of Countries. I am Pro-Globalism and I am not a Nationalist I am the opposite of Nationalistic. I am internationalist and globalist. I am for individual rights and their protection being spread world wide and governance based on that globally over all the Earth for all people. 

All people should have governance based on recognition of individuals and their rights to live free provided they harm no one else or their property. The Non-initiation of harm principle or force should be ideally stretched to all people everywhere and they should be governed accordingly. How this will be done can be debated and argued at length. However, globalism is a key component to that and a global maximizing of peace/prosperity/happiness pursuance for all people. We need globalism to export our values which are better and more civilized to the world and make Western Culture the mainstream view based on recognition of individual rights for all. 

Gender Identity issues; their causes and treatments at present

It can be very controversial in this very Social Justice Warrior/PC age to even dare bring up the question of what causes one to dissociate mentally from their birth sex. Why do gender dysphoric people exist? What causes conditions of Gender Identity in-congruence to occur in a person? The answers to these sorts of questions the SJW types say we know it is like evolution they say. They say it is because you do somehow have the wrong body, but, that is not what the science says or shows.

The science is not settled on matters of Gender Identity related disorders and conditions of Gender Dysphoria. What is settled is that some people "feel" like they are the wrong sex. Why do they "feel" that is still up in the air and there might not even be just one cause of the outcome of this "feeling." There is a whole lot of different reasons why someone might not want to be their birth sex, and it is not so cut, and, dry what the best thing for each person with the condition is.

The causes for some has ranged from bullying all the way to generalized identity dissociation disorders. Some whom gained the condition have said their parents told them at a young age they wished their child was whatever the opposite of their sex was. There is a large overlapping of Atypical Neurological Disorders such as Autism and Identifying with the other sex as well. In addition, there is a very large sample of Sexual Abuse and Rape survivors among the very small population that has Dysphoric issues. This is a very scary thing when it comes to those whom are seriously concerned for peoples mental well-being and their safety from harm.

This article is not meant to denigrate in anyways those whom suffer from Gender Identity related conditions. It is not an anti-trans message, but, instead if anything a calling out that I wish we knew more how to help said population. Gender Identity conditions "formally Gender Identity Disorder" now known as Gender Dysphoria is a very serious and harrowing condition to live with. However, the truth is that we do not know all the causes or all the reasons people develop this condition. We just know some people do.

I wish I lived in a world where no one suffered a condition of not being congruent with their biological sex. However, that is not going to happen anytime soon if it happens at all. So, in the meantime we have other stop gap measures. We do in fact have forms of therapy and counseling specifically geared towards figuring out if one will need hormones or sex change to better their conditions. Most people with Dysphoric feelings do not have them through their entire lifetime and in fact most people do end up being better without even needing hormones or sex changes. Thankfully, it is only the most extreme cases that usually need these things and do not subside.

This was pointed out in The New Atlantis report and was called anti-trans for sating this. However, all it did was state the actual stats given by people like the American Psychiatric Association. According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. Whatever the cause it is not a permanent part of most peoples identities and it recitatives as the term goes in therapy.

Other words much like how most people with same sex attraction change over time (also right from the APA) so too do most people that could have been Transsexual and transitioned if they did not become congruent. Once again I wish I could say we have a 2+2=4 when it comes to dealing with the condition we do not. There are some people for whom with our current level of medical advancement do end up needing transition surgery, changing pronouns and taking hormones. These are those lifetime transgender people. The T in the LGBT, but, the un-PC truth is that there is very little of them in any population even population of people whom have conditions related to their Gender Identity. Most people whom had gender dysphoria related issues as children grow up to be fine.

Lifetime Gender Dysphoria is incredibly rare and I feel very bad for people whom need to go under the knife and fill their bodies full of hormones just to feel comfortable in their life. If it is the only thing that will work than it is, but, I just wish we had other ways to make these people feel comfortable in our society without needing to have surgery or to take hormones. I am your "ally," but, I still wish we could find a less intrusive way to help these people. As having said condition must be a nightmare of the worst order.

Blair White, herself a Trans-Woman once got in hot water when she said she wished she could end the existence of Gender Dysphoria in peoples lives. This was mistaken to mean she meant she wished Trans people were dead or something such nonsense. She said what I am saying that she wished there was a non-surgery, non-hormonal, non-intrusive and less dangerous way to help people with Gender Identity issues heal so as to feel complete. The idea that people thought she was literally saying she should die or something is ludicrous in the extreme.

Saying you wished for a seriously debilitating mental/medical condition to cease to exist is not saying people with it should die. We all want Cancer to stop existing or at least be minimized. So, what is wrong with saying you wish less people would be inflicted with a medical condition that causes them to literally want to kill themselves at a higher rate than almost any group you can calculate in the population. Ask anyone suffering Gender issues if they wished there was a way to snap their fingers and accept their Birth sex and most of them would say, "sign me up and save my life." I wish I could snap my fingers and all the Gender Dysphoria suffering people would be healed and love their bodies.. not hate them to the point of self-mutilation and suicide.

They do not need to stop having atypical interests or switch how they express. However, they would lose the condition that made them need to change their bodies to be happy having those interests and those expressions. They would lose the misery of the Dysphoria and just be their unique individual selves without needing to go under the knife, take hormones or anything. That would be my dream for all people with Gender issues and in this way I do wish that the condition did not exist. Not the people that have it. No more than my desire that we conquered the causes of depression means I wished for the depressed to be genocide out of existence. I mean the condition and not the people.

It is because so many amazing and beautiful individuals in this world suffer with this nightmare condition that I would like it gone. I do not hate trans people I want them to no longer suffer. They can be as Queer in their bodies they were born in as they want and be not wanting to remove them. That would be my dream that all Dysphoric people just became the Queer people essentially and it was no longer a nightmare without end for those with serious long term Dysphoric issues. This is my dream a dream of happy, healthy people without a condition. That is not anti-trans that is anti-hell on Earth. Why would I not want a condition with such horrible amounts of self-harm and suicidaility not to be minimized or eliminated? I also hope some day we have come closer to a cure for Autism spectrum disorder as well. Does that make me anti-Autistic people? Not at all.

What I want is for all the people currently suffering any Gender related issues to be healthy, happy and feel whole without making life altering pretty much irreversible surgery be the only hope for them. People with Gender Identity related conditions deserve better from medicine than knives and in-taking foreign hormones whose effects we are still testing out in people. We need to find a better way to make these people able to live flourishing lives without the dangers of sex-reassignment surgeries and hormones. Not because I hate them, but, because I have a good will towards any of them that are sane, rational and good people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-three-gender-identity-sexuality-and-gender
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx
https://www.scribd.com/document/2811816/Gender-Identity-Disorder-Research-Paper
https://www.symptomfind.com/diseases-conditions/gender-identity-disorder/
https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/other-causes-for-gender-dysphoria/
https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm14

Towards a Male Liberation based on a Man's own rational happiness.

There a few schools of thought in the Men's Movement and often times they are seemingly contradictory. One one hand you have the traditional conservative view of going back to traditionalism ALA the Leave It To Beaver 1950's. Of course, no such 1950's existed it was a fictional version of an ideal people had in Hollywood. On the other hand you have MGTOW that goes anywhere from just rejecting male/female relations to outright dehumanization of women. Both sides call the other traitors to the cause.

The MGTOW set thinks any man that deals with women and trusts any woman is a gender/sex traitor as women cannot be trusted with the way things are. Some go so far as to say due to female nature men will never be safe and it is to go back onto what they call the plantation to deal with women in anyway.

The trad-con set thinks that the other extreme is being a traitor as they are sacrificing the continuation of the species by not breeding. Their solution is to go back to traditionalism or their view of it and to have things as they think they were back in the 1950's. They call out MGTOW as being men that have given up and deride their choices they disagree with.

You also have the Return of Kings Neo-Masculinity crowd which is yet another whole kettle of fish on the fire. I contend that there is a major error with all of these views in that each one tried to prescribe what men do with their lives. Whether towards traditional families or away from women altogether. Or in the case of Neo-Masculinity towards a sort of odd combination of PUA and traditionalism. In truth the Men's Movement should instead be based around an individual man's own rational happiness. About men each and every individual man being an end to himself towards his own standards of value in life provided he does not ask others to sacrifice their happiness for them.

If a man wants a long term more traditional setup and the other person agrees let him have it. If the man wants to remain a bachelor and eligible so be it. If a man wants to go nowhere near women so be it. If a man wants to date casually so be it. I am not saying that all choices are good ones. I am simply saying that methodological individualism should be the guiding light of the Men's Movement. The movement should not become a collectivist movement like the feminist one. Nor should it become about becoming what women want which is just another form of otherism and self-sacrifice to a collective "women." It all starts with men being able to feel worthy as people without needing to feel like utilities used for the worlds benefit.

Men are human and not machines one needs to keep that in mind. Being a man should not be about being a walking wallet, a free bodyguard nor a baby batter dispensing machine. Men are human and men need to learn to be comfortable without being some perfect ideal man that might never exist. Men need to begin with understanding our human nature and why we can be so great. I am not saying human nature has no dark side it certainly does. However, men need to stop feeling they are toxic just for being men and liberate their minds from the constraints of the sexes are at war narrative. A narrative which is nothing more than collectivization around biological sex and a denial of individual personal identity as a man.

Men need to be able to love themselves and live a life which nurtures the self not live a projection of what others want.

A lot of times when you look up information related to the manosphere you end up with a bunch of sites talking about what women want in men. You will find sites talking about Game and things like that. You will also find sites talking about masculine traits through the eyes of what women find attractive. Usually tossed in there somewhere will be talk about alphas, betas and omegas. Not usually do you see sites talking about manhood and what it means or not for the man himself.

The only website on masculinity that I ever really found that was based on manhood from the view of the man is Allan J. Frantzen's website. He is the man whom came up with the term being a GYB man or a Grab Your Balls man. Which I found to be a very refreshing site to find and it also called out calling men effeminate or emasculated without having their testicles removed. In fact, it was finding his website that helped light the spark of an idea for my own website you are finding yourself reading right now. I figured maybe I should do my own blog about manhood and maleness that looked at things from a different view point than Game players or attraction gurus.

My personal mindset has been from the very beginning that manhood is not based on "otherism." It is not based on what women or other men define as manhood, but, instead by manhood itself. That ones sense of worth as a man should not come from an external source, but, instead from ones own view of themselves as worthy. That a mans worth exists in a world where no women or other men even exists. That men have their own value as people regardless of whether they slay the ladies or turn them all off like vinegar. That men need to put their own well-being first and foremost which means to put the needs for women's and other men's attention as last.

In fact, the theme of so many sites dominated only by what women want means men are constantly living for women and not themselves. Even if said sites are right about what they say women want they are about women and not best practices for men. There is no emphasis on the best and most healthy or whole way for a man to live. There is no emphasis on the mental, physical or emotional needs of men. It is all about the desires of women so much for being sites for men. Masculinity becomes no more than another word for what women want and not about a man at his core. In essence manhood is no longer about being at peace with your core as a man. Instead it becomes placating for the chance to spread your seed.

Masculinity is not just what women want it is much more than that. Men should be able to embrace whom they are no matter how it affects women's attention to them. Nor their fellow man's. At the end of the day it is not the woman nor other men that they see in the mirror before bed and as they rise. It is themselves that a man sees and it is themselves they need the most to have reverence for. It is the self they need to love, to nurture the most and the self they need to honor. The self they need to see as their target of loves arrow. Not in some narcissistic sense, but, in a very much rational sense. If you cannot love yourself whom can you love. 

The Alt-Right is Completely and totally Alt-Wrong.

Most of my politics based articles on this site have been going against the left and I have not really tackled my views of the alt-right movement. I want to let it be known I am no fan of the movement which is filled with people whom make race and nation to be some sort of supernatural and more than human characteristic to put faith in.

It is in fact not a rightist or right-wing movement at all with its huge combination of protectionist anti-free trade nationalism and also hordes of White Supremacists. Not too mention the people that are in fact National Socialists whom are in no way on the right at all. They try to lay claim to being on the right when they are not and in fact like the so-called religious right which is in fact left theocracy.

Any form of ideology which paints race as putting one group above another is very dangerous and also insane. People whom are against the regressive left should not be swayed into supporting a collectivist so-called right. The actual philosophical right, rightist or right-wing is individualism and voluntarism. It is methodologically individualist which is not the same as some sort of atomistic rejection of co-operation and groups. Or of generalized actual biological or psychological trends within our species. It simply means individuals, individual thinking and individual rights are the cornerstone of rightist ideologies and philosophy VS collectivism on the left.

The so-called Alt-Right hates individualism and voluntarism. They are a group of nationalistic and protectionist anti-right ideologies which dare call themselves right when they are in fact on the collectivist left. Race is not the cornerstone of ideology such an idea is a vile evil no worse than the feminists and their hate of men. Individualism comes first and from that comes individual thinking and the rights of each of those individuals irregardless of color, creed, lack of creed, sex, orientation or anything else that is meaningless to the content of ones character.

The regressive left is a vile movement with too much power, but, we must guard against the likes of the Alt-Right gaining power too. This does not mean alt-right members deserve to be punched in the face as the regressive left say either. Instead there needs to be a cultural change and push through words, through philosophy and the intellect. Force is the enemy of reason and truth removing alt-right members rights is the enemy of the very reason needed to work towards the better future we really can have.

Tackling the links between Gender expression and orientation/preference in ones partners.

Recently I have been researching into the known links between gender expression and sexual orientation/preferences in partners as well as positions in sexual relationships. Is it true that gender expression is actually directly linked to non-heterosexual orientations in adulthood? If so, is there a difference between the tops and bottom non-heterosexuals? Does penetrative same sex sexuality differ from bottom receptive same sex sexuality in terms of gender congruence and expression? Is there is a difference between bisexual same sex sexualities and exclusive homosexual ones? Can you really tell someones orientation just by looking at or listening to someone?

Well, it depends on which studies you look at really. Some studies say that non-heterosexuality be it bi or homosexual is linked to at least childhood non-conformity. They point out that feelings, thoughts, interests and behaviors of non-heterosexuals were more opposite gender typical in childhood and that there is also a link in that continuing into adulthood with ones orientation/sexual preference for partners. That seems to miss out on something important though. The research the American Psychological Association under Lisa Diamond did over long term time frames showed same sex sexualities are mostly bisexuals. What does this mean for the people in this studies? Could it not be possible those gays in these studies could turn out to be bisexuals.

How would one track this to see if it was the case? Well, for one we would need to know the ages of the people in the studies. We would also need to know if they were conflating bisexuality and exclusive gayness. It is possible since we do not know the stats that these people with opposite typical expression are as much for men into chooch and for the women into manmeat as the exclusively heterosexuals all around them. For the longest time bisexuality especially for men was denied its existence by the same groups that perform these studies. To the point where men whom set off this Gaydar and fiercely protested loudly they where bisexuals all over the bisexual scale were told they were "delusional."

On top of this the results are contradictory as well. Remember, I asked about the tops VS bottoms? Well, top homosexual males are more than likely to come off as the gender typical bloke, but, with a male hole for their man rod than bottom homosexual males. Men whom sleep with men whether they are in fact gay, bisexual or hetero and just horny without a woman around all share one core thing. Their gender expression is a typical bloke. This does not mean they might not say love Musicals or love Pink, but, they do not for example have any appeal at the idea of say doing drag as an adult. Nor do they for example use terms like "girl" to describe themselves. In fact, they tend to find gays that are too out there as more annoying.

Top homosexuals, bisexuals, bi-curious, questioning, mostly heterosexuals and so on are the least likely to be camp or overly flamboyant. They tend to for example be more into sports and be more physical than the bottoms. They tend to be more dominant in the bedroom as well not just the penetrative actor. They tend to be the Alpha if you will in the sack. Treating bottoms if you will as a chicks with dicks in terms of the traditional gender roles in the bedroom. They tend to not cross their legs and tend to sit with them more open. They tend to have less overemotional behavior as well, but, they are far from non-feeling Stoics either. This has lead people to believe that Tops in the same sex world have a much higher level of Testosterone during critical times of Androgen floods as well as a hormonal balance that is more flooded with said testicle juice.

However, if these people are also same sex attracted how can one say there is an inherent link between gender conformism and orientations? Well, some studies have shown a whopping 85-88% of gender non-conforming kids grow up to a heterosexual adulthood. However, that was back in 2012. Since then more studies have come out showing links between orientation/preference and gender expression. These studies one must remember though were done by the same group of people which denied bisexual men and still to this day refuses to take into their world view the FACT that most men with same sex sexualities are bisexual and not gay at all in the way we would tend to think of it as being exclusively homosexual attraction. 

So, it is safe to say given their track record that even if people in the study said "dude, I am not homo I am bisexual I love pussy OK." That they would turn around and like they always have say they were gay and in denial. Funnily enough they DO believe in female bisexuality and do not conflate them like they do men in their studies. Even though they included a Bisexual part of their most recent causes of homosexuality article they still come to end it with saying it is a minority of men that are in fact bi if they even exist. Which is laughable and downright insulting to the personal experiences of any and all bisexual males. With such links to the flat out denial of the bisexual male how can one trust any study by such a group of ignorant twats?

This same group denies that sexuality can change over time for both genders/sexes. They stake claim to a completely genetic determinism model of orientation which says one is not ever both or in a gray area. Or that sexuality can be a scale. Or that bisexuality is the norm for same sex sexualities. They stake the claim you are born gay and or straight. That very few people at least for men are both or bisexual of some sort. That Sexual Fluidity is rare instead of the norm in same sex attractions which we have ample evidence is the opposite in human orientations and preferences. Even the American Psychological Association has come out against the working group sighting their anti-fluidity biases. As well as their lack of acknowledging of bisexuals in their studies whom time after time request not to be statistically called gay when they are not.

So, I have come to the conclusion that although they might be right that for some orientation is linked to gender expression it is not something that is true for all or even necessarily most same sex sexualities. For example there are tons of masculine even full gay men and tons of feminine full lesbian women. If orientation and partner preferences was deterministic of expression than it should determine that all people with same-sex attraction are opposite gender typical when they are not. For every Musical theater loving gay or bi male there is equally as many Nascar and Football loving, Nacho eating and Beer downing typically masculine gay or bisexual dude. For every butch lesbian there is a lipstick lesbian or complete femme lesbian.

I think that in fact most people will conform to some extent to their Gender Roles and expression due to how it is linked to our Gender Identity as males and females. Since same sex sexuality is not the same thing as Gender Identity Disorders or Gender Dysphoric issues it would be normal for one to in some ways conform to ones gender expressions linked to ones identity. That I do think is much more deterministic than the opposite. Most people irregardless of orientation and preference will be men and will be women. Or will be males and females to some or more of an extent. For every unique trait that could be atypical you can find so many more that are typical of male and femaleness irregardless of ones partner preferences.

Men and women having male and female brains will mean that most of the gays and bisexuals will be just as similar to heterosexuals on a whole list of metrics while differing on others. Yes, there might be some small differences, but. the idea that you can spot a same-sex attracted person simply based on the stereotype of gender non conformism is bullshit. Gaydar will only work on the most flamboyant and out there gays and most butchy of butchiest of lesbians. Even than you could be dead wrong and they might be as straight as the next person just expressing themselves differently. The era of the Gaydar test needs to stop. Let us just treat each other as individuals. Let all men and women just be themselves. Most of the time that will be in accordance with natural gender rules. However, even if it was not just let people be.

You should not really be asking about someones preferences outside of if you are interested in them anyways. It is really no ones business whom is straight, gay or whatever in the day to day life unless you want to partner or fuck said person. So, let us quit trying to put people into boxes based on their preferences and just be peaceful/benevolent to one another irregardless of ones orientation. In the end it does not matter at all to the character of a person and the content of ones character is what matters not the content of ones brain and genitals on sex.

The MHRM/MGTOW philosophical idea of Gynocentrism dare not say it's name.

I have distanced myself a bit from the broader Men's Human Rights Movement, but, not because of not being a Men's Human Rights Advocate. It is because it is very clear that there seems to be a bit of an issue with this movement and one particular word. That is the word Gynocentrism and what it really is talking about. What the fundamental aspects of this Gynocentrism are really made up of that makes it so appalling. 

The truth is that philosophically what is so appalling about Gynocentrism is altruism as it was defined by the founder of the philosophy one Auguste Comte. Whom was a known extreme left-utopian/dystopian and one of the founders of the formation of the non-science of sociology. He also was a quack that decided to create a "religion of Humanity." Which was an insane way of trying to make a heaven on earth. 

A key part of August Comte's view being altruism or the idea that what is moral is to live for others. As opposed to being selfish which is defined as looking after self and what the self finds is in its best long term interests and rational good. However, this view was not original it was he simply extended it to be in a secular context and removed the inclusion of God. All religions are altruistic in the philosophical definition as none of them say being selfish is good and they hate the mind. The one thing that is anything like a "human soul." 

Our neuron networks, our brain and our person is that which mystics mistake for a soul. Mystics of mind either are ignorant, or evil and simply evading the fact our brain structure/our mind is what makes us human just as much as the rest of the functions of our body. There is no mind/body dichotomy. For our mind is in our brain and that is the core of our body and its functioning in so many ways. 

Thus altruism which says we should live for others at the expense of ourselves is basically a slow death sentence. It is choosing a long slow suicide for the sake of others living like being the energy source for a world of parasites and vampires. How is this philosophical Gynocentrism? Well, how is Gynocentrism as a moral philosophy anything, but, altruism taken to its most extreme. It is simply taking the floating-abstraction other and giving it an image that of the female human of the species. 

Gynocerntrism is a collective death sentence for males saying to all men to live for women and die for them too. It is a collectivism within a collectivism a gendered division within the greater altruism and societal collectivism of both genders. Except it's ideas are targeted towards men and manipulate men's natural tendency to desire to protect and provide for women with ideas that one should always act on such instincts. As a blank check without thinking about what it means for the self of that man. 

There are two Gynocentrism's; the natural instincts to protect women and children and the "philosophy" which says all women need saving and you the man are the one to do it. The philosophy is altruism writ large over all men on a collective scale. It collectivizes all men as wanting the same thing. Even if these instincts exist not all men want, nor should need to have a woman or children around; let alone protect them at the expense of their own life. It is the anti-male division of the greater collectivism we see in society. 

Yet, the Men's Human Rights Movement never seems to bring it up. Neither does MGTOW which has now made it too susceptible to collectivism. As Men supposedly going their own way make their own collectivist shrieks and shrills of "all women are evil." Which is simply taking the Feminist idea of male Patriarchy and reversing it calling "all women toxic." Even if a lot, hell, a good portion of women in the modern day are toxic in their views of men, especially feminists, that does not equal a collective "all women." 

A truly liberating movement for men would champion individualism and not collectivism. For it is collectivism that is at the heart of Philosophical Gynocentrism and it is that which fueled the existence of a feminist movement. Feminism with it's all men were evil throughout history views are simply one more modern version of collectivism. Which is itself a manifestation of altruism's core tenants of living for others like a servant at the expense of ones own self-worth and value. To live for women by women's social rules has always been nothing more than altruism brought to bare to men. 

It has always taken the natural instincts of protecting and providing for women/children within ones own relations and extended that to being "living for all women and all children everywhere." I am not arguing men protecting the women they love and their children is wrong. Hell, that would be to go against the reality of men's evolved psychology and a core of masculinity. However, I contend Philosophical Gynotheism, as was coined by Youtuber Jay Double Gee, is instincts gone insane. Pushed upon and unleashed without reason or rhyme on purpose. 

Not as part of some conspiracy or any such tin foil views of the extremer MGTOW's out there. It came into being because irrational people drank the kool-aid that collectivism was good and act ignorant. It is also very possibly a reaction to the ever more expanding freedom of expression of women's own psychologies being gone unchecked by being told to "shut the fuck up special snowflake." Thus pushing ever more worse collectivism and Philosophical Gynocentrism through men reacting at a more instinctive level and less reasoning manor to women's exposed evolved psychologies. 

That freedom without understanding of individualism vs collectivism can unleash collectivist attitudes on us. Through unleashing the more wet-ware instincts on a massive scale without the rational mindset to go with them. That in a sense altruism which is core to collectivism has taken something which is beautiful in the right context; protection of others not at expense to self, but, because those saved are a high value.. Having replaced it with not protecting, but, complete self-sacrifice and suicide to "save everyone, but, the self that is a man because my being is to be sacrifice itself." 

The MHRM needs to address collectivism, but, to do that it needs to address the core tenants of that philosophy called altruism. Not the tit for tat and win/win benevolent reciprocity and mutualist aspect of our human instincts, but, complete and utter self-sacrifice. The idea that win/lose is noble, but, win/win is bad because a win/win feeds the self its "spiritual fuel" as Ayn Rand would say. The MHRM if it is serious about the rights and liberty, hell, liberation of men needs to stand up against the altruist-collectivist origin of the movements it is against. It needs to be a beacon of individualism and let manhood be all about that.

Keith Lockitch - Spacetime, Black Holes, and Gravitational Waves - OCON 2018

The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first-ever detection of gravitational waves, confirming a 100-year-old prediction of Einstein's. The discovery, announced in 2015, launched a new era of gravitational wave astronomy, but also raises challenging philosophical questions about the nature of space, time and gravity. What are gravitational waves and how are they being used to study the universe? And is there an inherent conflict between General Relativity and key metaphysical principles?

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE FREE COURSES ON ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Deeper Connection Through Mutual Selfishness by Gena Gorlin

This talk integrates the moral perspective offered by Rand’s “trader principle” with psychological tools and insights for improving assertive communication. Attendees will learn how skills such as reflective listening, the “broken record” technique, perspective-taking, and ”I”-statements can deepen the intimacy and value derived from close personal relationships, largely by conveying respect for the other person’s volition and value-context while also demanding respect for one’s own. 

Recorded at Objectivist Conferences 2018 

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Using Reason to Cultivate Passion: A Moral and Psychological How-To Guide (OCON 2017)

Despite all the graduation speeches enjoining us to "be passionate" about something, the experience of deep, passionate emotion is not an easy one to achieve, much less sustain. This talk offers guidance for achieving that rarified quality which Ayn Rand ascribed to one of Atlas Shrugged's heroes — a "disciplined capacity to feel too deeply." The talk by Gena Gorlin, a postdoctoral fellow at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, integrates tools from cognitive-behavioral therapy with insights from Rand's theory of values, without assuming prior knowledge of either.

This talk was recorded live at Objectivist Summer Conference 2017 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, June 11, 2017.

IMAGE CREDITS:

4:24 Aaron Escobar [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)], via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...

11:00 Photo by Belizian, GNU free documentation license https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...

45:07 License CC0, no attribution required. https://pixabay.com/en/compass-instru...

50:11 Public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_R...

53:56 #1: By SAndrex333 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)], via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...

53:56 #6: License CC0, no attribution required. https://pixabay.com/p-1698771/?no_red...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/