The use of classification and differences to dehumanize and the manosphere

If you have ever listened to a video from the Skeptic Community online you will sometimes hear words that seem out of place. You will hear these same words in various places within the broader manosphere as well. I am referring to terms like beta, omega, cuck and among the PUA's "everyday chump." Often, when someone disagrees with someone else usually a man they will start calling them these sorts of terms as a way of saying "these men are not men at all."

Instead of saying that person is wrong or even evil as an individual and has bad ideas. Instead of rebuking their grey matter and attacking their ideas they make things personal. They make claim that if you do not think like me your manhood is in question. Or in some scenarios these folks will attack the man's orientation as if that matters. Or they will call them something like Soy Boys or such things. I am surprised they are not using the term sissy. It would do the same thing and create a similar split between men.

I very much am not in favor of using these terms for anyone you disagree with. Even if you think someone can be a beta male disagreeing with you is not the determination of that. Hell, even being a vile far left peace of shit is not being a beta male. These men are making things personal and attacking other men's very gender identity as a man by making it seem like their identity is warped or defective because of their views. To them alpha, beta and omega are not just different classifications for places in the social hierarchy they are the differences between being able to speak as a man or not.

Alpha males are not just men with specific traits which have a human constructed label placed on them based on the behavior of animals of certain kinds. To them Alphas are the only real men the only men that are not deformed and even disordered in their thinking. That Betas are the programmed and surfs of the left and or downright evil depending on the person if you have a penis. That Omegas are useless, a genetic dead end and so you should just go kill yourself. Oh, and dare not be a cuck which is not even reserved for an actual cuck as in participating in cuckholding an actual fetish some men and women have.

This is downright disgraceful and shows how little labels and their definitions actually mean to so many people and especially in certain places online. Someone not being an Alpha Male does not equal being evil, bad, wrong or disordered as a man. So, no one should be calling people with bad ideas these names. Further more it helps to push a narrative that dehumanizes men that do not fit into certain labels and definitions. It pushes the idea that men, and maleness is not simply being biologically male, but, requires more. It paints a picture that breaks up into groups that can be harmed because after all they are not human they are not men.

Dehumanization of men is already pushed by the far left progressive authoritarian groups and a great deal of the mainstream. One does not want that to continue even more into some groups of men that are human and some that are not. Just because someone disagrees does not make them evil that has its own definition. Some of the men called these names might actually be evil,  but, if they are it is their ideas that are evil. They could be adopting these ideas out of ignorance and be perfectly fine people that just need to learn the truth. However, even if they were in fact evil in their politics does not mean you are justified in dehumanizing them and basing that on their status as a true man.

You do not need to be an "Alpha" to be a real man. You do not need to be a high status male to be worth value. You have value where you are doing whatever productive work you are engaging in by virtue of producing value in the world through your production in it. Going even further a homeless man with no job and no friends whom requires help through voluntary charity to get on his feet is still a man of possible immense value. All humans that are not truly evil and even those whom are evil by ignorance have the possibility of great value in the future. A man whom seems to have no skills at all can still and often will find something that they can outright master that thing which brings joy to as the old saying goes their very soul. Men do not need to be at the top to be worth your respect.

If you find men espousing evil ideas do not attack their humanity or their manhood. Attack the fact they hold evil ideas and find out why they hold those ideas. They maybe misinformed and ignorant a kind talk might just set them on the correct path no need to dehumanize and treat them unjustly. However, if you do inform them the truth and they do not want to the right thing than you can call them truly evil. Yet, this does not mean they lack being human and that does not mean that if they are not threatening to initiate harm to others or their property there is no right to be lower case evil. There definitely is such a right it is called freedom of conscious and as long as they are evil in peace even this level of person does not deserve to be dehumanized. Call them evil and not less than a man. There are plenty "real men" that have been in favor of evil and vile ideologies in this world.

Individuals that are betas, omegas and cucks do not deserve to be tarred with the brush of all being evil and vile people by associating them with people that hold bed or downright evil ideas. Being into cuckholding is not necessarily evil you need to know the motivation behind living the lifestyle. Being somewhere other than the cock of walk at the top does not make you less of a man. Being not good with women or other men if you like them as well does not make you less than a man. Being someone that does not fit into some specific place in some label does not make you less of a man. It definitely is not the equivalent of being evil and to think you have anyway of taking others man cards because of differences between you and that individual man is thinking you can play God. Essentially you are no better than the SJW's that want to take away men's man cards for not being in lockstep with Feminists

Mystery Method Madness on VH1, pseudo-confidence and the Pick Up Conception of the Alpha Male.

Last night I watched a major trainwreck of a reality show called "The Pick Up Artist." A reality show on The Mystery Method of Pick up and the training of several men bad with women into master PUA's. They essentially took several men and trained them in techniques used within The Mystery Method. It consisted of people ranging from the overly single to no less than 3 men mistaken to be gay by women. It also consisted of a virgin as well and two people that wanted to find the love of their life not just hook up. These men I bet had no idea what they were in for when they signed up to be on the show though.

The first thing they do on the show is have them walk into a club to try and chat up women. Within 10 minutes of arriving to the show not ready at all for a night on the town the men are thrown to the fire. They are monitored via cameras setup in the club by Mystery and his wing people which changed from Season 1 to Season 2. The men are critiqued on everything from the way they walk into the bar to the way they stand. As well as their willingness to as they call it "use an opener and get into a set." The men with the worst criticism are those men whom do not try to approach women. The men whom are too scared to open a conversation with a woman are "average everyday chumps."

In one case one very shy man decided to dip his toe into the anxiety ridden waters of clubbing by chatting up some bros first. To this Mystery questions if they are sharing the same "kind of targets." Thus insinuating that said man is gay or bisexual, so, looking for other men for sets not women. Oh, women "in a set" are called Mysteries "targets." Even though approaching women and getting laid is not in anyway predatory the wording used throughout the show at times is quite unnerving. It is clear that it is because Mystery has a system and uses it. So, for him picking up women is simply using his system to achieve his goals. It is in fact a system that does indeed work as is shown throughout the process of training these men.

However, just because something works does not mean you should use it. Yes, the Mystery Method does work on at least a certain number of women. Yes, it does contain some parts within it that are not themselves bad or wrong, or anything. However, the good is covered in a lot of shit. Body language for sure can be very important. Yes, touching absolutely when appropriate can help escalate the mundane to the sensual for sure. Yes, tone and way of speaking can change someones impression of you. Yet, the first thing they do is to begin a process of complete change for these men. Starting with creating an Avatar almost like a new identity via switching how they dress. Some of the men even change their names.

From here things are beginning to ramp up for the men as they are introduced to opening, displaying higher value and getting into "a set." The first thing one notices is a stack of papers like 15 pages thick dropped in their lap. A first look at how literally systematic the method Mystery uses is. To the point of having written out what openings that can be used that work. Written down also are examples of dropping as they call it displays of higher value in a short time and the art of stacking. This leads to 5 minutes of the show with a condensed version of all the men literally memorizing all aspects of the 15 papers. Which includes reading back every single line to themselves like practicing to put on a play or a movie shoot. The audience already knows what these women will hear line for line and word for word before the approach happens.

This becomes what the audience will see every episode as the men are treated to lesson after lesson. Which they memorize like homework and are expected to play out and use with every single experience with the women they meet. So, it comes time for the Field Test as the men are going to be driven to the club for trying out their new techniques. Sure enough in they go and slowly they approach women. They begin saying the same words we have heard in the memorization faze. Mystery and his wing people watch from a van outside and critique them. However, not everyone is happy with canned lines and dropping hints of higher value that are predetermined by Mystery and the show.

Several of the men do not use the material given to them and wing it. Mystery and his people are not happy when their material is not used. They get quite agitated to see the men say what they want and not just regurgitating lines. They really get upset with men that use their own jokes or whom do not touch when they think they should. You should have rubbed her arm there, you should have kissed her there and so on. If a man gets a woman alone, but, does not escalate his desire to get a woman is questioned. Or if they decide to keep being around a woman's friends as opposed to spending time alone that too is frowned upon. Oh and too much in the comfort faze means they are just friends now.

If a man talks to a woman, has an amazing interaction, but, does not get a kiss, make-out or sexual vibes of some kind it is considered a failure to complete a challenge. Why? I guess in the minds of Mystery and his people a great and amazingly positive night of conversation without ending up all over each other is a waste of their time. So what if these men could not even talk to women without literally shitting themselves inside and now can talk up a storm and women do not scare them. Who cares that they kissed their hand or forehand, but, just not their lips and even got their number to contact them out of the interaction.

These men now have confidence and a feeling of being more than enough which is all they needed to have instruction in. They did not need instructions on how to tell compliance or escalation of Kenostetics. Although there is nothing wrong with knowing when to tell that a woman is showing indicators of interest it is clear Mystery only wants it done within his own system with its own goals. One does not need to go through all the shit infested in the half decent stuff here to be good with women. Knowing if someone is showing interest is not something that needs to be infested with Mysteries talk of "targets." The last thing that any man should have on his mind is anyone being a "target." That does not mean just women... any other individual should never be a "target."

As the series goes on occasionally the term "Alpha" shows up in things like the body language section of the show. Mystery will comment on the men sitting in an Alpha style or standing in an Alpha style. Also, there is somewhat talk here and there of taking control of the situation. The term Alpha Male in its entirety is not used all that often which was a surprise. Normally Pick Up types will use terms like Alpha Male quite a lot, and, so, it was interesting to see only certain traits called Alpha and not the man himself. It is surprisingly lax of use of the word which was a break away.

Yet, the confidence that is newly found is it really confidence at all? If these men needed to be made over to feel self-esteem and confidence did they really gain any? Every night they go out in the same Avatar outfit and eventually use the same or similar lines and get the same results. Is that really confidence? What if the lines blew? What if the woman knows all the lines? What if they had to walk into the club in their old clothes and were told to meet women? Could these men do that be whom they were and approach women? We will never know because they were in their Avatar persona every time expect one that they met women. So, is it confidence or a mask that they are comfortable acting through like acting out a part in their favorite play?

The Pick-Up conception of confidence and Alpha Males when they come up as well are often times shallow and based on a fake it till you make it sort of theme. The problem is that fake it till you make it was never intended as a psychological trick to erase your own self and replace it with a fake facade. Even in the broadest terms fake it till you make it would mean faking confidently being really you and showing up powerfully. Showing up as yourself and not going out for an entire new wardrobe to mask your insecurities with a veneer of ladies man. This is I fear a trap a lot of Pick Up men fall into and it is not healthy at all.

While by the end of the series some of these men seem to be better off we do not really know if they are as we never have any follow ups. They might have crashed and became socially anxious the moment they did not have a script and some nice clothes to wear. Mystery does teach these and other men some important skills and traits within his method. However, it is so top heavy with being fake and disingenuous. It is so filled with its own coded language that has no relevance to the real world. No one goes out "looking for sets." They go out look to socialize to have fun and hopefully for us that are into women a woman that clicks with you. I do not go out looking for "targets." Most men do not go out looking for "targets."

In fact, if I heard any man using the term "target" for anyone I was with regardless of sex I would tell them to get the fuck away from them. This is not some White Knighting; poor women being called targets by the big bad Pick Up artists. This is a genuine no one should be your "target." I would not care if women said the same thing about men I am not a woman's target either. In the end Pick Up Artistry contains a hint of OK truths, but, it is packed upon a mountain of bile that reaches the sky. I would not recommend Pick Up Artist training as a way to gain confidence. It definitely will not teach you long term "Alpha" to use a phrase traits either. It will only paint a fake coat of paint on you to make you look like something or someone you are not.

Do not let your fire go out.... The world you desire can be won..it's yours!

Ayn Rand was like an SS Officer and fuck her morals do not matter?

Tonight I happened to mention that in Penn & Teller's episode on overblown self-esteem they lambasted Nathaniel Brandon and his work on self-esteem. The response to my explaining that Nathaniel Brandon was Ayn Rand's ex-lover and P&T might be from an unconscious place bashing him due to cheating on her with his much younger cheating partner was astounding. Instead of saying Nathaniel Brandon should not have cheated on Ayn and it was being very vile as a person even if he disagreed with Objectivism he answered in a very curious way. He said she was like an SS officer and anyone that hurt her was a good thing.

There could not be a more less than accurate thing to say about Ms. Rand and this comes from someone whom has spent several articles pointing out my disagreements with her. Did she at times have a very flawed character? Yes, she does. Did she overreact to disagreements and did she build a sort of cult of personality around herself at various times of her life? Yes, she did and I would not argue she did not do so. Did she keep a tight ship of her inner circle? Absolutely, but, she was nothing like the level of evil that it takes to be an SS officer or the equivalent of one.

She had control freak tendencies, but, she was not evil. I would never call Ms. Rand evil in anyway. She was a human just like I am and just like you reading this is. We all have our Angels of our better nature and our darker nature that is what makes up the totality of human nature. Nor was what Nathaniel Brandon did to her right or just in anyway. Cheating on someone whom looks up to you as literally an intellectual heir is not correct, just, right and not moral. It is the evil and the more vile thing to do. Does it excuse the way Ayn controlled people's lives? No, but, it is the more vile and truly evil act in the melodrama of Rand's life. Rand had moments of vile that lasted temporarily, but, the evil in Brandon's actions cannot be downplayed.

Yet, because it was Ayn Rand this co-worker did not care about the actions of cheating as long as it hurt her. Anyone that hurt Ayn was good he said in literally those words. Well, that is horrible and vile in itself. To think that morals are so subjective that just because you do not agree with the way someone else lived their life you wish for them to be hurt is malevolent beyond compare. I bet he has done somethings in his life that people look at from the outside might think was not handled correctly. I bet he has sometimes had moments of listening to his darker side. Should he be hurt because he has done things others would disagree with? Or maybe not always treated everyone like gold?

Ayn was a walking 5th ape just like you and just like me. She was no goddess and never was meant to be one. She would never have wanted anyone to think she was anything, but, human. Ms. Rand was not perfect, but, no one is perfect. We are all animals and capable of great good or great vile or even the evil likes of cheating that Brandon did. We are animals walking around on a Little Blue Spot and we are not above our animalistic possibilities even as we do our best to live according to our higher cognitive features and not our instincts. I bet that there is a corner that someone could back my co worker into that would make him lash out like a maniac. That is part of being human, part of being an evolved animal and just nature.

This was once again a showing of how blind the cultural hatred for Objectivism and Ms. Rand is. So much hate that it does not matter what happened to her it was OK because it was her. Again, she had some big character flaws and I have talked about them myself. I do not agree with the cult like atmosphere of her inner circle as a result of things like the Brandon affair. However, to argue that she should be intentionally hurt or even unintentionally hurt and that is good is just pure unbridled negativity for the sake of hating an abstraction. It is the Two-Minutes Hate of our culture and it is despicable.

If Ms. Rand were alive I would not worship her like a goddess nor would I loath her like she was garbage under my feet. I would express my disagreements with her and also give her thanks for finding Objectivism. I would tell her where I stood on her whole Cult inner circle from her past, but, also offer my hand in friendship. I would tell her she was wrong when she was and tell her she was right when she was as well. I would live in the present and not the past. I would accept she like I am just a highly evolved 5th ape and we all make mistakes. I would forgive her hoping she learned from her past, but, be ever vigilant for signs of cultish behavior beginning again.

In other words I would show the benevolence and empathy for my fellow human that her own haters claim her very philosophy preaches against. To err as they say is human and I am sorry if you are so steeped in hate you forget to notice that is exactly what she was.. human just like you.

Methodological Individualism is the answer!

Objectivism is it a closed or open system? Case Closed

I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?

No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.

It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.

Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.

Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.

To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;

 The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.

Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.

I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.

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. 

Objectivism VS Libertarianism or Objectivism & Libertarianism?

There has long been a turf war on The Right between the right-libertarians and Objectivism. When I state the term The Right I mean those views whom support government limited to the protection of an individuals human rights. Those whom want a moral and practical government that sticks to the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is going to be some that will disagree with this definition and say neither Objectivism nor libertarians are on the Right. For those that prefer using a Nolan Chart both views would be North Wing.

The intellectual turf war was long in the making beginning when Ayn Rand herself trashed The Libertarian Party in the US and the broader movement based on said party embracing Anarcho-Capitalism. Ayn Rand felt that libertarians stole her non-initiation of coercion principle, robbed it of its foundations leaving it a floating abstraction without reason for existing and then called it their own "axiom." For those unaware an axiom is something that is self-evident and does not require an underlying reasoning behind it. However, the non-initiation of coercion or force requires legs to stand it is an end and not a beginning.

This floating way of using NAP is what makes Libertarians embrace anarcho-capitalism which is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is the social system in which initiation of coercion/force/harm to others and their property is barred via an Objectively defined rule of law. It is a world in which force is limited under Objectively defined hands to being used only in retaliation. It is a world that cannot coexist with a market bases for laws and force. As a proper and free market cannot exist if there is no stability of rules and no monopoly on force in objective and reasonable hands. You cannot trade without a rule of law and Objectively defined rules against harming others and their property.

There can be no Capitalism with anarchism as well due to human nature. Human nature is very hierarchical and anarchism makes the assumption that freed of a State humans would not naturally find the equivalent within a state of nature. Humans will always naturally produce a form of government over time and it is inevitable due to evolutionary-psychology being highly tribal. This government will then need to be fought to be limited and ones tribal side will need to be counterbalanced by a thoroughgoing use of reason and embracing of individualism or else it leads to collectivism.

Libertarians often have a view that ex-nihlo NAP comes out of nothing and that it is all that is required for a political view to exist. This is where Objectivism and Libertarianism diverge strongly and the infighting on the "freedom" Right or North Wing begin. In order to get to non-initiation of coercion of force to exist it must come out of broader philosophy to make any sense. You need an epistemological and metaphysical reason why force or coercion is evil is wrong and should not be done. Without a broader framework which includes a reality based moral code there is no reason to be in favor of NIFP, NAP, or ZAP. Why should the State not initiate force? You need to say why and it needs to be based in reality. Thus the important of starting at epistemology and metaphysics the two bases of our knowledge of existence and nature itself.

By leaving this part out the broader libertarian movement opens itself up to contradictions that can be used to claim next to anything is libertarian. Not only anarcho-capitalism, but, even so-called left-libertarians and so-called voluntary socialists or mutualists. There is no concrete libertarian from non-libertarian and the movement has been unfortunately infested with people claiming to support things such as anti-capitalism free (d) markets. Which is a contradiction in terms and when questioned they tend to be against the very foundations of private property the free market requires to exist. These folks are essentially the heirs of Benjamin Tucker classic Socialism and have no place in any movement that is supposed to be for defending the social system of Free Market Capitalism.

However, due to libertarianisms incoherence these people go uncalled out within even the Libertarian Parties themselves. Yet, there are those that are both Libertarians in the Capital L sense and also Objectivists. Is this a contradiction in terms? Is this people getting in with the wrong crowd? I do not think so because what I think will revive the proper foundations for a Libertarian Party will be more Objectivism-friendly Libertarians. Also, Objectivism does not own the primacy of existence and the need for a broader philosophy for liberty. It is simply (in my opinion and I admit my bias here) the most coherent way of integrating the desperate philosophical frameworks into a proper concrete form of moral philosophy for liberty.

However, you can have an integrated framework that is not Objectivist, but, still is based on reality being primary and the various virtues found in Objectivism as well. For example; one could base everything on reality, use reason as a means of acquiring knowledge and end up rejecting the virtue of selfishness due to thinking it means rejecting empathy and benevolence towards others. Of course, this would be incorrect and assuming an untruthful packaged deal. However, as long as they are not saying to sacrifice others pursuit of their happiness for the sake of the collective it is still not an immoral framework to live by. It simply misunderstands the nature of enlightened and rational egoism.

If this is what a particular Libertarian calls for at a broader philosophical level there is no contradiction in the terms. One could be both a Libertarian and be an ally of the fundamentals espoused by Objectivism. Going even further if one is an Objectivist and in the Libertarian Party to enact politically the political/economical framework of Objectivism there is no contradiction at all. In this case one would be essentially an Objectivist-Libertarian and be both politically Libertarian and Objectivist due to party affiliation. Further more Objectivism is not the whole of philosophy moral or otherwise. It is part of all great and true philosophy which includes much outside of Objectivism as well as within.

Objectivism does not hold a monopoly on good ideas nor does it have a monopoly on the virtues within itself. There are other philosophies which do hold to the primacy of reality, reason and proper self-esteem. Objectivism is not a religion or an insular dogma that Objectivists must evangelize all of the World into accepting or else the world is doomed to hell. Objectivism is not a cult which requires that the world become converted to its worldview and rejects all those whom are not within its boundaries of thought. Even if some prominent Objectivists have acted like it is at times and became the very dogmatic, religious minded and insular cultist individuals they rail against. Objectivism is not the problem certain Objectivists and their misunderstandings of the philosophy is the problem.

When you meet a Libertarian ask them why they support Libertarian Parties and what their principles are. Why they have those principles and get down to the legs that stand up the need for barring coercion/harm of others and their property/initiation of force/fraud. If they are basing it on reason, the facts of reality, basing it on requirements for living on Earth applaud them and they should get your support. Even if they come to some different conclusions from Objectivism they are living in reality and using reason as their guide. They are living in the primacy of existence they are living the virtues without the label even if they do not accept Objectivism as such. The most important thing of all before Objectivism even comes into play is living in reality and being guided by the facts.

This means when you meet a Libertarian living in reality, guided by the facts and with a properly functioning secular-humanist moral code these people are your allies even if they vehemently disregard Objectivism. People whom are Objectivists need to realize there is more philosophy out their than just Rand's and even if she is right does not mean other philosophies are evil or your enemy. I agree that Objectivism does match the facts of reality and that is why I am still one. However, again it is only one part of a greater whole which is all good and true philosophy out there based on reason and truth being the guide. You cannot tell if someone will be a good person or vile based only on being an Objectivist or not.

In the same vein you cannot tell if a Libertarian will be a nihilistic anarchist or a reason based limited government advocate based on the label alone. You cannot tell if they will understand existence exists and reality is based on reason or if they will be a subjectivist simply based on their party affiliation or label alone. Anymore than you can tell if someone will have accepted the reality of evolutionary-psychology or not just because they are an Objectivist. Or if they have Rand's view of homosexual activity as being disgusting or not based on being an Objectivist. One needs to know the individual Libertarian or Objectivist to know if they are in fact living in reality and not rationalizing their "beliefs" using the lenses of either viewpoint. Individualism is the answer to all this infighting.

First and foremost the "freedom" Right or the North Wing needs to remember they are methodological individualists and to not collectivize "Objectivists" nor "Libertarians." There are disgusting, vile horrible human beings that are both of these things and also neither of these things.
I would argue that Objectivists that are rightfully worried about the state of libertarianism need to infuse libertarianism with reality being real, with reason as a guide to life and defense of Capitalism "Only Capitalism," with all its features that leftie libertarians do not like. Objectivists should defend a Rightest-Libertarianism based on Classical Liberal limited government lassiez-faire Capitalist principles. It should point out the contradictions in any leftist supporting or sympathizing libertarianism.

The Objectivist whom is a Libertarian needs to make sure that Capitalism and Limited Government are the bulwarks of the broader libertarian movement. One needs to make sure one does not mistake the Right-Libertarian Limited Government pro-Capitalist stance for an anarchist chaos of no rules and of stateless markets of law. In other words it is the prevalence of anarchists in the Libertarian Parties that Objectivists and non-Objecitivsts or even anti-Objectivists alike need to ally together to keep to the sidelines of the movement. One should be as fervent in denouncing anarchist libertarians  as denouncing the dogmatic type of Objectivist whom would never work with a Non-Objectivist on anything in this world.

In conclusion far from distancing ones self from Libertarianism an Objectivist should be making sure the movement and parties stick to proper philosophy and principles. Objectivism and other reality, reason and fact based philosophies need to be shown as being the foundations for the parties and broader movement. We need to get rid of the anarchists that will bring stateless chaos and instead ground Libertarianism itself in a love for reality, truth and the virtue of pursuing ones own rational happiness. Whether Libertarians ever embrace the term selfishness or even come to this same conclusion is in the long run irrelevant. What is relevant is that The Right and The North (depending on your political landscape) become interchanged for meaning reason guided limited government advocates based in the facts of reality and the free market. The principles matter above all else.

Objectivism VS The many vile and nasty Objectivists

Recently I read Jennifer Burns work writing on Ayn Rand and her life from her website. I never read her entire book about Ms. Rand, but, I did hear some speeches. She has a PDF on her website all about her time looking at the Ayn Rand Archives. As well as going into some details at times of Ms. Rand's life. I found the PDF very information and interesting. As well as eye-opening in a lot of ways and it made me be faced with some harsh truths about Ayn Rand the woman.

Some people treat Ayn Rand as some sort of Goddess of the Market (the name of Jennifer Burns autobiography of Rand). They want her to be the perfect woman and to never had a dark, a vile and horrible side. To always have done everything right and they need their history to fit this view of Ayn VS the reality. She was as human as you or more and was capable of just as much bile as any other human on this Earth.

Some do not like this or did not like this at all. For some time the Ayn Rand Archives was selectively putting together s very rose filled view of Ayn and her person. Jennifer Burns writes in her PDF about the archive not including parts of her past that showed her nastier and in group/out group propensity. She was in actuality someone that was very picky about her inner circle. To the point of being very nasty about needing people to pick being in her good graces or their own Husbands, Wives and others in their life.

You had to be a particular type of person to be allowed into her inner circle group which she ironically and intentionally so called, "the collective." You had to be correct in your thinking and she ostracized people based on things as simple as liking the wrong movie, novel or art. Sometimes it was about loving the wrong person. As in when Murray Rothbard got ostracized due to his not "dealing" with his wife being Jewish. This is what caused Murray Rothbard to later write about the Ayn Rand Cult in his letters.

In the end Ayn Rand ended up dying alone and is what in part due to her nature of excluding people from her life based on their lack of embracing her philosophy. In the end she died being a died in the wool dogmatist. Unfortunately some Objectivists have continued to follow her lead not in philosophy, but, in life. They are very vile and nasty to anyone that is the least bit different from them. They are snarky horrible folks. They make Objectivism a dogmatic thing akin to a religion which everyone needs to live life by or off to isolation hell with you. They call non-Objectivist names and still ostracize over crazy things like movies and art.

It took till 2011 for the Ayn Rand Institute to do any talks at the Foundation for Economic Education despite both organizations being Capitalist and Freedom Think Tanks. This was due to the long held hostility between Objectivists and Libertarianism. Which was another one of those long standing feuds and no-nos due to following Rand VS following Objectivism persay. As Ayn Rand hated the libertarians she felt they stole all her best ideas and removed all the context needed to support the end destination. I would actually agree as someone whom has been both a libertarian and an Objectivist that libertarian philosophy does lack coherence, but, that is not a reason to ostracize them.

Ayn Rand was not a Goddess and she was not perfect. It is wrong to think she was anything other than just a woman. A woman that discovered and essentialized an absolutely coherent philosophy based on reality being the arbiter of all things. A philosophy which is the most concrete and full defense of the free and good/civilized society. A woman that discovered the modern day continuation of classical liberal and Aristotelian principles for living on Earth. However, she was just a flesh and blood woman. Capable of both great good and also very much vile insanity at other times. Objectivism is the name of the philosophy and not Randianism. It is not about her! It never was about her!

Yes, you will find many, many (too many for my liking) Objectivists in this world which will be nasty, intolerable, hateful and pro-stratification.They will be all about anyone not loving Rand being evil bastards that want to smear the Goddesses good name. However, these people are not evidence that Objectivism is in anyway wrong or itself an evil philosophy. You need to separate Objectivism VS Objectivists. Objectivists and especially those whom misread and misunderstand what Objectivism actually is will often indeed come off as dogmatic and isolating. They will miss out entirely on benevolence being a corollary of justice and become jerks to other people. They will use Objectivism as an excuse for being a negative and insidious person. Objectivism is not vile, but, Objectivists can be.

It would be a mistake to throw Objectivism under the bus due to knowing the wrong Objectivists whom are douches to the outside world. It would be horribly misguided to throw Objectivism under the bus because Ayn Rand was far from an angel and just human. Much like one would be misguided to throw Aristotelian Enlightenment values out due to the actual vile things done to young boys in his day and he more than likely engaged in himself. At the end of the day we are all only upright walking 5th apes and capable of the same nastiness as any other apes in the right circumstances. One cannot expect Objectivism to be able to remove our human natures that would be truly Utopian.

The Good, The Bad and the Downright Ugly from "The New Libertarian."

Recently a big controversy was spurned on within the broader liberty movement by a speech done by Jeff Deist the most recent President of The Ludwig Van Mises Institute in the US. It was entitled, "For The New Libertarian." It was an incredibly long speech coming in at a total of about 40 minutes.  It covered many topics, but, some at more length than others. Why was it so controversial? Two words, "blood and soil."

The speech ended in the following line;

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

One might wonder why such a line at the end of a speech would cause such fuss and it is a good question. I am sure most people would see this line and not think anything of it. However, those whom know their history were quick to come to the forefront with the origin of the words blood and soil. You see the term goes back a long time to Germany right before the rise of The Third Reich and the Nazis.

Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden) is a slogan expressing the nineteenth-century German idealization of a racially defined national body ("blood") united with a settlement area ("soil"). By it, rural and farm life forms are not only idealized as a counterweight to urban ones, but are also combined with racist and anti-Semitic ideas of a sedentary Germanic-Nordic peasantry as opposed to (specifically Jewish) nomadism. The contemporary German concept Lebensraum, the belief that the German people needed to reclaim historically German areas of Eastern Europe into which they could expand, is tied to it.

"Blood and soil" was a key slogan of Nazi ideology. The nationalist ideology of Artamanen and the writings of Walther Darré guided Nazi agricultural policies which were later adopted by Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Baldur von Schirach.

This has lead many libertarians to jump on Jeff Deist calling him out as being either Nazi or dog-whistling to Nazis that they have a home aligned with the libertarian movement. In addition to the massively unnerving ending I saw something else which was just as eerie and also just as dangerous. That was a call to replace a Constitutional Representative Republic called the United States of America with a new America based on decentralized and secession built around "family, God, society." So, instead of a limited government with a separation of Church and State the society itself becomes consumed by family and God. There is a word for this sort of society it is called a Theocratic Wet Dream.

In truth it was a call to several vile ideas. It was a call to ditch anything coming in between the Church brainwashing everyone and or coercing those whom are not. On top of that much was made about tribes and clans. About extended families and extended kinship. Not as to extend the kin to others, but, whom would you be willing to fight for. A call to barbarism and a return to us going back into clans and tribes. That it are these tribes that stop people from doing immoral things as these clans represent civil society and civilization not a bunch of individuals co-operating. That it is either get with a "voluntary" tribe or you have Statism and oppression.

What might you ask of those whom do not want a tribe? Those whom want to just be individualized human beings co-operating with other individuals in a free market alone or in groups, but, with the individual being primary? Well, that kind of person is vile a moral nihilist, not libertarian. According to Jeff Deist a free society will in fact cause the world to be less libertine and not more. His future sees a world where cultural conservatism thrives because "libertine" is a outgrowth of the state breaking up things like the family and faith. That "they" want you to think of yourself as an individual without a tribe.

Whom is "they?" The Evil ones, the ones that want a World Supra-national State and the ones that are Pro-Globalism. The Globalists that believe in those horrid Free-Trade Deals and whom are supposedly conspiring towards a Global Central Bank which was kick-started by the creation of the IMF. The EU, NATO, NGO's all with the same One World Agenda. They want you to feel like you do not have a tribe, they want to remove Faith from humanity and they want us to not see pride for those especially in the same clan or tribe. "They" want this and that according to the speech. "They" want us to be pushed towards sexual expression and the list goes on.

"So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy that is not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc."

OK, I am no fan of how Welfare has taken a toll on families myself. Nor, do I agree with tax codes or welfare being used as wedges which they are often these days. Hell, I am not even against large families if that is what two people consent to take part in. However, the idea that there is some over-arching Globalist "Illuminati" or "protocols of Zion" level conspiracy that is making the world less culturally conservative is insane and beyond words. The idea that if you got rid of the State or State intervention the world would be mainly conservative is as silly as a a culturally liberal or libertine person saying it would be come majority their lifestyle. Blaming the lack of your personal values in the world on like an Empire Style Jedi Mind Trick on the masses by the Globalists is beyond retarded.

From here he goes on to increasingly more and more talk about self-determination, and secession being the main goals of the libertarian movement. With smaller and more local being better. With also taking nodes to working with those we have most in common with and creating a clan or tribe with those most like us. That we are closest to this group over some other group. He also asserts that politics is not universal and one should not care that gays get killed in Saudi Arabia and so forth. That universalism is a siren song of Globalists. That in fact universalism is an affront to nature and to natural rights itself.

He finishes off by telling the listener to think about what they would think was worth fighting for. No, he does not mean metaphorically. He means really fight with actual violence and talks about once again your kin, your family, your community, your religion, and also includes the nation. He finishes off this bluster about fighting for your people with the quote I mentioned earlier. However, it is not all horrid and vile. There is one section that contains an insight most libertarians do not want to confront often.

He does mention that we do have human nature and that libertarian institutions need to take this into account. He actually talks about the fact in various other words we are animals and this ironically is the best defense for the limited government style of libertarian thought which Jeff himself loves to hate on. He is a complete anarchist and thus his hate for all things United States and his love for secession. For his hatred of the separation of Church and State as well. He protests the idea that some libertarians have that simply instituting libertarianism will make Non-Coercion man qua man's tendency. I entirely agree, but, it is man's not adhering to said principle so often that makes it so important to uphold Objective rules of law and individual rights. Thus why a limited representative government is required.

The one decent section of his speech actually disqualifies his own notion of a free society being Stateless and based on something other than government. Which means anything else he says passed it by his own logic is a delusional utopia, or as I see it dystopia of the worst order. He also is obsessed with size of the government due to his anarchism over what it is doing. Is it protecting rights? Or invading them? If it is protecting rights than it is a moral government. Not only that, but, secession does not equal non-aggression either. Secession was the siren call of those whom wanted to keep Slavery legal.

When it comes to Jeff Deist and his ideas that he likes to call so-called libertarianism. Well, there is a small, small sliver of admitting to human nature which is the good. However, the rest of his views are running from the bad to downright nightmarish. Is he a Nazi though? He never really said anything about the Jews and he never said anything about White power or anything. However, he did rally up the fire for a tribe like us, a community like us and a clan of those most like us. He never mentioned they had to be the same color or even the same religion. He did make needing a religion pretty present though and sure does not like the idea of individualism at all.

I think Nazi is actually too kind of a word as it is only stating one form of what this really is. A return to tribal, barbarism surrounded by any key component. It is nothing, but, pure collectivism of the worst kind. The kind wrapped up in a so called freedom bow. The call goes out to everyone to form collectives and defend them with violence if needed. To consider themselves Sovereign over their own land and to seceded in their minds from any USA even existing. To form as he calls it a Nation of Consent among tribes all over the World. To fight those whom are willing to break up said tribes. To breed at a high rate within said tribes and to overpopulate those outside of your tribe. Including overpopulating all the non-libertarian tribes. All those evil Statists that believe the Government is real and has authority.

This is the talk of someone that can spread very, very dangerous views, but, the majority of people can see them for the crazy they really are and just like me denounce them for the scum they are.

https://mises.org/wire/new-libertarian