I am Not A Feminist nor am I a chauvinist

This Month is the beginning of Pride Months and I am Proud as well.

The month of June will launch the LGBT Pride Months throughout many places in the Western World. It will be a celebration for many and the parades/dances will be ongoing in many places. This is the celebration of not needing to hide being abnormal or atypical for fear of being hurt by others. However, I too am proud of my own story and my own character as well. It is not just LGBT people that get to be proud of themselves and their being a good person despite misconceptions about their orientation. I think it is time that it is acknowledged that straight does not equal narrow minded and does not equal being homophobic. I think it is time that Straight allies be allowed to celebrate their pride as well in whom they are. 

For this reason I am including some Straight Pride symbols in the side bar for the Summer Months. As a showing of my own pride at being a good man that is into women. This should not be mistaken for the Family Pride Flags used in places like Russia to denounce gays. This is purely about self-interested self-esteem and acknowledgement of my worth as a man still living on this Earth. This is absolutely a rationally selfish endeavor that I am going to fly my Pride on the side of my site all Summer long. Happy Straight (Ally) Pride Fuck Yeah all!       

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...

The "Gender Benders" are mistaking matters of personality as a matter of Gender Identity.

There is a lot of people around these days whom will use terms like "Gender Expressions" and attribute any number of personality or tendency to expressing an opposite sex or gender. It seems that specific traits of individuals are being called somehow opposite sex or gendered expressions simply if individual men or women have different tendencies within them towards one thing or another. Despite your biological sex or gender being not something that you either stop or start expressing simply for example on whether you wear a bright pink shirt or wear a black punk T-shirt. 

If you are a man there is nothing you can in existence be expressing "as" because you are a man expressing whatever it is you are expressing. If you are a woman once again you are not expressing like a man simply for being into Sports or being a Tomboy as that is impossible you are a biological female which is what a woman is. Women having tendencies that might be atypical does not equate with expressing a different gender or sex or having any issues at all with their biological essentials. If a man enjoys musicals or something like that it is not expressing womanliness as that is impossible unless you are on a stage intentionally performing as a Drag Queen. 

It would be more appropriate to call these things temperament or personality expressions than "Gender Expressions." This does not mean masculine or feminine are not real concepts either. However, to extrapolate from this to the expression being related to male/female is completely unwarranted. A man that is more on the fem side does not all of a sudden lose all of his ability to be manly just because he is feminine. He is a man, so, anything he expresses with confidence and conviction is a manly essence. He does not lose his maleness and thus lose his man card because he is "expressing a different gender." Similarly, a woman does not lose her femaleness and woman card for being a Tomboy and/or an athlete. 

A male is a man and a female is a woman; bearing in mind they are not suffering from Gender Identity issues there is no reason to consider otherwise. Gender Bender ties associate their personal temperament differences as signs of non-existing entities like some 3rd or 4th sex trapped in the body of sex #1 or #2. Similarly, one does not want to begin to confuse young children that any individual expressions are signs they are not the sex they were born as. The truth is that biological male or female, outside of serious disorders of sexual development in the womb like Intersex for example, is all that exists in our nature as a species. You are what you were born as and the fact that like 0.03%  of population has Dysphoria of gender does not mean there is more than the two biological human animals in existence in actuality. Nor does it mean that one can "express" the opposite in some way simply based on certain individual traits. 

Michael J. Bailey and the Gender Fucked up model of bisexual/homosexual behavior among men

If we were to travel back in time to a more primitive place in time one can actually pinpoint one of the oldest ideas for the reason for men shagging other men. The idea was simple that all men that engage in same sex behavior do so because of a major gender fuck up in their brain. There is a reversal of the sexes if you will and this person is literally playing the woman as a means of survival within his sex life. He is a different almost 3rd Gender/Sex altogether made up of the constitutions not of mere men, but, of women covered up in a mans veneer. He looks like a man, but, inside he is essentially a woman's brain or a womanly brain with a mans body. The brain being basically female, but, the body being male. The mind is not like the body and from this comes non-heterosexual compulsion and identity.

This would seem to any sane person whom knows how biological sex is determined and then composed within a Mother's womb roll their eyes. Or at least to any person whom has read any sort of human biology textbook it would make them facepalm and maybe even hit their desk in rage. I can hear homosexual and bisexual fans of this blog screaming. "How dare so-called science say I am a basically acting out the symptoms of a disorder of sexual development by shagging another man!"
Well, if you think those days are gone I ask you to look at the so-called state of sexual sciences these days and you will find one of the leading so-called authorities on orientation and gender identity is in fact saying just that. In fact, anyone that endorses any of his work is saying just that and it is insanely unscientific.

The hypothesis of Michael J. Bailey for orientation is basically just that and it states that homosexual behavior in men is due to a reversal of the gender in the male homosexual brain. Or a reversal or fucked up error of sexual identity development due to Androgen's in the Mothers womb. That along with a never proven "Gay Gene" on a special form of a malformed Y chromosome which only gay males have given to them from their Father. Both combine to determine several things. One being that you will be born a cross-sexed child whom will grow up to the the most flaming gay around. The second being that you will be gay and are determined to be so. It is not only 100% true that every single stereotype of gay or even bisexual men is true. It is 100% because they are basically men with a fucked up sex inverted female brain. 

However, this is hitting a snag when brought into real life and it has never been shown nor duplicated using proper scientific method on a wide enough scale to prove at all scientifically significant. The truth is that most people with same sex behaviors are not even homosexual. The norm for humans is either exclusive heterosexuality or highly heterosexual with some either slightly or moderate levels homosexual/bisexual activities throughout the life time. This means that any sort of "genetics" or Womb Environment influences on homosexual activity is merely a predisposition to a possibility of homosexual/bisexual behavior not of removal of heterosexual possibility altogether. Unless of course this is only for the exclusive homosexual male. However, even if that were the case there is a serious error in this hypothesis that homosexuality or bisexual curiosity is an inherently feminine or sex reversed trait. 

Where does this leave all the non-stereotypical homosexual and bisexual men? It leaves them as erased and as not existing is where it leaves them with no science supporting they even exist within human male biology. It erases millennia of same sex behavior between very much stereotypical macho macho men like the great warriors of places like Rome and Greece. The history of human same sex behavior is as it is now one of bisexuality and a mix between heterosexual/homosexual behavior without any sort of erasure in the men of heterosexual procreative possibility. Most of them just like now went onto be in opposite sex couplings with their genes passed onto their own children. Most people with same sex behavior is in fact not homosexual, but, in the mostly heterosexual category. Most people even identifying openly as bisexual end up in mostly straight pairings as well, but, simply retain the bisexual identity label for themselves. As well, you would not know whom most these people would be just by looking at them from afar.

Let us move onto the exclusively homosexual male now and away from the majority of men all of whom enjoy the sexual company of the opposite sex. What can we know about such a person? Well, not that they are all sex or gender reversed at all. What about all the gay 6 packed policemen? The muscle bound gym bunnies? The bears? Or how about the existence of the Power Top that dominate their bottoms with a massive warrior passion that would make both Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele blush? The stereotype of homosexuality is just that a stereotype. Does it exist? Yes, for sure. However, Michael J. Bailey is biologically collectivizing all of the homosexual population as belonging to one very small subset of an already small subset of biological males that shag other men. Completely ignoring all of the others for the sake of claiming this is the primal cause of gayness in men.

How does Michael address this? With a very Social Justice Wonk idea of internalized femphobia. According to Michael the reason some non-stereotypes exist is due to them pretending to be more manly than they are when really they all want to be little Shirley Temples just bursting out in Tutus. The gym bunnies do not love working out because they really do. They do not want to get ripped because they love having muscles and definition. No, they only want to do it to hide they really want to give up the barbells for a Barbie Pink purse and high heels on Friday Nights. Anyone whom says they do not identify or feel womanly in the least or effeminate is told they are lying to themselves and the world. He does believe in Lipstick Lesbians though because he has gone on record stating that women are able to be sexually flexible and thus have a broader range of expression and identity to them.

It is really all tied back to an underlying belief of Michael's which is not even scientific nor factual. Which is that absolute hard determinism with no sense of free choice is the norm for human nature. That free will does not exist and the mind is impotent. That reason does not exist and that no one can be rational. That all thought is programmed life long by your genes and womb environment with no ability to choose anything including attending his lectures. He is an insane quack with 0 credentials prior to claiming to have found the "Gay Gene," which he did not , but, he gets lauded as doing even in mainstream news. He is not a scientists he is as much of a quack as Deepak Chopra or some New Age Guru. In fact, he is downright cult-like claiming no evidence could ever prove his views wrong and that his horribly disproved hypothesis is the theory in science for sexual orientation.

He was one of the loudest voices against The New Atlantis report on Sexuality and Gender Identity because all the sources other than his sheds doubt on the existence of a "Gay Gene." As well as showing that there is very little evidence that homosexuality is some sort of disorder of sexual development in the womb as his hypothesis paints it to be. It also said that 80-90% of all same sex acts occur between people women and men that are not homosexual, but, some level of heterosexual by the time longitudinal studies have followed the same individuals into their thirties. Which means that it is far from clear cut to be "deterministic" to be "born that way" for most people. Far from it, for it is only a part of their overall determination of sexual identity as they age. This does not mean none of it is nature, but, as the American Psychological Association has stated;

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Notice what they say above no "scientific" findings have emerged which permit one to say what actually determines homosexuals of the exclusive kind, or bisexuals that are life long two team players to emerge. With the recent flurry of evidence that most humans have some potential to commit acts without mental instability or in-congruence of heterosexual reproduction this actually shows the APA were right to not sign off on the "Gay Gene" theory. The truth is we have no scientific theory of exclusive gayness, or bisexuality or even why some mostly life long heterosexuals engaged for a time in homosexual experimentation or experience. We definitely do not have a Scientific theory that states gay men and lesbian women have the brains opposite from their bodies. 

This does not mean the hypothesis of people like NARTH or Exodus International of the Ex-gay movement have any legit basis nor backing of their origin of orientation ideas either. It means that the "Gay Gene" hypothesis and "gay Brain" hypothesis based on Gender or Sex inversion has not been backed or found to be true by any credible scientist anywhere. In fact, in a 2017 paper of homosexual, heterosexual and gender dysphoric brains the differences were so small between the heterosexual and homosexual brains studied that there could scarcely be considered a difference in their brains at all. Considering how blending in both groups tend to be when you remove the stereotype population this makes perfect sense. It also explains how so many people whom have had same sex behaviors in their past can change naturally over time without any in-congruence or mental anguish and come out the other side of the possible teams heterosexual.

The idea that gay, lesbian or even once bisexual now heterosexual is a matter of a reverse sexual psychology due to biological sex inversion harms the very people that use the idea as their defense for rights. For it says gays and lesbians are born genetically defective and they are of such a low value, such a fucked up genetic mess that their own Mother's find them to be parasitic and begin releasing Androgen's in levels depending on that fuck up. This is the literal Bailey idea. That boys with this gene make the Mom release an atypical and female brain creating level of Testosterone which makes their brain like women, but, their body/genitals male. Basically, all gay men have a Trans brain without the Dysphoria.

However, not a single look at homosexual and heterosexual male brains reveal a sex inverted brain let alone a female brain in a mans body. Gay men and lesbian women are not people with the same brain as folks with Gender Identity issues. That is just not the case not a single credible study has found it to be so. What he is saying essentially is Trans you have a opposite mind to your body and are dysphoric over the difference. Gay men and women have the same brains without the Dysphoria. They have grown up with the same brain, but, are congruent with their body instead. However, their acting like the opposite sex, their interests of the opposite sex and so on are because their mind/brain is their opposite of their body's sex or gender. Which is ludicrous and dangerous. It makes it seem like there is an equivalence to having the mental and medical condition of GID or Gender Dysphoria and gayness. You are one stone throw away from calling Gayness a mental illness, but, in politically correct. wording.. "the Mom messed with the brain" 

I resent Michael Bailey for more than just his views on gayness though. His view on gender non conforming children in general is troubling. He thinks it is all a sign of future orientation or GID issues and he says so quite loudly. It is no secret he has engaged in studies of men for example looking over childhood videos and picking apart the littlest thing as a sign of being "born homosexual." Even to men that state they are bisexual and not gay. He admits to not believing any of the participants whom come to him to be tested that deny they are homosexual, but, match the characteristics of a pre-gay child. He has stated himself if someone says he is bisexual or even mostly heterosexual and the one test with men he does makes them erect even an inch more than when he shows them a woman he thinks he is proving they are gay. This is silly beyond belief and not at all scientific. He will then include said people in the category of pre-gay child and gay adult male. Despite their self identification to him in the study he will remove them from the category and switch them around.

What this means is anyone whom is not truly homosexual, but, whom for them the men in the study does happen to be the odd man out that makes them rock hard he calls them homosexual and his experiment proven. There is no bisexual or mostly heterosexual men in his studies because he first ignores them and then erases them from existing in his studies; thus erasing any sexual plasticity in male human minds. Then he claims that men in his study are all gay and that his studies prove pre-gay child is a proper term and will become gay men. However, the studies of gender non conformity and even people whom have suffered in-congruence between sex/gender and came out the other side congruent is not the homosexual population. It is 85-90% heterosexual which means it is not the life long unchanging homosexual that sees this pattern. Which given that non-heterosexual for most humans means a form of bisexual this means that most people that did have such an issue and then stabled as it were have some extent of heterosexual attraction. This is according to information taken from the one Non Bailey involved study which was done in 2012.

So, if you remove the bias what seems clear is that there is no causal link between even brains that might experience GID like symptoms when younger and exclusive adult homosexual attraction. Far from most pre-gay children turning out to be gay most children period turn out to be some form of heterosexual even if a mixed bi-possibility form of one. The majority of humans just turn out like this and again why some do not we do not know and might never actually completely know due to the complex nature of the issue. What we do know is it is not a "gay" as in exclusively homosexual gene. Nor does such a gene make sense to anyone that understands how important breeding is to our species and evolution evolving a deterministic form of a "born this way"exclusive one way ticket to ending the spread of men's seed literally makes no sense.

However, a combination of a bunch of things that in some people leads to an adaptation of exclusive homosexuality which once adapted unless it naturally changed as a different form of adaptation later are 100% bonified for life gays makes much more sense. This would explain why some people do go from identifying as 100% homosexual to some level of bisexual. Which does happen by the way. There are even some whom naturally change from 100% homosexual to eventually 100% heterosexual, but, again it is not through will and is the least likely to occur. However, in the longitudinal studies about 18% of exclusive homosexuals in wave 1-3 by Wave 4 were 100% complete heterosexual in their orientation if you add both the 8% men and 10% women together. They re-adapted differently once through their 20's into their 30's from whatever caused them to adapt in the other direction until their thirties. These were not ex-gays and the people that did the study denounced forced or therapeutic change practices like the ex-gay movements.     

I need to point to this data to show the "findings" much as The New Atlantis stated and Michael ain't no sexual plastic or fluid men Bailey denied. Admitting that there is much more evidence that gayness is an evolutionary adaptation and not "born this way determined to be," is not an anti-gay statement. It is a statement of the facts as we currently have them. It does not mean there is not some combination of nature and nurture for those whom end up acquiring this adaptation either. For one could end up adapting this way due to that combination of all kinds of factors mentioned by the American Psychological Association. However, one thing is for sure we have no "gay genes" that we have ever actually legitimately found to this point. Nor do we have some definitive atypical "gay brain." It is all a narrative spun by quacks that think to shag another man must mean a genetic difference from other men and must mean you are less than male. If anything it is the most demeaning thing a gay man could hear. You are not part of a brotherhood of men of value; no, you are a sexually disordered freak that belongs shoved aside and put in a "no specific gender box."

 

Religion VS Freedom with Onkar Ghate

Many of our political discussions today assume that the advocacy of economic freedom and of religion go together, that to be against social security and our tens of thousands of other controls means you must also be against evolution and contraception. As Americans we’re told that our choice is to embrace either superstition and capitalism or science and the modern regulatory-welfare state—and faced with such a choice, many of us understandably choose the latter. In this talk, Onkar Ghate argues that in fact religion undermines freedom and that our real choice is to embrace science and capitalism or the authoritarianism of religion and today’s Big Government. Recorded December 3, 2014.

Morals are real and although contextual they are universal and for all mankind qua mankind.

Morals are contextual absolutes and not relative.

It is often times assumed that secularism and atheism leads to a subjective form of morals that is not consistent with living a good life. However, this would be mistaken for the lack of the non-existent does not mean morals are subjective and not concretes within a given context. A moral code is a code of ethics that guide ones actions within existence. The fact that there is not some non-existent God or Supernatural dimension to existence does not mean there is no moral codes that are both secular and objective in nature.

The lack of existence of a God does not make murder, rape and so forth OK or moral. However, that is simply skimming the surface for there are laws against such things in a proper society. The fact that there are laws means that this is an area where individual rights are being infringed and not just a matter of morality, but, also of legality as well. Morals while encompassing these acts does not simply consist only of such acts either.

A moral code is not forced and cannot be forced on you by the threat of a gun to your head. That itself would be in fact immoral itself as well as illegal. Morals are neither to be forced on you and neither are they up to subjective whim of whatever you want either. It is immoral for example to not be honest with people. It is immoral to fake reality and to cut off your ability to live in the real world for the sake of living in delusion. Honesty is a commit within yourself to the integrity of your sense of reason and to living in the world as it is.

It is immoral to cheat other people irregardless of if it would be considered theft or an infringement of ones rights. It is immoral to mistreat other people and to not treat them justly. It would be immoral to be engaging in activity that is self-destructive and to not stop said activity if you are able to do so. It is immoral to be doing drugs on a regular basis and to be clouding your mind harming your rational faculties. Essentially if it is harmful to your life it is evil and if it nurtures your life it is good.

Morals are absolutes, but, also contextual. Which means that one needs to take into account a lot of things when deciding if something is immoral or moral. For example; right now I am on medication for depression. My depression could affect my sense of thinking, but, this does not make me immoral for having such an issue. This is because one has to take everything into context; Plus, the depression does not take away my ability to be as reasonable as possible. I still understand existence exists and objective reality is outside my head no matter how down I might get.

If someone was so far gone that they were not able to be reasonable that still would not make that person immoral. As one does not get judged because of an illness they might have they get judged based on their content of character. You need to put everything into context when you are talking about morals. This is the main thing to remember when discussing ethical codes the context.of what options you have at hand and those which you do not. As well as the circumstances surrounding the ethical choice or choices one can make.

The argument that a lack of the supernatural means no morals or whisy washy morals is incorrect. It simply means you get your morals from something other than the non-existent supernatural. In the end though what is most important is that no one is forcing morals on the immoral. For that would itself be an act of which it is immoral and be an act of circular logic.

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

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.