Jordan Peterson UNLEASHES on the APA Guidelines For Men and Boys

"I think that the people who wrote that article are weak and reprehensible. ... It is a nauseating document." Jordan Peterson says he is ashamed to be a psychologist after the American Psychological Association's recently published guidelines for men and boys. For his detailed article that systematically expands these criticisms, see https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/polit... For the full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFdv...

Respect is earned by your character and not dispensed on demand.

X said Y is not an argument that your position is founded in reality

Sometimes when people have themselves a philosophical home they will begin to look up to and even admire the intellectuals in their philosophy. This will not only be the discoverer of their philosophy, but, also people that help to spread the philosophy as well. Sometimes it might even be people that were in the private circles of the philosopher, but, not the philosopher themselves. They will argue that you must agree with said people about everything or else. They will in fact become a second-handed person of a cult mentality. 

Craig Biddle did a great job of addressing this in his article, "Ayn Rand Said is not an argument." However, there is more than just Ms. Rand that has had this issue take place those that followed her as well have been adorned with almost supernatural Omnipotence by people that have become obsessed with people like Leonard Peikoff. There is people that would defend him if he told people to go out into the street and butcher the community. Similarly, some are the same way with Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook. 

However, I have found things that all of these men have said that was inaccurate due to numerous things that have been said. I do not think they say inaccurate things to intentionally lie anymore than the times Ms. Rand was wrong. I think that they are ignorant on certain topics,. but, yet they continue to speak on them as if they know they can dismiss them. Whether it is evolutionary psychology which is not at odds with us having the ability to be reasonable; nor is determinism, but, is painted that way by these folks. Or Harry Binswanger being a fucking Cartesian Duelist when it comes to how the mind works. 

Nor does me stating that they like anyone else are only human and can be wrong mean they are wrong on everything or even most things. Also, sometimes people can say things in ways that come across as not what they had intended to be overheard as being meant. However, it is not what these or anyone else says that is an argument. It is the facts of reality that make up arguments. Just like you do not shoot the messenger you also should not jump to believing the messenger either. Or as Craig Biddle so aptly said it in his own article, "Truth is not recognition of Ayn Rand’s (or her students/friend/followers) words; truth is recognition of reality."

When an Objectivist is wrong then other Objectivist's; whom are supposed to take reality as the only absolute should not be afraid to point out others errors. As reality and existence is the only True and real Supreme Being that we have in this world. It is reality that is the judge of an idea being wrong or right not if it was an Objectivist whom makes the claim or not. To live any other way is to be just as dogmatic as a fundamentalist Religion and to turn the independence virtue of Objectivism on its head. To throw it out due to someone talking and it is an appeal to authority no better than an appeal to an evangelical pastor in the Southern Bible Belt of the USA.

If Objectivists want people to stop seeing our philosophy as some sort of Godless Cult we need to be ready and willing to question everyone else that is an Objectivist if we smell ignorance. This includes the discoverer of Objectivism; this includes Ms. Rand herself. Everyone whom makes statements on subjects needs to be open to scrutiny we should not have a listen and believe attitude about anyone we meet. Individualism should not turn into its own form of Lone-Wolf Tribalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tara Smith: The virtuous egoist

"The virtuous egoist" - philosophy applied to real life by Tara Smith, PhD

===========================
Ayn Rand is well known for advocating selfishness, yet the substance of that selfishness is rarely understood. This presentation will explain some of the pivotal features that distinguish Rand’s ideal: a virtuous egoist.

Dr. Smith will outline why a person should be an egoist, the particular kind of egoism that Rand does and does not commend, and the kinds of virtues that a person must exercise in order to actually advance his self-interest. Along the way, she will differentiate Rand’s egoism from hedonism, materialism, and predation, and indicate how moral virtues such as honesty and justice—when properly understood—are indispensable to a person’s genuine well-being.

============================
Lecture was organized by Obiektywizm.pl and polish liberty movement, with help from The Ayn Rand Institute. Kraków, 2017.

Alex Jones was not censored you do not have a right to an audience.

There is many a talk about Alex Jones among people online as somehow being a martyr for free speech. However, this incorrect and does not understand the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech without interference of government, but, not to use ones property against their will. Private enterprises get to control what happens on their property; as long as said control is not itself infringing others rights in itself. There was no rights infringed in this case.

There is no need to #FreeAlex as he is free and his show can be found on his own Infowars.com website. He has simply moved to a new platform which is fine with streaming him and he is free as a pig in the pile of shit his stream spews. He is not locked up (that would be an infringement of his rights.) Certain platforms simply said no thank you to his content. Meanwhile others picked him up happily supporting his mindless and delusional vomit of a broadcast. Bitshoot is now broadcasting his stream and he is safe from any harm.

I repeat he is free and streaming as we speak he does not need his rights defended he has them. He is enacting those rights as I type this on a new platform better suited to allowing his content. Nothing rights infringing happened in this matter and if you are a fan you still have access to his brain melting cesspool of mind killing intellectual herbicide. You are free to continue to consume his cow shit of a broadcast, but, listener beware. 

"Social Justice" is an Assault on Justice from Reason At Large w/Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle answers a question from Jeff: "What is 'social justice'? Is it a legitimate term? If so, what does it mean? If not, why not?" In answering, Biddle discusses the purpose behind "social justice," defines and concretizes justice, compares and contrasts instances of justice with the aims of "social justice," and shows that "social justice" is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept: an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. Finally, Biddle provides a clear, concise definition of "social justice" and encourages listeners to bear the definition in mind whenever they hear the term, and to provide the definition to advocates of "social justice" so that they will know that we too know what they are talking about and calling for. To explore more of these ideas visit: http://www.TheObjectiveStandard.com

Seth Andrews | The Satanic Panic

Seth Andrews | Christianity made me Talk Like an Idiot!

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!       

Camille Says What? The Demographics Prove Ms. Paglia hit the mark in "No Law In The Arena."

For a primer let me start by saying that Camille Paglia is in her own words a "amazonian, drag queen and dissident Pro-Sex and Pro men Feminist." She is also an openly LGBT person whom has identified both as bisexual or a lesbian from the time around Stonewall. Recently she has even said she is a Trans being. She is not an anti-gay bigot or a member of the Theocratic Moral Majority cause. However she said something which could be seen as antithetical to my description of the woman, in her book "Vamps and Tramps," in 1994.

Homosexuality is not “normal.” On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein resides its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the idea of a norm. Queer theorists — that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders — have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina: no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.

The above statement was quite controversial at the time and continues to be today. However, if you sit back and think through what she is saying it is not hateful at all. Nor should it be considered controversial. Obviously heterosexuality in some form must be the norm for our species or it would have gone extinct long ago from lack of procreation. This is all she is saying and that because it is the norm to procreate it is not the norm for a member of our species to be same sex oriented as a primary identity. She never said anywhere in this passage that those whom are not normal a homosexual needs to change or that not being normal is worthy of any moral or character judgments.

In fact, she is correct in the numbers. I have crunched the numbers based on two figures; the amount of the so-called LGBT are actually B VS L or G. If you remove the vast majority of LGBT people you narrow it down to under even 1% of the average human population with a total of 00.12% of the species that is as far from normal in numbers and demographics as you can get. It is thus not "normal" as in the average or the mean or the norm or odds of you falling into that category. Admitting what is normal does not provide one with a means of a moral or character evaluation in anyway nor does it say anything about the rights of actual gay or lesbian people.

In fact, her views as expressed of the background of gay and lesbian people in the same book is also very apt with what the American Psychological Association says in their addressed hypothesis for the causation of orientations other than heterosexual.

No one is “born gay.” The idea is ridiculous, but it is symptomatic of our overpoliticized climate that such assertions are given instant credence by gay activists and their media partisans. I think what gay men are remembering is that they were born different.

Exactly, what LGBT people are recalling is the difference in temperament and interests not the orientation that eventually gets Fetishized as a homosexual or bisexual orientation. This is what the evidence definitely points to and she was correct on this score. She has been lambasting the ideas of the gay gene and gay brain since the mid 90's. In the most recent studies from June 2017 homosexual and heterosexual male brains were shown to be basically indistinguishable from each other. Far from the sex reversed ideas some have of a non-male man's brain. Camille was correct back then and she continues to be on this score despite pseudo-scientists arguing against the point.

This is not a case of me trying to defend her by putting words into her mouth or head about being unashamed of being whom she is. I give you the official explanation of her continued norm comments bellow right from the horses mouth herself.

Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature's best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate. [From Playboy interview, May 1995]

Well, this one was sure to enflame. But who am I to mince words when I have valuable cultural commentary to offer the world? People are ready to jump on me for this comment, accusing me of being homophobic—but that just is not true. I am not making a moral judgment—I am a lesbian and some of my best friends are gay men.

What I am talking about here is plain and simple nature—an entity of force that cannot be fought. Nature wants what it wants and has its own drives and motivations. So I think it's pretty obvious that nature meant for men and women to be together and didn't intend or plan for the development of homosexuality. Don't make me get all graphic and give you an anatomy lesson. Look: we are supposed to procreate, have babies, perpetuate the species—that's doesn't mean we have to, but that's why our bodies are the way they are.    

So, you see it is all about that reproduction and passing on genes stuff. So, she is not being anti-gay in stating a fact that procreation is why a penis and vagina evolved to work like they do. She is 100% correct and I agree with her here as well. Nature did not "plan" for the development of homosexuality as that is not how nature works. I have gay, lesbian and bi friends I have no hate for these people. However, heterosexual procreation and straightness is the norm for the species and Camille is correct. Sorry, but, facts do not care about your feelings they are what they are and reality trumps your narratives.